After #sota12

Besides my annoyance at discovering I had been using the wrong hashtag for most of the day, the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts ‘State of the Arts Conference’ was stimulating and informative. Although, for small scale outfits and the communities they work in, it did raise more questions than answers.

A recurring theme was whether organisations should have to resort to the necessary evil of courting the business community and local politicians, which requires arduous number-crunching and tangible return on investment (for an intangible practice); and how small organisations or sole traders can generate this data with nil capacity. Similarly, it is harder for organisations to forge relationships with businesses if they work in unglamorous environments with no high profile outcomes except a potentially life-changing intervention for other human beings.

A promising result of these conversations was the suggestion that the Arts Council may be able to lend a helping hand to small-capacity organisations. By devising a formula to prove the impact of the work of community organisations, ACE could help address inequality in the distribution of business and philanthropic funding across the UK.

Willingness to sustain and extend support for practising artists was expressed, however the catastrophic effects that subsidy losses will cause for potential future artists wasn’t discussed in detail. Those living in environments where they may never experience an artform unless an intervention is made; those with greater need of subsidised support; those who, even if they access art through the Creative People & Places Arts Council fund, or through the new cultural education plans Ed Vaizey presented, may well hit a glass ceiling when faced with unaffordable tuition fees and the resulting decrease in arts courses. There are creative apprenticeships, but can they fill the large educational and vocational gap for 18-21-year-olds? Are our emerging artists of the future only going to be those who can afford to experience the arts and pay tuition fees?

During the morning session a young artist, who attended the conference on a bursary, made possibly the only point about class distinction that day. He asked about support for aspiring artists from working class backgrounds. The class point wasn’t picked up on; it took a surreal episode – when Will Gompertz interviewed Arlene Phillips – for the issue to arise again, albeit indirectly.

Arlene Phillips was passionate but sometimes contradicted herself and backtracked, particularly on her distinction between art and entertainment on TV. This opened up the debate over whether art can be popular and consumed by the masses or whether that is the point at which it is just entertainment.

It would have been nice to investigate further the perceived elitism of the art world; the need to reject things that become popular and rate them as somehow less intelligent. An idea of 'high art' and an inability to laugh at itself is embedded in much of the art world and can be damaging.

Finally, worry over cuts to local government was evident. From the loss of arts services altogether, to the outsourcing of services into leisure and culture trusts, which can diminish tenders. A call to engage councillors and press the importance of the arts was made by many, although efforts may become redundant if the money just isn't there. The arts should not be pitched against services such as social care in decision making, but with an unprecedented level of cuts still ongoing, that may be the point many local authorities are getting to.

Some of the strongest art arises from hardship, poverty, oppression, a sense of injustice. It can even be argued that where there is a vacuum new artforms are often created. This is not a guarantee; I for one believe that risk should not be taken. But one thing rings true: some art will always survive and new art will always be created, irrelevant of the context.

So when it comes to the last stand, where is the argument for saving us in a recession?