Written evidence submitted by Axis (arts
141)
1. What impact will recent, and future, spending
cuts from central and local Government have on the arts and heritage
at a national and local level?
1.1 Artists survive within a mixed economy
of practical opportunities and support which depend on state and
local government investment. Artists' studio groups often rely
to some degree on public subsidy; many artists work in schools,
Further Education and Higher Education, where retrenchment looms;
the regeneration schemes which created opportunities for public
art are likely to disappear; and it goes without saying that there
will be fewer commissions and exhibitions, as funding for our
gallery system diminishes.
1.2 There has been little discussion so
far about the impact of cuts to arts funding on many aspects of
the private sector, as budgets for office accommodation, marketing
and various other specialist services diminish. In the long run,
commercial galleries will also lose out, because innovative emergent
practice so often finds early support and encouragement within
the subsidised sector. And, of course, the impact of public sector
cuts on the wider economy will mean that there is simply less
money to spend on art.
1.3 Cuts are already being felt at a local
level, because there is less funding available through local authorities
and Grants for the Arts, and other funders (eg trusts and foundations)
have become more cautious in response to dwindling investment
income. Several visual arts organisations in our region (Yorkshire)
have made staff redundant and curtailed their activities; and
there are further redundancies and programming cuts in prospect.
1.4 In general the impact of the cuts so
far has been a scaling-down of artistic ambition and the loss
of amenities and services that make a practical difference to
the individual practitioner. Sheffield Contemporary Art Forum,
for example, had a budget of only £42K for its recent city-wide
festival of contemporary art (Art Sheffield 2010)—in sharp
contrast to the budget of £98K which it raised for the same
event two years ago. Also in Sheffield, Yorkshire ArtSpace Society
(an artists' studio complex) has been forced to close the reception
area which has served as a small exhibition area for artists,
both from Sheffield and from further afield.
1.5 Like all Arts Council Regularly Funded
Organisations, our own organisation (Axis—the online resource
for contemporary art) has absorbed a 0.5% cut this financial year
and expects a 10% cut to its funding from ACE next year, with
more substantial cuts in the pipeline thereafter. These difficulties
have been compounded by the withdrawal of £20,000 of core
funding from the Arts Council of Wales, as a consequence of its
recent investment review.
1.6 We are very concerned that organisations
based in England, but with a UK-wide membership and remit, are
finding it increasingly difficult to attract funding from Wales
and Scotland, where there is clearly a strong sense that local
organisations should take priority. This retreat behind internal
national boundaries makes for a more fragmented and inward-looking
cultural sector, less able to represent and speak on behalf of
the UK as a whole.
1.7 One of the more disappointing aspects
of the Arts Council of Wales's investment review was the distinction
it appeared to draw between "frontline services" (ie
organisations directly involved with producing and presenting
art) and behind-the-scenes activities. To pit one against the
other, in an echo of government rhetoric about frontline delivery
and backroom bureaucracy, is to make a simplistic distinction
that ignores the complexity of the "ecology" upon which
arts organisations and individual artists depend. If "the
frontline" is interpreted as meaning public-facing institutions,
then many of the agencies and networks that offer strategic support
to the individual artist and independent producer within the visual
arts sector will disappear.
2. What can arts organisations do to work
more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort
and to make economies of scale?
2.1 Many organisations are already looking
at how they can share resources, for example by combining "backroom"
functions, sharing exhibitions and collections and jointly funding
and promoting events. But while it often makes good sense for
organisations to work together in the interests of maximising
the return on public subsidy, there will always be limits to what
collaboration and sharing of resources can achieve. Arts organisations,
like any other kind of organisation, have their own internal culture
and governance arrangements, which can make it genuinely difficult
to merge or share resources.
2.2 In addition, most small to medium-sized
arts organisations are already administratively lean, with little
spare capacity to "lend out" to others. There are also
dangers inherent in organisations becoming too engrossed in implementing
structural change and merger arrangements at the very time when
they need to be at their most inventive and outward-facing.
2.3 For all these reasons, we would urge
the Select Committee to accept the argument currently being made
by Arts Council England that cuts should not be frontloaded, but
should be staged in a way that encourages considered decision-making
and gives organisations time to adjust their business models.
If cuts are implemented too quickly, then many worth-while organisations
with the potential to adapt and evolve will fall by the wayside.
3. What level of public subsidy for the arts
and heritage is necessary and sustainable? Is the current system,
and structure, of funding and distribution the right one? What
is the impact of recent changes to DCMS arm's-length bodies—in
particular the abolition of the UK Film Council and the Museums,
Libraries and Archives Council?
3.1 It is hard to know how to respond to
these questions, given that the government has already pre-empted
consultation by abolishing the UK Film Council and MLA, and by
proposing that English Heritage should merge with The Heritage
Lottery Fund. It is surprising that these decisions have been
taken with (apparently) so little detailed consideration of how
they will be implemented.
3.2 At a time when so many other areas of
the economy are contracting and vitally important public services
are under threat, it may be unrealistic to argue that funding
for the arts should be maintained at existing levels. Yet the
UK has the largest cultural economy in the world relative to its
GDP and the arts and heritage industries are central to the all-important
tourist trade. We urge the Select Committee to keep these economic
arguments in mind as it deliberates the future of art and heritage
funding.
3.3 We also urge the Select Committee to
acknowledge the progress that Arts Council England has recently
made in reducing its overheads and streamlining its administrative
systems. We believe that Arts Council England has risen to the
challenges presented by the current economic climate and is working
hard to support its client organisations through difficult times.
Any further cuts to Arts Council England would, in our view, inflict
irretrievable damage on an organisation that is valued and needed
by the arts community more than at any other time in the post-war
period.
3.4 Necessary though its recent re-structuring
may have been, it leaves Arts Council England much depleted and
lacking both the internal expertise or staff resource to take
on the major functions of MLA (eg Renaissance in the Regions).
We agree with Mark Taylor, Director of the Museums Association,
when he states that museums should not simply become a "sub-set"
of the arts and heritage but should have their own strategic body.
However, if the merger does go ahead as anticipated, then at the
very least ACE should be given the resource it needs to take over
the functions of MLA successfully.
3.5 Film is not our area of professional
expertise, so we find it hard to make informed comment about the
abolition of the UK Film Council. It is clear, however, that the
Lottery funding distributed through the UK Film Council will still
have to be handed out by other means. Understandable concerns
about excessive bureaucracy should not throw into question all
the so-called quangos that distribute money to the arts and heritage.
Decisions about how public money is spent should be taken with
due regard to fairness and accountability, neither of which can
be assured without adequate levels of staffing and proper administrative
procedures.
4. What impact will recent changes to the
distribution of National Lottery funds have on arts and heritage
organisations? Do the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding
need to be reviewed?
4.1 We fully endorse the government's proposal
to re-distribute Lottery monies to the original "good causes"
of the arts, heritage and sport. At a time when other sources
of public funding are likely to diminish, it is vitally important
that we protect the investment made in the arts since the launch
of the National Lottery in 1994. This investment has benefited
visual artists in innumerable ways, for example through the creation
of new exhibition spaces, education initiatives and public art
schemes. The infrastructure for making and showing art outside
London is immeasurably stronger than it was 20 years ago. But
these hard-won advances could easily be lost if Lottery funding
is not diverted back to the arts in order to mitigate the worst
effects of spending cuts in other spheres, particularly in Local
Authority and Arts Council budgets.
4.2 Contemporary art is especially vulnerable
in such a climate, because it is inherently experimental, often
provokes adverse media reaction and has little support from politicians
wary of its more controversial aspects. Yet contemporary artists
ask questions of and about the world in which we live; they make
us look at it with fresh eyes and stimulate new ways of thinking
about it; they provide pleasure, inspiration and intellectual
enrichment. In a knowledge-based economy that relies on visual
as well as verbal communication, the ability to decode, interpret
and use visual images and structures is increasingly important
in developing critical thought and debate. A healthy visual arts
sector is vital to the wider well-being of the creative economy.
4.3 One major concern is the question of
how the lottery bodies support collecting and collections. For
a long time it has been clear that the cost of major works of
contemporary art far exceeds the purchasing power of public sector
galleries; and once galleries stop collecting contemporary art,
it can be very hard to gain foothold again. Under current guidelines
for lottery funding, it is not clear how acquisitions of contemporary
art for public collections can be funded, since the Heritage Lottery
Fund will not fund the acquisition of works that are less then
10 years old. Yet the art of today is the heritage of tomorrow.
There are good economic reasons for acquiring art at the time
that it is made. If we ignore the art of the present until it
is recognised as important, we may by then no longer have the
means of acquiring it at all. Even 10 years may be too long to
wait, as is evidenced by the fact that the YBAs are scarcely represented
at all in public collections outside London.
5. Can businesses and philanthropists play
a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level?
And should there be more Government incentives to encourage private
donations?
5.1 Business sponsorship and philanthropy
are certainly to be encouraged, but past experience suggests that
it will prove difficult to attract on any significant scale, especially
in our less wealthy regional towns and cities. Benefactors generally
want to be associated with high-profile projects which will generate
good PR and create a positive "brand" association in
the mind of the consumer. Contemporary art, which often questions
the social, political and aesthetic status quo, finds it hard
to compete with the (on the whole) much safer world of classical
music, ballet and blockbuster exhibitions.
5.2 If a culture of philanthropic giving
is genuinely to develop, it will take time and require support
from government. We fully support The Art Fund's long-standing
campaign for improved tax incentives to encourage cultural donations
and individual giving to museums.
September 2010
| 
