Written evidence submitted by Andrew Welch
(arts 31)
1. INTRODUCTION
This submission concentrates on the following:
— The Arts Council: whether it is presently
constituted appropriately to fund the arts;
— The subsidised regional theatre;
— The role of philanthropy and its potential.
2. SUMMARY OF
CONCLUSIONS
(a) The Arts Council has moved away significantly
from first principles. It now encompasses not just the professional
artists and audiences for these arts but amateur arts, education,
disability, diversity, equality and arts enabling organisations.
In expanding its scope I believe that ACE has
lost sight of its primary purpose. The 2009 Annual Report trumpets
ACE "achievements". This puts the cart before the horse:
the achievements that should be trumpeted are those of the artists
in receipt of funding. The ACE should be enabling not leading.
I believe that this has lead to it being at best asleep on its
watch when it comes to the core arts and the regions. For example,
the decline in regional theatre audiences and the decline in ACE
touring returns during a time when West End audiences increased
year on year.
(b) The incorporation of the additional areas
of activity has meant that ACE's decisions on its core business
are now informed by the policies that the new areas brought with
them. It has taken on a mantle that incorporates education and
social services which would make the support and encouragement
of artists and their audiences be seen through a series of lenses,
not unlike varifocals. As a user of varifocals, I can tell you
that they induce stumbling. And this is what ACE seems to have
been doing.
(c) ACE should be relieved of the functions it
has acquired subsequent to 1994 ( when it became "a development
agency for the arts") and fund only professional arts, artists
and artist led companies and concentrate on doing this well.
(d) The legitimacy of its policy making is questionable;
indeed, should the body funding the arts be making policy for
the arts in anything but the widest of terms?
(e) The combination of policymaking and the awarding
of funds by the only significant arts funding body in the country
skews the market, inhibits arts organisations and artists (would
organisations bite the hand that feeds them? I know of one chairman
of a major arts company who said to me that he would have to accept
the ACE preferred candidate for a job because they were the paymasters)
and provides the basis for the suspicion that ACE is looking to
ensure that politically correct arts are presented across the
nation. The ACE should no longer be making "arts policy".
(f) While ACE has significant resources spread
across the country, there is a suspicion that a metropolitan view
of what should be provided prevails; certainly the metropolis
consumes far greater resources per head than elsewhere.
(g) Comparison with the not-for-profit theatre
sector in North America reveals a healthier, wealthier, much more
popular activity than in the comparable theatres in the UK. Better
attendance, more activity and more local support are hallmarks
of the US experience compared to the UK. This should make us look
at our funding structures and thus ACE again. It should also lead
arts organisations to explore to what extent they have a responsibility
to their audiences.
(h) ACE decision making structures need to be
looked at so as to ensure that justice is done and seen to be
done. More artists need to be involved in ACE decision making.
(i) ACE funding agreements and policies disempower
arts organisations in ways that are not apparent in the US where
donors appear not to try to influence the arts organisations which
they support. Perhaps there is a more sophisticated view of the
arts there than we in the UK have hitherto supposed.
(j) ACE needs to pay attention to the state of
regional theatre and give thought to how to encourage this once
healthy sector of the theatre business to flourish as it does
in North America.
(k) Philanthropy can play a much larger role
in the arts than hitherto. Better incentives will play a role
as will educating the arts organisations to see it as a strength,
not a weakness (see the note from the Artistic Director of the
Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis which is a footnote to this submission).
ACE can play a significant role in helping this to happen.
3. THE ARTS
COUNCIL
Some thoughts on the Arts Council, the role
it has created for itself in the arts, why this may be inappropriate
and how it might evolve.
(a) The original Maynard Keynes inspired charter
of 1946 was replaced in 1994 and the new charter includes the
phrase "the national development agency for the arts".
This changed the ACE's relationship to the arts and its clients.
It moved from being a quango which acted as advocate, funder and
facilitator of the professional arts to one that had an active
role in determining policy for the arts in a much wider context.
As it also is responsible for distributing funds to arts organisations,
this put it into a position of considerable influence over what
arts organisations actually did. This changed the ACE role from
being politically neutral to being potentially overtly political
and to an organisation that could and does rig the market.
(b) It begs the question whether it is appropriate
for the ACE to be making policy about the arts when it has no
democratic brief to do so. It appears that the DCMS do not attempt
to drive ACE policy, at least through the targets which are set.
Whether it influences or drives arts policy less formally is not
clear. The ACE appears to have no mechanisms which enable it to
take regular, frequent and authoritative soundings of what audiences
and artists are interested in. It was interesting to see from
the recent Theatre Review that artists are unhappy with consultation
with the ACE because this would appear to be mainly with producers
rather than artists.
(c) Furthermore, it is clear from the 2009 ACE
Annual Report that ACE has taken upon itself various social as
well as artistic policies which it wishes to see inform the arts
that it funds: diversity, equality etc, not just in achieving
statutory requirements but actively pursuing these, perhaps at
the financial expense of artistic achievement. Perhaps this is
at the behest of the DCMS. In any case, it does raise the suspicion
that the funding policies of the ACE are driven by a wish to achieve
goals which are not necessarily foremost in the minds of artists
and audiences, however well meaning the goals might appear to
be.
Arts Council Decision Making
1. It is disconcerting for senior staff
and non-executive board members in arts organisations to find
that the ACE staff is deficient in experienced arts managers and
seems to have little real contact with artists. This leads to
a suspicion that ACE staff do not understand sufficiently well
the processes of running arts businesses, nor what is involved
in the creation of art. It is not a question of the arts being
rocket science but knowledge of how the businesses work and who
plays active roles in making them work is important.
2. There is, of course, a wealth of expertise
available to the ACE in the professionals working in the various
fields that ACE funds. Actors, visual artists, musicians, theatre
managers, gallery directors etc abound. The ACE formerly used
specialist panels to consider grant applications. These panels
comprised artists and managers who were serviced by ACE departmental
staff. All the panellists gave their services. The panels have
included actors such as Judi Dench and Timothy West. These panellists
provided an expertise for the ACE far beyond the knowledge and
experience of the ACE staff. They provided a link to the arts
world for ACE staff which was positive. The panellists also attended
productions, exhibitions etc and reported on these to the ACE
so that the ACE had reports on the work that was being funded
or was applying to be funded. The panellists did this for no fee
but expenses only, ie cost of tickets/ entrance fee + transport.
The ACE has recently re-introduced this use of arts professionals
to report on arts events. However, it is contracting 300 such
people at an annual fee of £1,000 each and will refund expenses
incurred. The £300,000 this will cost each year would fund
a small theatre company. This is ridiculous when the professionals
involved would almost certainly be prepared to give their services,
as used to be the case.
3. The abandonment of art form panels in
favour of officer made decisions on grants contributed to an atmosphere
of suspicion of the way grants were made. Panels may have had
disadvantages but the advantages are palpable.
Arts Council staffing
1. The ACE staff is comparatively well rewarded
financially; employment terms are generous for the arts sector.
Comparisons with arts organisations funded by ACE confirm this.
Very few arts organisations have been able to offer pension schemes
to which the employer contributes, let alone as handsomely as
the ACE does. While the ACE should perhaps set an example as a
good employer, it is important the ACE remembers the reality of
what happens in most arts organisations, many of which exist on
a financial knife edge. Rather as the public sector has overtaken
the private sector in pay, terms and conditions, so the ACE has
done with the community which it exists to serve. It should also
be remembered that arts companies can be volatile commercially
speaking and, while subsidised, take risks, so employees of these
companies are at risk of losing their jobs should, eg their company
be forced to close. This is not true of the ACE. And, of course,
there are very few performing or visual artists who have the security
of a permanent contract and while this is their choice, there
needs to be sensitivity shown about this, particularly by the
funding body.
2. The 35 hour weeks advertised for ACE
middle management posts must seem odd to those actually working
in the arts where six day weeks are commonplace and unsocial hours
are part of what constitutes the work. It must also inhibit the
working practices of ACE officers. For example, it must make officer
attendance at board meetings of arts companies difficult as these
almost always take place in the evenings or at weekends because
boards comprise non-executives who work for a living themselves
during normal working hours. Does the Arts Council pay officers
overtime to attend these, or do they just not go?
3. It is more than unfortunate that the
chairmen of the ACE and its regional boards are remunerated but
are at no personal risk. The chairmen of the arts companies which
the ACE subsidises are not paid are at personal risk but would
think it inappropriate that they should be paid when the artists
whom they employ receive such poor rewards financially. All give
their time to enable artists to create and communities to enjoy
the arts. This inappropriate payment of ACE chairmen seems to
symbolise the insensitivity that now characterises the relationship
of the funding body towards the artists and organisations which
it was set up to serve.
4. THE SUBSIDISED
THEATRE
(a) The last 15 years have seen a decline in
the number of what were called regional repertory theatres and
a decline in the number of weeks of productions created by those
theatres. In the last four years the repertory theatres in Exeter,
Basingstoke and Derby have ceased operating as repertory theatres.
(b) There has been a significant decline in the
number of production weeks mounted by these repertory theatres
during the last 20 years. My observation is that whereas 20 years
ago these theatres were playing up to 48 weeks of their own work,
now it is more likely that they will play about 30 weeks, filling
some of the resulting dark weeks with touring shows and co-productions;
(c) There has been a decline in the number of
people attending productions in the subsidised regional theatres:
see ACE's Theatre Review, 2009. During the same period, the audiences
in the West End rose year on year.
(d) There has been a substantial increase in
funding for these theatres in the years 2000-06 and the number
of people employed by these theatres has risen by 60% during this
time. However, this increase in funding has been mirrored by a
decrease in the ratio of earned to unearned income from 53% to
49% over the same period. This is in sharp contrast to what is
happening in the US where the not for profits are, largely speaking,
in rude health, attracting significantly larger audiences than
here.
(e) There appears to be a failure to understand
the importance of these theatres to the development of a body
of excellent actors in this country. We have some of the finest
conservatoires in the world, RADA, GSMD and LAMDA spring to mind,
which prepare very fine young actors. It is to the despair of
those who run actor training that the opportunities for young
actors to practise their craft are diminishing all the time with
the decline of the repertory theatres. This failure with actors
must be mirrored with designers, directors and the other creative
staff involved in theatre production. Sadly, the Theatre Review
did not touch on the training of young artists and no evidence
appears to have been taken from those doing this job.
(f) A personal experience has been that the ACE
middle management responsible for liaising with theatres and producing
companies did not understand how they operate. This was compounded
by ACE's apparent failure to use the unique opportunity of working
with these companies to train their staff to understand the dynamics
and the business of companies including working with non-executive
boards. There is a suspicion that the institution of what is called
the "light touch" regime in effect means, inter alia,
the ACE staff do not get to learn how the funded companies operate.
(g) There is a problem with ACE subsidised touring:
theatre companies' earned income was down from 38% of overall
income to 32% in the six year period of the Theatre Review. This
indicates that what is being toured is not what the audience wants
to see, as with the repertory theatres. The Theatre Review acknowledges
there is a problem with touring. I fear that a failure to understand
the nature and business of touring lies at the heart of this difficulty.
(h) I have a real concern that what the audience
is being offered is not a reflection of British theatre and that
repertoires are not programmed in such a way as to enable local
audiences to enjoy a well balanced diet of theatre. So audiences
in the regions may well not have the opportunity to see, say,
Shakespeare, Wilde, Sheridan, Goldsmith or Shaw with any degree
of frequency or regularity. This is more than just deprivation
for local audiences: it is denying them and, particularly young
people, the opportunity to experience their national heritage
of truly great theatre which, sadly, is less available in the
UK regions than in North America. A factor may be the cost of
such productions but ACE has many policy imperatives to encourage
new writing, writing for diverse audiences, work that reflects
the continental European traditions of a more visual theatre etc
and, in a system where the policymaker also distributes funding,
this can be a powerful imperative to toe the policy line. If this
is so, then British audiences are being short changed by the Arts
Council. Interestingly, in the US the major regional houses appear
to have much better balanced repertoires, eg the programme of
the Guthrie at Minneapolis, cf www.guthrietheater.org, and my
hunch is that attendances there are much higher than in the regional
theatres here, eg the Guthrie plays to over 80% of capacity.
(i) Underlying all this is a sense that the Arts
Council is promoting an arts agenda which it has generated within
itself and that it uses public funds to forward. It is difficult
to discover where the roots of its policies lie other than to
surmise that these are drawn from its own officers. The creation
of policy which can have such far reaching effects, can go badly
wrong and absorb considerable amounts of public funds is worrying.
This is especially the case when it would appear that the ACE
is not answerable in any meaningful way to anyone.
(j) My observation of regional theatres in the
major US cities is that they are better resourced, better attended,
more at the heart of their communities than their counterparts
here. I believe that the US funding system has much to do with
this. The support by individuals and corporations but mainly by
individuals binds tha theatres to their communities in a very
positive way. The donors have a real interest and pride in their
theatres and become, of course, good advocates of the theatres.
This is why, despite the recent financial turmoil, no major regional
theatre has closed in the US in the last three years with the
exception of the Pasadena Playhouse which was already a financial
basket case. This is a sad contrast to our own situation, see
2a above.
5. WHETHER BUSINESSES
AND PHILANTHROPISTS
CAN PLAY
A LONG-TERM
ROLE AT
FUNDING ARTS
AT NATIONAL
AND LOCAL
LEVEL
1. The answer must be yes as this has happened
with many arts organisations that are currently in existence,
eg Glyndebourne, Garsington Opera, Chichester Festival Theatre,
National Theatre and RSC. But there are also companies in the
contemporary field which have encouraged significant donors, Art
Angel. However, it has to be accepted that all these are companies
which present prestigious work
2. At this point the numbers involved are
still small both in terms of people involved and donations. And,
most of the companies benefiting are very much metropolitan companies,
drawing on the wealth of London.
3. Increasing numbers of donors:
(i) enable more people to become wealthy, to
feel they have the funds to donate;
(ii) make giving more attractive in tax deductibility
and make it as easy as in the US.
(iii) incentivise the arts companies: reward
them financially for pulling in donors to their endowment funds—this
will encourage people to give;
(iv) explore the idea of encouraging regional
donors: perhaps there should be additional incentives for local
donations to local arts companies; NB it is interesting to compare
Birmingham Rep, serving England's second city and Chichester Festival
Theatre: the Rep attracts almost no personal philanthropy whereas
Chichester attracts some £500,000. It would worth exploring
why this is the case;
(v) encourage arts organisations to identify
themselves with their locales;
(vi) the more donors the companies get, the better
they will do because the donors themselves become that company's
best advocates;
(vii) incentivise the arts companies to employ
more development staff: fund these posts and reward success to
a limited point—seedcorn funding—to enable them to
get up and away;
4. ACE can play a significant role in helping
arts organisations to prepare for this change through educating
and incentivising their clients.
Footnote:
The following is from an email from Joe Dowling,
Artistic Director of the Tyrone Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis.
Joe Dowling is Irish and was previously Artistic Director of the
Abbey Theatre, Dublin, so he knows the European funding model
well:
"I am torn between my long-standing liberal
belief that funding for the arts should be a government function
and recognising that what I have discovered here is almost certainly
better than centralized control that leads to the politically
correct excesses you mention. The balance between federal funding,
state support, foundation endowment funds, corporate support and
individual philanthropy means that you have to work very hard
each year to ensure that each of these stakeholders are satisfied
with the work and will continue to fund the organization. We have
a Development Department with about 20 full time employees working
tirelessly to ensure that we can get to our goal. Incidentally,
this year our goal is $7million in contributions from all these
sources. We also have an endowment, which fluctuates with the
stock market but it funds about a third of our needs. It is currently
at about $40million and we draw 5% interest on that each year.
The rest comes from box office.
In the 15 years since I came here, I have never
had the slightest interference in the programming from donors
or corporations- and believe me—we have had some controversial
and edgy work. American philanthropists are, in the main, more
interested in supporting an art form with passion and allow the
management to make the artistic decisions."
He goes on to say, a propos the possible
change in funding mix of which you talked back in January at the
RSA/ ACE conference:
"However, the change in culture from State
funding to a mixture of government grants and private funding
will take some considerable time. The culture cannot be changed
overnight and as with most things, there may be a steep learning
curve, during which time the government will have to be very clear
about the tax advantages in philanthropy. This is an essential
spur to giving and it is unlikely that the system here would work
without it."
September 2010
|
