Written evidence submitted by Craftspace
(arts 61)
Deirdre Figueiredo MBE, FRSA, Director of Craftspace;
an arts organisation and educational charity. Ms Figueiredo is
also a steering group member of CraftNet the national crafts leadership
network.
SUMMARY
— The arts ecology is diverse reaching
through a spectrum of economic, commercial, social and environmental
activity. It interacts at once with the most deeply marginalized
and the most aspirational, entrepreneurial and affluent in society,
often enabling transformation from one to the other. The arts
have achieved valuable outcomes for society at great at relatively
little cost with every penny being stretched. A cut to the arts
will have a disproportionate effect for a relatively tiny saving
to the public purse.
1. What impact recent, and future, spending
cuts from central and local Government will have on the arts and
heritage at a national and local level;
1.1 Investing in the core costs of arts
organisations so that they exist enables them to go out and work
in partnership to lever additional funds which are significantly
more than the public investment. If the severity of spending cuts
reduces this leverage capacity then the economy will feel the
impact because far less will be spent on direct and ancillary
services (for example transport, catering, artists fees, construction,
materials, print etc). Local communities will see a significant
reduction in the quality of the cultural offer.
1.2 Whilst 10% cuts could be managed creatively
by most in the arts, cuts of 25% or more will severely diminish
the ability of many arts organisations to survive this difficult
economic period. From a business point of view there is a point
at which the operating models of many organisations will have
to be radically reappraised. Organisations that provide creative
activity to the most marginalised and excluded in society for
free at the point of delivery will not be able to sustain that
work because they will have to commercialise their activities
in order to seek income from those who can afford it.
1.3 Loss of infrastructure that has been
strengthened over the last 10 years will be have a knock on effect
on quality of life and local and regional economies. The arts
are used to tackle social cohesion and other issues poor health
and crime. Will we see an erosion of the gains made through arts
intervention for example in youth offending?
1.4 The subsidised arts afford a precious
testing and training ground feeding people and ideas into the
commercial sector where they then make huge impact on the economy.
Sometimes it is just that all important space and time to think
profoundly—JK Rowling received a grant from the Scottish
Arts Council at a time when she was unwaged, suffering from depression,
surviving through state benefits and a single parent. It enabled
her to focus on writing. The benefits reaped are glaringly obvious
not only in terms of the economy but in terms of the philanthropy
she now shows to others.
1.5 The cost of the Olympics has diverted
lottery funding from the arts and so the next three years will
continue to see a diminished pot from which to draw. Additional
cuts from central government on top of this context plus the downturn
in the fortunes of businesses that might otherwise sponsor the
arts will severely affect our ability to survive let alone thrive.
2. What arts organisations can do to work
more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort
and to make economies of scale;
2.1 We should proceed with some caution
on this suggestion. It may be a false economy to think that by
merging organisations there will somehow be a consequential saving
in costs, particularly operational. Arts organisations are not
"services" that are replicated across the country. They
emerge, develop and evolve for very particular and specific reasons
and operate in necessarily different ways. Whilst ticketed venues
can invest in shared box office systems, Visual Arts organisations
and venues are largely unticketed and often have a very specific
offer.
2.2 Organisations could perhaps work together
more to share investment in development marketing tools for digital
platforms to increase market share and widen their reach. They
could also jointly commission research so that there is no duplication
in these costs. They could also jointly invest in social impact
studies which provide data that can be shared instead of individually
commissioning.
3. What level of public subsidy for the arts
and heritage is necessary and sustainable;
3.1 Currently it costs 17p a week per person—less
than half the price of a pint of milk to fund the arts at a level
sufficient to maintain the infrastructure. For every £1 that
is invested, an additional £2 is generated from private and
commercial sources, totalling £3 income. At a local level
this investment can lever five times its worth. Local authorities
buy into arts that Arts Council England invests therefore there
is an important synergy in funding. The increases in VAT and the
cost of new legislative requirements will also affect arts organisations
in the same way as the private sector and so financial resources
will be stretched in the next few years. Some growth in investment
in line with inflation and increases in the cost of living would
therefore be preferable if the arts is to thrive and not just
survive.
4. Whether the current system, and structure,
of funding distribution is the right one;
4.1 The Arts Council has recently undertaken
a review and consultation about better ways to distribute its
funds in more flexible ways. The sector has responded constructively
so that a range of agreements can be drawn up. Current systems
are rather rigid and can lead to a static portfolio based on a
60 year old system of rather traditionally modeled arts businesses.
New funding systems should take into account emerging and entrepreneurial
business models and ways of producing the arts. Emergent arts
are often championed by one individual who is a catalyst for innovation.
Perhaps we should also invest in regularly funded individuals
who don't have the same baggage as organisations with buildings
and bureaucracy.
4.2 Funding should come centrally through
an Arts Council who can have an overview and invest strategically
but structurally it should have people working at grass roots
to understand the local contexts, spot gaps in provision, spot
talent that needs developing and experience the arts they invest
in.
5. What impact recent changes to the distribution
of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations;
5.1 The changes will be phased in over time
and won't begin to come into effect until after the Olympics.
Any increase in Lottery funding will therefore not mitigate the
impact of grant-in-aid cuts in these next two years. Lottery funding
requires additionality and does not fund core or regular programmes
therefore it is an enhancement for use by first time entrants
and for doing extra work and not a substitute for government funding.
6. Whether the policy guidelines for National
Lottery funding need to be reviewed;
6.1 If the principle of "additionality"
were reviewed then lottery funds could potentially be more flexibly
applied.
7. Whether businesses and philanthropists
can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local
level;
7.1 Yes they could play a long-term role
but their own cycles of stability cannot be guaranteed and therefore
to be disproportionately or wholly reliant on their contribution
and finance would be fool hardy and risk de-stabilising the whole
infrastructure.
7.2 Innovation and stimulus for profound
thought and change comes out of risk taking where failure is about
learning what does work and what doesn't. Businesses and philanthropists
may not want to invest in risky arts practice so perhaps public
subsidy is best directed at the riskiest arts practices in order
to protect freedom of speech and ensure progressive arts.
7.3 Some artists and arts organisations
produce very experimental or niche programmes of work that perhaps
don't appeal to business in the same way as The Royal Shakespeare
Company or the big Symphony Orchestras so would be disadvantaged.
7.4 It takes a lot of time, human resource
and specialist skills to pitch to businesses and negotiate the
differences in culture and language. Small arts organisations
don't have this capacity because they are busy producing the artwork.
Smaller organisations won't be able to compete on a level playing
field because bigger organisations staff dedicated to fundraising
and sponsorship.
7.5 If there was a national pot into which
businesses and philanthropists could make a contribution and organisations
could bid into then this might be a fairer way of distributing
the funds. Causes less favoured by businesses could then benefit.
The percent for art type of scheme is a good example of bringing
investment into the arts from business.
7.6 Public subsidy is given on the condition
that principles of equality and diversity are observed and actively
practiced and there is prioritization for certain groups in society
who haven't benefited. My experience of visiting galleries supported
wholly through philanthropy in the USA was that they had no concern
whatsoever for equality or diversity. They were in it for the
prestige and so the organisations had no remit or need for increasing
or widening access. They were exclusive rather than inclusive.
7.7 My experience of visiting the USA was
that businesses and philanthropists appeared to concentrate their
support mostly in the big cities. As a consequence outlying places
have little or no provision or at best very "safe" or
popular arts practice which was unprogressive.
7.8 Businesses usually want to invest in
successful companies with a proven track record and who are endorsed
through public funding. The two types of funding work together
and that is the strength of the current system.
8. Whether there need to be more Government
incentives to encourage private donations
8.1 More structural and tax incentives would
be very welcome. Also where business/donors can provide physical
space to artists or arts organisations to operate from that can
also be incentivised. Mixed use spaces in which a world of interacting
ecologies can be encouraged and facilitated would lead to a better
mutual benefit, connectivity and a more sustainable environment
for all.
September 2010
| 
