Written evidence submitted by Artsadmin
(arts 107)
SUMMARY
— The UK arts landscape is one of the most
creative, diverse and respected in the world; vital to the economy,
central to tourism and a central part of the quality of life in
this country.
— Spending cuts in the arts will have a
huge and disproportionate event across the whole of this landscape
from national to local levels.
— Arts organisations already represent
some of the most collaborative and innovative business models
in the UK.
— A level of Government spending which
continues the investment which has taken place in the arts over
the last 15 years is the only way to ensure the continuation of
this success.
— The Arts Council, having already undergone
major restructuring to save costs, is the right organisation to
deliver this funding programme, provided the expertise is in place.
— Philanthropy has a place alongside Government
subsidy, but cannot replace this investment and will not support
the provision of local arts projects particularly.
Before the general election we attended several
events and conferences where both Ben Bradshaw and Jeremy Hunt
spoke of their passion for the arts, while warning that the arts
could not be exempt from future spending cuts. Those of us working
in the sector understand that any Government is unlikely to single
out the arts for protection while cuts in public spending are
taking place all around, but we would strongly argue that cuts
in the arts are a false economy in the longer term, both in terms
of the income the investment in the arts brings, and even more
importantly, their crucial role in creating a better and happier
society.
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
The impact of the expected cuts, coming from
central and local Government, as well as an expected reduction
in box office income, will have a devastating impact on the arts,
far deeper than simply a temporary reduction in funds, and recovery
will be impossible for many arts organisations. It will result
in:
— decrease in the experimentation and innovation
which currently makes Britain a world leader in the arts;
— increased unemployment;
— reduction in opportunities for children
and young people;
— fewer international collaborations;
— fewer training opportunities;
— a less vibrant arts programme across
the country; from the West End and national companies right through
to small community projects;
— a reduction in tourism;
— a smaller return on the investment; and
It is important to remember that the arts are
not just the big galleries and West End Theatres. The arts affect
people's lives in all parts of society. There are endless examples
of the arts reaching "difficult" young people who might
otherwise end up in gangs, of arts projects helping young people
gain confidence enabling them to find employment, of the arts
bringing social cohesion to inner city areas and small rural communities.
If this government wants to create a "Big Society",
then these (often small and less visible) arts programmes must
be protected and supported.
2. What arts organisations can do to work
more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort
and to make economies of scale
Most arts organisations already work in collaboration,
they already use economies of scale, work flexibly and efficiently,
and are often cited as entrepreneurial business models. The largest
subsidisers of the arts are those who work within the sector,
and most organisations do a vast amount of work on a shoestring
budget—they can only be stretched so far.
At Toynbee Studios, Artsadmin runs a producing
organisation and an arts centre, sharing rehearsal spaces, offices,
facilities and expertise to benefit hundreds of different arts
companies. Many regional theatres "host" smaller companies,
to share resources and networks, and there are numerous similar
models.
All aspects of the arts economy offer extremely
high value for money spent.
3. What level of public subsidy for the arts
and heritage is necessary and sustainable
The arts budget is very small, much smaller
in percentage terms than most of our European partners—and
works out at 17p per week per person. This level of funding is
absolutely necessary, and even in this economic climate, is sustainable
because of the level of employment created, the tourism attracted
and income generated. A large proportion of arts subsidy is spent
on low salaried employment so any cuts will impact on both unemployment
and organisational sustainability.
Unlike most other areas of pubic spending, arts
funding is an investment. For every £1 that the Arts Council
invests, an additional £2 is generated from private and commercial
sources, totalling £3 income. The returns in economic terms
alone are huge, with tourists flocking to London as the world's
most vibrant cultural city, where subsidised productions such
as War Horse move to the West End and attract huge audiences,
paying back the original investment many times over. The arts
are responsible for the regeneration of particular areas of cities,
and for cities themselves -most recently Liverpool City of Culture
for example, bringing £800 million worth of local economic
benefit.
4. Is the current system, and structure,
of funding distribution the right one
The Arts Council does not have an easy role
even within a healthier economic climate, but it is working closely
with the arts sector whose views it regularly seeks, and has a
(now lean) staff of professional and committed people. The arms
length policy is absolutely crucial as direct funding from Government
would not reach the smaller grassroots arts organisations whose
role is so crucial to the community.
The Arts Council has already cut its own administrative
costs greatly, and should not be asked to re-structure every few
years, which is costly and unnecessary. Expertise is crucial,
so that the right funding decisions can be made, allowing organisations
to plan ahead, acknowledging the importance of research and development
and being transparent in its decision-making.
5. 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
As stated above, the arms-length policy is crucial
and we believe the abolition of these bodies will have a negative
impact and could result in wrong decisions being made in the distribution
of funds, which will cost money rather than saving it. It is crucial
that those making decisions about funding the arts have the knowledge
of the sector, resulting in investments being made responsibly
and strategically.
6. Whether businesses and philanthropists
can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local
level
Many businesses and philanthropists, as well
as trusts and foundations already play a long term role in the
arts funding, but this can never replace statutory funding. Arts
Council funding attracts further investment from philanthropists,
but as many have recently made clear, they will not support the
arts without matching government investment. If there is a reduction
in government investment, local government investment and philanthropic
donations will reduce accordingly.
It is also clear that philanthropic donations
only really work for major institutions, and donors are much less
likely to support small grassroots organisations, development
organisations and young people's projects. The American arts system
only really works for the huge galleries and major theatres. Many
small but crucial arts projects exist only hand-to-mouth, if they
exist at all. It would be hugely detrimental to the cultural and
creative life of the UK if it were to follow this example.
7. Whether there need to be more Government
incentives to encourage private donations
As stated above, private donations can never
replace government subsidy, but can work alongside it, and some
taxation changes might encourage more private investment—but
again this will never reach the crucial arts projects that help
create the Big Society that our government wish to encourage.
September 2010
| 
