Arts Council Funding Cuts

[ChandlersFord]

This is what I believe is called "victim-blaming."

Those who have worked for or with them are aware of their appalling profligacy and inefficiency.

[RichardB]

Those who have worked for or with them are aware of their appalling profligacy and inefficiency.

Sorry, are you talking about the government, or the RSC?

[ChandlersFord]

Sorry, are you talking about the government, or the RSC?

The RSC but, needless to add, the same applies to the government.

[RichardB]

I just think it's a shame that you are knocking an arts organisation when the government's arts policy (and not only the present one) is far more blameworthy for the present situation of the arts being dismantled company by company. "First they came for the RSC, and I said they can go to the wall because I don't like their productions... " Every such defunding ought to be resisted, not just when it involves companies you disapprove of. Seemingly there's no way you're going to be convinced of this; but let's see who's next for the chop in the following round.

[ChandlersFord]

I just think it's a shame that you are knocking an arts organisation when the government's arts policy (and not only the present one) is far more blameworthy for the present situation of the arts being dismantled company by company. "First they came for the RSC, and I said they can go to the wall because I don't like their productions... " Every such defunding ought to be resisted, not just when it involves companies you disapprove of. Seemingly there's no way you're going to be convinced of this; but let's see who's next for the chop in the following round.

The RSC is safe because no government would defund an organisation with ‘royal’ and ‘Shakespeare’ in its title.

And the RSC is playing the government’s game - culinary theatre and kids’ shows, not challenging stuff by recognised or emerging playwrights.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I just think it's a shame that you are knocking an arts organisation when the government's arts policy (and not only the present one) is far more blameworthy for the present situation of the arts being dismantled company by company. "First they came for the RSC, and I said they can go to the wall because I don't like their productions... " Every such defunding ought to be resisted, not just when it involves companies you disapprove of. Seemingly there's no way you're going to be convinced of this; but let's see who's next for the chop in the following round.

100% agree. The government reduces funding to the Arts Council progressively in real terms, but in doing so can insulate themselves for blame as the consequences mount.

Funding for school music services was delegated to the Arts Council in the same way.

[ChandlersFord]

100% agree. The government reduces funding to the Arts Council progressively in real terms, but in doing so can insulate themselves for blame as the consequences mount.

Funding for school music services was delegated to the Arts Council in the same way.

I don't think anyone who's been listening would seriously challenge the assertion that the ACE is merely doing the government's dirty work for it.

[Pulcinella]

Richard Morrison's take in today's Times: this is only the start; very depressing reading.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/my-take-home-from-the-cuts-excellence-is-no-longer-deemed-crucial-tcwlhrq72?shareToken=800f626692add4f4041f8286acb4df8d

[oddoneout]

Richard Morrison's take in today's Times: this is only the start; very depressing reading.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/m...1f8286acb4df8d

The impression I have is that music based organisations and activities are being sidelined in favour of the likes of museums, community projects, diversity focus etc. East Anglia has received funding and from purely personal point of view I am pleased at the continued grants to the sector I work in, but unhappy that it seems to have come at the expense of music in the region. I think that Richard Morrison's concerns about arts projects that are set up to make use of funding rather than to serve a longer term aim are justified; as he says it happened with Lottery funding(and possibly still does) which makes it even more frustrating that ACE may/will end up repeating those mistakes and in the process squandering money that could have done so much more.

Thirteen organisations in Cambridgeshire will receive a share of £3,461,646 a year, ensuring that more people in more places can find fantastic, fulfilling art and culture on their doorsteps.

https://www.fenlandcitizen.co.uk/new...ure-a-9282664/

Arts Council England to triple number of BAME-led groups it funds

https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/arts-c...rticle/1804284

https://www.suffolknews.co.uk/bury-st-edmunds/news/arts-council-england-reveals-details-for-16m-funding-boosts-9282720/

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/23103099.major-14m-boost-norfolk-theatre-arts-writing-organisations/

Looking at those groups receiving funding and reading comments about their funding in my neck of the woods there is an element of the R3 audience debate - many of the events put on are accessible and reach their intended audiences - but in doing so they tend to exclude that section of the population which has always supported more traditional (aka elitist in modern parlance?) arts activities - exhibitions, concerts, theatre etc - unless they are on grandparent duties!. It is a running argument at work with the publicity material for the site which focuses on young children and families and ignores the core offering of the site, which deters a significant (not least in financial terms) section of the potential visitor pool.
However this is all just my impression and perhaps if I were to go through the awards in detail I would find better balance, including proportional funding to music. Then again I could spend my time and boost my mood by going to an exhibition in the city while I still can... Sadly the excellent concerts which are still happening(but for how much longer?)have been a no-go for some years due to transport problems, but I can't blame ACE for that.

[Sir Velo]

Richard Morrison's take in today's Times: this is only the start; very depressing reading.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/m...1f8286acb4df8d

What ACE and the Tories need to realise is that the disastrous hit to Britain's cultural prestige has a knock on effect in terms of how this country is viewed internationally. If we want to be considered to be a second (third?) rate nation then keep on digging. The fact is that world class art brings in the tourists and raises a country's standing, a fact which the French and the Germans know instinctively. Absolutely right to have a focus on diversity and inclusivity when awarding funding but not at the expense of our cultural heritage.

[Ein Heldenleben]

RM’s article is absolutely spot on. The only thing he misses is how Arts Council subsidy is part of and has helped create a vast army of arts bureaucrats to implement, monitor , control and , produce data on a vast realm of policies that have little to do with artistic excellence or creativity. When you look at the management structures of most arts organisations you pretty soon realise that Michelangelo would be asked either to take his pots elsewhere or paint the ( vast ) office ceiling - the colour to be decided by vote.

[RichardB]

Absolutely right to have a focus on diversity and inclusivity when awarding funding but not at the expense of our cultural heritage.

Diversity and inclusivity are part of our cultural heritage. There should be no conflict of interest there. The problem is that the amounts of money the government is willing to use for culture result in a policy based on exclusion - of whatever is going to make the numbers come out "right". If only it were a question of someone asking: what kinds of cultural activity are going on? how much will it cost to keep them going and foster further interest in them? Instead the question is: you have X amount of cash, what criteria can you use to hack away at cultural life until it only costs this much?

[RichardB]

a vast army of arts bureaucrats to implement, monitor, control and produce data on a vast realm of policies

Exactly. And none of them have to worry about where the next month's rent is going to come from, like large numbers of actual artists do. (Like I did until at least my late thirties.)

[oddoneout]

Diversity and inclusivity are part of our cultural heritage. There should be no conflict of interest there. The problem is that the amounts of money the government is willing to use for culture result in a policy based on exclusion - of whatever is going to make the numbers come out "right". If only it were a question of someone asking: what kinds of cultural activity are going on? how much will it cost to keep them going and foster further interest in them? Instead the question is: you have X amount of cash, what criteria can you use to hack away at cultural life until it only costs this much?

The question seems to be "how many tick boxes can we fill" on any project, and then manipulating it to fit. Whether it works depends more on chance than intention. Meanwhile projects arising out of need, interest, and commitment of a community and requiring only small amounts of money, may have to stand by and watch the banknotes fly up in ashes from the bonfire of ill-judged or badly executed events that have no relevant or useful legacy for them.

[RichardB]

The question seems to be "how many tick boxes can we fill" on any project, and then manipulating it to fit.

From the companies' point of view, yes. I was talking about how the criteria next to the tick boxes are decided.