"Culture" Minister demands arts make money before subsidisation

[MrGongGong]

We are the Folk Song Army
Everyone of us cares
We all hate poverty, war and injustice
Unlike the rest of you squares
. . .

Is that your entry for the non sequitur of the day competition ?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

No, moved by the vision of you two suffering the crucifixion of creation (posts 57 58), bemoaning the barbarism of those in corporate life put me in mind of Tom Lehrer's jolly ditty.

[french frank]

When there's a funding shortage, no doubt there are those individuals and organisations who are glad of a handout, and some companies may well have arts-loving executives who believe in the general benefits of the arts to the public at large, but it seems that big business is well aware of the advantages and is willing to shell out for expert advice:

"Big-name deals

It is no surprise that brands might question the value of backing the arts in a downturn. Yet with big-name brands including BP, BMW and Coutts continuing to have faith, the picture of arts sponsorship in decline is far from conclusive.

The niche audiences that art draws remains one of its attractions, says Philip Spedding, a director at Arts & Business.

'If you wanted to reach a very particular market, and you can find an arts organisation that is reaching them, that's when it starts to be very cost-effective,' he adds.

Another enduring lure is the corporate hospitality opportunities such sponsorship deals provide. Spedding contends that in industries such as oil and gas, executive-level networking and the 'ability to sit down with the people that matter' is highly valued by the likes of BP.

This 'schmooze' factor also explains why the financial-services industry has dominated the arts sponsorship sector."

http://www.brandrepublic.com/analysis/1134174/

[An_Inspector_Calls]

The picture I'd like to take away from that is that the majority of the private sector funding is given and taken with the best of intentions to make our society more enjoyable.

[french frank]

The picture I'd like to take away from that is that the majority of the private sector funding is given and taken with the best of intentions to make our society more enjoyable.

And you are, naturally, perfectly entitled to interpret it in that way. I must confess, my interpretation would be rather different. You might call it cynicism.

[amateur51]

And you are, naturally, perfectly entitled to interpret it in that way. I must confess, my interpretation would be rather different. You might call it cynicism.

:smiley:

[MrGongGong]

The picture I'd like to take away from that is that the majority of the private sector funding is given and taken with the best of intentions to make our society more enjoyable.

:laugh::laugh:

[ahinton]

There have been some very interesting arguments here, arguably the most carefully thought out being those of RB. In an environment where, whatever the various individual agendas may be, the arts needs as much funding as possible from every conceivable legal source - local and national government, EU, corporate, SME, private individual philanthropists et al - what seems to have been overlooked in national government support is that it is all paid for out of taxes of which some will be received as a consequence of the kind of corporate activity that some might find to be well less than moral - in other words, some proportion of any such tax income might at best be corrupt or at worst laundered (especially given recent corporate policies about trading competitive taxation arrangements). Should the arts care about such issues? - can it afford to do so? - when what it needs above all else is money to fund what it seeks to do and when that part of it that comes from the taxpayer has at least been filtered through government first so as not to appear tainted?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Now LEA music services are being encouraged/expected to find funding from private sponsors, as public sector educational funding is being diverted to unnecessary (some would say useless) pet projects such as "free schools". It's all part of the same story.

[french frank]

Arts sponsorship and charity sponsorship seem to have the same end: brand promotion, getting to your customers. For example, a charity sponsorship agency gives its top reason for charity sponsorship:

"Increasing brand loyalty: sponsoring a charity is a business deal rather than a charitable donation. Companies choose to sponsor a charity in order to align their PR activity with a cause-related issue that enables them to build or increase their reputation amongst their target market."

Nowhere does there seem to be any discussion about or sense of 'public value': that the arts are a 'public good' or that charities do 'good works'. Its all about how the businesses can benefit.

So the culture secretary's message to the arts seems (to me, anyway) to be: "Look luvvies, we all know what they want so do your best to give it to them. You scratch their back and they'll scratch yours. And we'll all be happy: arts, business and government."

Now, to me, this has nil to do with the fundamental value of the arts, nil understanding, nor (however you view charity from a political point of view) with charitable giving. I wonder whether this is why some people have been inclined to write off businesses, and the government, as philistines?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

"You might call it cynicism". Yes, I would. And I'd also say the attitude which you and others profess is regrettable.

[french frank]

"You might call it cynicism". Yes, I would. And I'd also say the attitude which you and others profess is regrettable.

You may say it if you wish, of course, but that isn't a reply to the points made, with direct quotations showing exactly how, on the grand scale, the business sector is advised to view its sponsorship of the arts, which is what I would call cynicism.

'A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing' was Oscar Wilde's definition of ... a cynic.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

To the points made in 70, do you mean?

Well I'll base my opinion on many years working in the private sector. (Hands up those commenting here who've actually worked in the private sector for any length of time?) I've no doubt the big budget boys (who'll be funding to the tune of millions) will be taking advice as to bangs for their buck on sponsorship. Why on earth shouldn't they? But at the level below this, for companies such as the one I work for, no we don't take professional advice. We do, in the main, sponsor locally. Just like all those local businesses (the local garage, printers, shops, etc) who put their hands in their pockets to support local activities.

I'll stick with C P Snow's observation that most cynicism stems from lazy arrogance.

[Serial_Apologist]

You may say it if you wish, of course, but that isn't a reply to the points made, with direct quotations showing exactly how, on the grand scale, the business sector is advised to view its sponsorship of the arts, which is what I would call cynicism.

'A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing' was Oscar Wilde's definition of ... a cynic.

Or "enlightened" self-interest would be another way of putting it.

[french frank]

To the points made in 70, do you mean?

In #63 and #70.

I'll stick with C P Snow's observation that most cynicism stems from lazy arrogance.

Of course, but then I don't think that my view is cynical (all I did was reported what others said, and I found that cynical - namely doing 'the right thing' out of pure self-interest).

Just like all those local businesses (the local garage, printers, shops, etc) who put their hands in their pockets to support local activities.

I would accept that many smaller local community-based firms might well be motivated to support and sustain local activities (I seem to remember, from some years back, your own interest in the promotion of local performers/performances from around the country, suggesting, I think, that Radio 3 could also support them?). But I don't think such firms would be likely to provide adequate support for the arts nationally.

And, yes, I have worked in 'the private sector', for a while, albeit in no form of industry.