"Culture" Minister demands arts make money before subsidisation

[amateur51]

In other words the government's priorities for cultural support now coincide exactly with corporate priorities, as we see is the case in other areas like the NHS.

We also see it in private sector funding of research and education. We are all the losers in a very short term :sadface:

[An_Inspector_Calls]

RB

All you say may be true but you offer no substantiation of your point. And to provide substantiation we would require more than mere anecdote, but a full study of the situation. The same has applied to your claim of institutional (when I think you really mean governmental) Philistinism since you haven't embraced all funding from all public institutions in your 'study' - even for example neglecting funding from the EU.

Your idea of business priorities revolving around profit is correct but I think you fail to see how diverse and complex are the ways large and small companies see their way to turning a coin. Large businesses, especially, are aware of the need to respect the views of the public who might not even buy their products or services, as Starbucks is now seeing. So I can well see them sponsoring arts activities a million miles away from an obvious profit.

[Richard Barrett]

So I can well see them sponsoring arts activities a million miles away from an obvious profit.

Can you indeed - where?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Oh come on, do you mean to say you don't know of a single example of what I claim? Really? Where have you been?

The firm I work for, medium sized business, profits ~£100m a year (EBIT) in the energy business, regularly sponsors local music festivals, public concerts, art exhibitions, museums. What's all that got to do with their profit stream? Well actually, they want the local community on side because they need the local community on side and they see such sponsorship as a way of gathering support. In addition, they also support local schools and the adjacent university.

http://www.tateatate.org/sponsorship.html

[scottycelt]

The first point is that the arts are not adequately funded, and one of the reasons for this is that reducing state funding has not led to a corresponding increase in corporate funding; indeed, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, the body set up by the government to promote this shift in responsibility has itself had its funding severely cut.
The second and more crucial point is that business funding of culture is going to reflect business priorities, which of course revolve around profit. The kind of cultural activity they're going to fund will be that which gives them something in return, in terms of prestige and publicity (and therefore ultimately once more profit). Cultural activity that isn't guaranteed to provide them with this is not going to be touched with a bargepole. So much is uncontroversial. The role of state funding ought therefore to be to support those things which business is not interested in supporting, and indeed this used to be the case. Now however the government's role in arts funding has shifted towards supporting those things which business is interested in supporting, that is to say a fairly narrow subset (which is perhaps what you mean by "mainstream") of the breadth and variety of the products of artists' imaginations and skills, with everything else left out in the cold. In other words the government's priorities for cultural support now coincide exactly with corporate priorities, as we see is the case in other areas like the NHS.

I agree with much of that. I didn't mean to suggest that the arts are currently adequately funded, rather that the arts should be!

My point about 'social responsibility' is that large profitable companies (and even smaller ones) should be encouraged to realise the advantages of being seen to be so by ploughing just a small percentage of their profits back into the community for the arts and other worthwhile causes, and gaining widespread kudos (and very likely future extra profits) as a result. Many people shop at John Lewis, for example, because of that very culture, not just because of its much-vaunted (and highly exaggerated) internal employee structure. The management in such companies are shrewd enough to know that advertising their corporate 'generosity' is a pretty powerful tool in maintaining a successful business profile. There is absolutely no harm in attempting to get others to see the advantages to them of doing the same.

Of course, in the last resort it is the state which should fund any shortfall, but everything should be done to try and reduce that ultimate shortfall or, in a perfect world, eliminate it altogether.

[amateur51]

I agree with much of that. I didn't mean to suggest that the arts are currently adequately funded, rather that the arts should be!

My point about 'social responsibility' is that large profitable companies (and even smaller ones) should be encouraged to realise the advantages of being seen to be so by ploughing just a small percentage of their profits back into the community for the arts and other worthwhile causes, and gaining widespread kudos (and very likely future extra profits) as a result. Many people shop at John Lewis, for example, because of that very culture, not just because of its much-vaunted (and highly exaggerated) internal employee structure. The management in such companies are shrewd enough to know that advertising their corporate 'generosity' is a pretty powerful tool in maintaining a successful business profile. There is absolutely no harm in attempting to get others to see the advantages to them of doing the same.

Of course, in the last resort it is the state which should fund any shortfall, but everything should be done to try and reduce that ultimate shortfall or, in a perfect world, eliminate it altogether.

In the arts if ciourse there is usually (at least) a three-pronged funding stream: the public (revenue); the state (local & central & quangos); the private sector. The cake should be funded by the public sector and the private sector should add the icing, not the other way around.

But who funds the infra-structure? The training? Is it legitimate for arts organisations to have reserves to fall back on, to build the future on?

Scotty's point is a good one but these are relationships that need to be nurtured and that takes money too.

[Richard Barrett]

in the energy business

... and what does this have to do with their "profit stream", you ask? It's well known for example that BP uses strategies like arts sponsorship as a way of addressing an "image problem" owing to years of environmental destruction culminating in the Deepwater Horizon disaster, for which at the end of last year BP paid a settlement of $4.5 billion to avoid criminal charges including 11 counts of manslaughter for which the company has admitted guilt. (An even larger settlement for private claimants is currently pending.) As you will know, BP's sponsorship of the Tate is still a highly controversial issue, given that its Ethics Policy states that it will not accept funds when "[t]he donor has acted, or is believed to have acted, illegally in the acquisition of funds, for example when funds are tainted through being the proceeds of criminal conduct", which Serota has attempted pretty unconvincingly to wriggle his way out of. The argument is that the Tate supposedly couldn't survive without BP funding, but the actual amount of this funding is still shrouded in secrecy. It seems to me quite clear that BP's arts sponsorship is much closer than a million miles from their "profit stream", which is what "gathering support" and getting people "on side" is all about.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

So you agree that private sponsorship of the arts may not be directly linked to an obvious profit stream - it's even well known!

[Richard Barrett]

So you agree that private sponsorship of the arts may not be directly linked to an obvious profit stream - it's even well known!

If you read past the first two sentences of my post you will see that no, I don't agree. :erm:

[Richard Barrett]

who funds the infra-structure? The training?

With the way the present government treats education (at all levels) in artistic subjects, in a few years time there might be hardly any artists left, apart from those whose work sells on the market and those whose privileged origins remove the necessity for their work to be funded, so the problem will solve itself and the clock turned back a hundred years.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

So if they're sponsoring to address an image problem (and thus a profit) it's hard to see how they would do this selectively to ensure a 'good return' on prestige ranking. How do you argue (or prove) " Cultural activity that isn't guaranteed to provide them with this [prestige] is not going to be touched with a bargepole." I wonder how you think a business might assess whether or not such and such a sponsorship will guarantee a prestige return, and what evidence exists that they capable of doing this? I can't see that my firm's sponsorship of local music festivals or museums can guarantee them a return any time soon and yet they keep on doing it.

[MrGongGong]

People will use the arts as part of a "softening up" process
when we take money we do need to be aware of the agendas at work

When Suharto was in power there was a considerable amount of export of Indonesian music and dance to the west, along the lines of "how can we be abusing human rights in East Timor when we have such beautiful music and dance ?

Now I'm not suggesting that BP et al are on the same scale as Suharto but the comparison leaps out to me

I also remember going to hear a performance of Max's "Eight Songs" in the Chester festival that was sponsored by BNFL, I'm not sure that he would be that happy about that these days ?

Musicians and Composers are not stupid (well not most of them :whistle:) we are usually fully aware when people are trying to use our work for other ends.......

[Richard Barrett]

we are usually fully aware when people are trying to use our work for other ends.......

Quite. And I don't think our friends in the corporate community really have much understanding of how and why we do it - stimulating though I find this conversation, I have to be off now in order to spend the rest of the day doing some completely unfunded and unpaid artistic work. :smiley:

[amateur51]

Quite. And I don't think our friends in the corporate community really have much understanding of how and why we do it - stimulating though I find this conversation, I have to be off now in order to spend the rest of the day doing some completely unfunded and unpaid artistic work. :smiley:

Ah that'll be a hobby then :winkeye:

[An_Inspector_Calls]

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