"Culture" Minister demands arts make money before subsidisation

[teamsaint]

A_I_C

please DO NOT misrepresent other people posts.

1. Its not "supposed " observation, its actual, unless you are saying that I am lying.

2. I said "Shoddy practise", which is not the same as malpractice at all. at least not in my book.

[french frank]

Firstly it's not the universal way all business works (with a what's in it for us as the prime motivation, nor is it as a sop for teamsaint's supposed observation of industrial malpractice), secondly there's no reason why there should be any degree of alignment of motive and vision for arts sponsorship between the sponsor and sponsored - anymore than I would expect a group of artists to agree on motive for a project, and thirdly, what does it matter if some businesses sponsor solely on a profit motive?

But let's get back to the OP and what the Culture Secretary was actually saying. Will Gompertz, in his analysis of the speech said:

"If you strip out the pleasantries in Maria Miller's speech you are left with some frank opinions, expressed either directly or implicitly.

The arts budget will be cut come the next spending review; the Culture Secretary will not be pleading for special treatment. The sector as a whole has not made its case regarding the economic benefits it delivers to the country convincingly enough to the Treasury. Nor has the DCMS."

So if you don't deliver economic benefits, you don't get funding?

The whole problem of arts funding is encapsulated in studies such as "Measuring the value of culture: a report to the Department for Culture Media and Sport" by Dr. Dave O’Brien (2010) which outlines various ways of measuring that value. Miller focuses on one: the economic value, which seems to put the arts on to a loser straightaway with its attempt to make its case.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

You actually said:

. . . it's probably because their day to day business practices are so shoddy that a bit of PR is rather useful.

Networking and so on is pretty helpful to get those marginal deals done too.

It's supposed because I've never seen anything like you report. And one man's shoddy practices are usually another's malpractice.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

ff See #25

[Charlie]

" ... The whole problem of arts funding is encapsulated in studies such as "Measuring the value of culture: a report to the Department for Culture Media and Sport" by Dr. Dave O’Brien (2010) which outlines various ways of measuring that value. Miller focuses on one: the economic value, which seems to put the arts on to a loser straightaway with its attempt to make its case".

It seems to you to put the arts on a loser, french frank. Why so?

:winkeye:

[french frank]

ff See #25

Well, there is a difference between the head of ACE and the member of the government i/c of the arts and culture. You do say: "The commercial viability stuff is piffle..." So there appears to be a common view on that.

[french frank]

It seems to you to put the arts on a loser, french frank. Why so?

:winkeye:

Because arguments other than the economic one apparently don't count where funding is concerned.

[ahinton]

Because arguments other than the economic one apparently don't count where funding is concerned.

Exactly; I would have thought that to be pretty obvious - and therein lies the problem with the "principles" (or rather lack thereof) in Ms Miller's announcement. Whilst funding itself is obviously "all about money", the outcome of such funding is in reality not "all about money", it never has been and it never will be (whatever Ms Miller may believe), so those who try to create and promote policies on the assumption that it is "all about money" do so at risk to themselves, the artists / organisations that need funding and the public which absorbs (not "consumes") arts.

Ms Miller's speech, when stripped of the pleasantries (as Will Gompertz opines), is indeed predicated wholly on the notion of the arts as consumer product, which is why it makes no sense in the real world and demonstrates that she appears (or chooses) to have precious little understanding of the subject with whose funding policies she is charged - which is more than sufficient, I imagine, to cause many others besides me to wonder why she occupies that position in the first place.

That said, one possible example of the kind of thing that might bother me about the moral principles behind corporate sponsorship of arts projects is how HCMF might be expected to respond were those seeking funding for its next season to be offered substantial financial assistance from, say, Starbucks, Amazon, Vodafone, Google and other large outfits all of which have been alleged to be tax dodgers on a vast scale and which accordingly might be argued to have depleted the UK government's coffers thereby to such an extent as to compromise its (the government's) own ability to fund the arts (assuming that it had sufficient will to do so in the first place, of course).

[amateur51]

Because arguments other than the economic one apparently don't count where funding is concerned.

That would almost certainly not apply to charitable funding but then you're back to hedgehog's problem of which charitable funder will fund this particular piece of work, and how much effort are you prepared to put in to find out?

I've told this story before but I think it's pertinent. Years ago the voluntary outh service tried to demonstrate its 'economic value' to government (it would be Major's government I think) and got Price Waterhouse to do the work. A relatively strong case was made around the effectiveness of youth work in diverting young people from crime and the relative costs thereof. The Prince's Trust funded the research and a launch conference was held with reps from police, youth work, business, etc etc and then Michael Howard came along as Home Secretary and rejected the whole enterprise. He wasn't interested, prison works.

Had he agreed with the findings, the youth service, statutory & voluntary, might have been able to push for better funding deals. In rejecting the report, Howard maintained the status quo, the Cinderella status of youth work in the education system, and nothing was lost.

Does it matter? Well around the time that Mark Duggan was shot by police in Tottenham, youth workers and younfg people were complaining that there was very little youth work provision for young people locally that summer and that there might be trouble ahead if youth service cuts were implemented.These calls were ignored, the cuts were made and Mark Duggan was shot. The following week saw the worst rioting in London for decades.

Cynical? Moi?!

Now some of that youth work would probably have been arts based. Drama, dance, music, djing, writing, plastic arts, all have a demonstrated track record in both engaging young people and providing a route for social education. But just as importantly, it provides an informal means of assisting gifted young people who have been failed by mainstream education in developing their full potential. Anecdotal evidence for this abounds. But what sort of evidence does Maria Miller need to convince the Treasury of the benefit of this sort of work? That's what our response should be - what evidence do you need, Minister?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Any attempt to put an economic valuation on the results artistic activity are piffle because it's bound to fail, especially in the hands of civil servants. It's far harder, for example, to do something like that than it would be to place a commercial value on a brand or goodwill, which are why such figures on balance sheets are always viewed cautiously.

And many of these assessments will, presumably, be carried out by government departments. These are the people that can't even knock out an assessment of the levelised costs of various forms of electricity generation and impacts of climate change without making themselves laughing stocks. So they've no chance of success when it comes to such intangibles as artistic value.

If they try to do this (government/corporates), then simply take their analysis apart.

[Richard Barrett]

some of that youth work would probably have been arts based. Drama, dance, music, djing, writing, plastic arts, all have a demonstrated track record in both engaging young people and providing a route for social education. But just as importantly, it provides an informal means of assisting gifted young people who have been failed by mainstream education in developing their full potential. Anecdotal evidence for this abounds. But what sort of evidence does Maria Miller need to convince the Treasury of the benefit of this sort of work? That's what our response should be - what evidence do you need, Minister?

If there had been any will on the government's part to address exclusion and deprivation (including cultural exclusion and deprivation) in parts of the country like Tottenham where nobody is going to vote for them anyway, those riots would probably never have happened... nor does the government have any real interest in trying to prevent them from happening again since they so conveniently feed the propaganda about a lazy and amoral underclass which deserves no sympathy or help.

So for Miller and the Tories the considerations you mention simply don't enter into the argument. Apart from which, whatever A_I_C says about cuddly companies cosying up to a grateful public without a thought about selling their wares, I don't see any corporate sponsorship making much of a contribution to artistic activity that's really innovative, challenging and more than short term. It has made virtually no impact on the area I know most about, namely contemporary composition (within which I include free improvisation, in which the UK has one of the most vibrant scenes in the world, despite the almost total lack of funding it receives), and there are no signs that it will.

[eighthobstruction]

http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/2011_riots_inquiry_recommendations_ignored_by_gove

....unfortunately damaged by twitter comments re pope and cheese....

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I haven't tried very hard with this, but George Benjamin's duet for piano and orch was commissioned by Roche - to name but one example.

[ahinton]

I haven't tried very hard with this, but George Benjamin's duet for piano and orch was commissioned by Roche - to name but one example.

And there is of course another kind of connection between Hoffmann-La Roche (whose corporate HQ is in Basel) and the Paul Sacher Stiftung (also located in Basel) which is the custodian of a substantial collection of 20th and 21st century music scores and research material.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Do the trades unions support the arts?