What is going on in the arts world? Emotions have been running high since autumn, with jubilation followed quickly by dismay. This was capped in early January, when James Purnell, secretary of state for culture, predicted a "new Renaissance" in British cultural life. How could everything look so rosy if it was really so black?
The background is Tessa Jowell's announcement, last April, that £161m of lottery money was to be diverted from the arts to the Olympics over four years—representing roughly a 25 per cent cut in annual lottery arts funding. Public subsidy of the arts in Britain comes partly from the government and partly from the lottery. Both revenue streams are disbursed by Arts Council England (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own arts councils), although the two streams fund separate things: the government money goes to regularly funded organisations (such as ENO, the National Theatre and so on), while the lottery money is used primarily for one-off initiatives and projects. After an initial burst of spending on the arts, Blair's government became increasingly tight. The 2005-06 spending review froze government arts funding at £412m a year.
Throughout the summer, the arts world braced itself for more belt-tightening in the 2007 spending review. So it was a surprise when, in October, Purnell announced that he had won an extra annual £50m for Arts Council England (ACE), taking its annual funding from £417m this year to £467m in 2010-11. But then, in December, the mood darkened again, as ACE announced how it planned to distribute its budget for regularly funded arts organisations over the same three-year period. Nearly 200 bodies—almost a fifth of the 990 that ACE supports—were told that from April their funding would be substantially cut, and they were given just five weeks to appeal.
On 9th January, British theatre—which has borne the brunt of the cuts—took up arms. In a two-hour session at the Young Vic, theatre's great and good laid into Peter Hewitt, ACE's chief executive. Hewitt was charged with threatening the lifeblood of theatre by cutting funds for new writing and local touring theatre, and attacked for the lack of clarity about the criteria on which the decisions were based.
Meanwhile, a review of public arts funding, commissioned by Purnell last July, was published in early January. "Supporting Excellence in the Arts, " written by Brian McMaster, a former director of the Edinburgh international festival, celebrates the overall quality of the arts in Britain, and argues that state subsidy should focus on the pursuit of "excellence" rather than on the fulfilment of social goals. It must have seemed to Purnell, back in October, when he had secured an extra £50m for the arts, that McMaster's review would be seen to herald a new dawn. Instead, for those smarting from December's announcement, it read like a justification for the cuts.
Is the arts world right to be so incensed? Not if we look at the bigger picture. In funding terms, the arts are enjoying a boom time. They have never been subsidised more heavily (although this must be set against the temporary dip in lottery funds). There is a rapidly developing culture of business and private philanthropy, as well as substantial corporate investment—around £600m last year. And while some organisations lost out in the Arts Council settlement, a majority were winners.
Besides, with McMaster's review, the arts world is getting what it has long wanted: funding on the basis of quality, not ability to deliver social and economic goals. In this context, McMaster offers hope. For while there are many problems attached to the notion of arts "excellence"—not least, who defines it?—McMaster at least proclaims that the arts are valuable in their own right.
