BBC Radio 4’s Iconoclasts programme is designed to try and elicit a strong emotional response and stimulate a debate. I’m not sure if thinking was progressed by Wednesday night’s discussion. The question (‘should the state subsidise art?) seemed to be the wrong one. Anyone who has looked seriously at the figures for ‘Return on Investment’ for cultural funding as a whole wouldn’t question that the sector does deliver huge economic benefits for the economy. The DCMS ‘CASE’ programme brings together a substantial amount of robust evidence of the social and cultural impact of investment. It seems the only people who could argue against any funding of the arts are driven by ideology rather than evidence. For me there are far more interesting questions, such as in a mixed arts economy, what should public funding be used for?
I think there are two compelling drivers for public funding from national government (I think there are several other drivers for Lottery and Local Government funding). One is investment in R&D. The key reason why we’re seen as international leaders in the cultural industries is the quality and innovation of the work we produce. A huge amount of that innovation takes place in the subsidised sector, where public funding is allowing ‘risk’. Often successful ‘risks’ are then exploited by the private sector bringing economic benefits back to the nation, but the private sector does not operate with the margins it would need to be able to fund the initial risk-taking itself. Why has the West End been continuing to break records in recent years while Broadway has struggled? I think the quality of product and creative talent developed by the subsidised sector in London and beyond has played an incredibly important role.
The other driver is what the economists call ‘market failure’. Around three quarters of the adult population in the UK take part in arts activities every year, and an even larger proportion of children. National funding currently plays a major role in making high quality experiences possible in communities where the arts would not be thriving if simply left to ‘market forces’.
I’m not suggesting these thoughts are particularly new or innovative. However in the recent debate about the importance of ‘arts funding’, I think there has been far more emphasis placed on ‘protecting the art’ (the supply side) than on the potential impact of cuts on people (the demand side).
But do the people care? I think so, but it is very difficult to hear the ‘public voice’ at the moment. I’m very excited about the NCA’s planned campaign and hope that it will demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the arts are a valued public service.
David Brownlee, Chief Executive, Audiences UK
Comments
There are currently no comments on this item.