You are here:   Art > Wanted: A Keynesian Vision for the Arts
 

 

6 Cut the paperwork

Under New Labour, theatre managers spent as much of their time filling in forms as they did in the rehearsal room. Directives on equality, social integration, education and quota fulfilment landed with thudding regularity. None of these objectives related to art. New companies opted out of the state system in order to avoid the bureaucracy. 

The arts, innately concerned with equality and social benefit, don't need to be told to support the underdog. They must be relieved of the burden of box-ticking. Abolishing directives will win instant and overwhelming support, as well as slashing the ACE payroll.

 

7 Redefine devolution

Arts Council England delivers hidden subsidies to companies in Scotland and Wales to pursue audiences in England. English National Opera is not allowed to play in Oxford, for instance, because the city belongs by ACE orders to the Welsh National Opera. These devolution deals need to be torn up and rewritten. Scotland and Wales can afford to support their own national companies. 

 

8 Reward success

Not just artistic, but economic. The conductor Sir Neville Marriner won a Queen's Award for Industry in recognition of his subsidy-free orchestra's touring and recording activities. We must encourage more such entrepreneurs.

 

9 Engage with the BBC

The national broadcaster is the second largest subsidiser of arts after ACE, often duplicating its activities, especially in the north-west. There is no co-ordination, no dialogue between ACE and BBC. That silence must be broken.

 

10 Education, education

Music and art, taught properly at primary stage 1, yield outstanding Sats results in physics and maths at stage 10. A Scandinavian model exists to apply the benefits of art to education. It should be adopted by the Cultural and Education Departments. ACE should be relieved of its responsibilities for education and a theatre's outreach work should no longer be a condition of receiving subsidy.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Jessica Duchen
December 1st, 2010
3:12 PM
No, it is the LSO that gets additional funding from the COL, not the RPO. The London Philharmonic and Philharmonia receive equal ACE subsidy. The LSO's is higher than theirs, the RPO's lower, and the LSO's is bolstered by COL. So the LSO is way ahead and the RPO way behind. Perhaps they would all be better off with less confusable names!

Anon
November 30th, 2010
1:11 AM
Three of them do, and one receives half that. It's a moot point, though, surely, since NL is suggestion that they *shouldn't* receive equal funding. (The RPO is also a slight anomaly due to the additional funding from the City of London, which could arguably be added to the ACE grant in terms of "total public funding". Would that make the figure nearer the total enjoyed by the other London orchestras?)

Jessica Duchen
November 27th, 2010
11:11 AM
Those 4 London orchestras do NOT receive "identical subsidies". You can see all the figures by following the download link on the ACE site: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/funding/regular-funding-organisations/

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.