You are here:   Art > Time to Abolish the Arts Council
 

Other ways of funding highquality art are possible, and the success of independent institutions like the Royal Academy and the Art Fund in the UK already demonstrates the point. Where state funding for art remains part of the mix, the national Arts Council should be disbanded. It needlessly duplicates DCMS roles, invites politicisation through the power of arts ministers to appoint its members, and muddies the independent decisions of the existing regional arts councils. Responsibility for funding the great national performing companies should become the direct remit of the DCMS, in the form of non-departmental public bodies, exactly as the major museums already are.

Any fears that the DCMS would be more overtly political in its handling of arts funding than the old arrangements should be allayed by the pre-existing example of museum funding, and by the knowledge that the department will be operating in the full glare of public scrutiny. But for further protection, the DCMS should take on a new, central responsibility for defending artistic freedom.

We live in a time where artistic freedom is under threat, from violent protest and from heavyhanded government interference, whether in the name of community relations or simply the dread words "Health and Safety". For too long, only the voice of public safety and control has been heard, especially within government, and not the voice in defence of the public square and the artist's liberty. With DCMS as the voice of freedom of expression, it could make the case within government and to the public for controversial work — and would be bound by this new duty from interfering in the arts itself.

Finally, great art is always made by passionate, daring individuals. To celebrate that, we need a privately-funded annual prize that grants money directly with no strings attached to one exceptionally talented British artist. Thinking afresh about how to fund the arts in Britain must place the emphasis on free, individual, creative talent, and not on funding committees or service to a national project. The Arts Council and government have lost track of this essential truth. It is time to recover it again.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Martin
October 8th, 2009
8:10 PM
The effect of the Arts Council is quite loathsome where contemporary art is concerned. Massively subsidized exhibitions of approved art are put in in near empty galleries. In the regions, crawlers, hoping to get into Tate Modern etc, put on vacuous "cutting edge" art of precious little interest in London, & of no interest outside. It is a corrupt & fashion conscious world, worse than Communist approved art, which was, at least, well made.

Fabio P.Barbieri
August 25th, 2009
8:08 PM
Bullshit. We need to STOP - just stop - pouring public money of any kind into contemporary arts. No money to one artist or more; no nothing. If the State is to have a role in art, let it preserve and exhibit/perform the works of the past, which are always in danger of being outshouted and outspent by the commercial present; let it finance museums, archives, libraries, study centres, schools, concert series dedicated to the classics. Let it leave contemporary artists entirely alone. An artist must find a public. THE PUBLIC IS THE NECESSARY OTHER HALF OF THE WORK OF ART, because a work of art is a work of communication, and there must be someone at the other end to receive the communication. And let the public pay for it; paying one's own money is the physical demonstration that something has value to the person who pays, that they are willing to give something else in exchange. If the State takes over the role of public and payer, the whole purpose of art collapse. The State ought to hire artist only when it needs their work in the most practical, immediate way - public buildings and so on. That is what it did in Perikles' Athens and Lorenzo's Florence. To support "the arts" for their own sake is to support self-regarding parasitism, to support people who brag of their artisticness while they do not fulfil the most basic and fundamental of the roles of an artist - someone who communicates with a public. There are two artforms - both modern, both ill-regarded - which have never received one penny of state funding: popular music and comics. As a result, these are the areas where British creative artists have really shaken things up and produce work of great and worthwhile impact. And if you find that hard to believe, ask yourselves how many state-subsidized "artists" have had the worldwide impact of the Beatles or Alan Moore.

Post your comment

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