No one should be surprised that arts funding will suffer from the coalition’s spending cuts. However, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt’s proposed departmental cuts of between 35 per cent and 50 per cent in advance of deep cuts to arts budgets, demonstrates how little value is placed on the contribution made by the arts to the economy and society in general.
Hunt’s department has one of the smallest Whitehall budgets – £2.1 billion – and has already asked the biggest arts organisations to produce their own proposals for saving 25-30 per cent over four years. In other words, we are dealing with very small amounts of money in the context of a deficit of £150 billion. So why go after the arts?
Part of the reason is that politicians seldom understand the arts sufficiently to make convincing arguments on how artists contribute to a healthy, vibrant society. Too often, culture is debated solely in terms of its value to other spheres of policymaking. For example, how does culture contribute to education, the reduction of crime, and a “trickle down” economic benefit?
As a result of this defensive approach and the failure to define and defend the value of culture, public funding for the arts is dependent on economic performance. When a country is booming economically, it loosens the purse strings. As soon as there are budgetary restraints, the arts are at the top of the list of cuts.
Ideally, we should live by the Ruskin school of thought which defines a nation’s wealth to include personal happiness and human fulfilment through access to the arts. Sadly, that’s wishful thinking in the current climate.
By contrast, politicians are far more comfortable when talking about investment in sport. People seldom question money going to a small group of athletes to compete in the Olympics, because they understand this is complementary to developing sport at grassroots level and tackling wider problems such as obesity. But the same sort of thing can be said for the arts: small amounts of public subsidy tackle poverty of aspiration, create jobs and contribute to a happier society.
And there are a number of ways in which artists create wealth. Intellectual property rights are worth billions and create thousands of jobs. Culture also drives tourism, worth as much as £90 billion a year. The often unfairly derided European Capital of Culture also creates wealth and jobs. Liverpool’s year brought 15 million visitors, making £800 million for the local economy.
The Liverpool Tate has hosted a Picasso exhibition. Can anyone imagine that happening 20 years ago? Moreover, the return from government investment is stronger in the cultural industries than any other – every £1 the Arts Council puts in generates another £2 from commercial sources.
Meanwhile, although the cultural avant garde may initially seem inaccessible, their work often turns out to shape entire artistic movements that generate huge revenues. Think of composers such as Arnold Schoenberg. We wouldn’t have had punk rock if it hadn’t been for him.
Given the failure of politicians from all parties to understand and articulate the value of the arts, any notion that the coalition will implement massive cuts without touching artists is utterly fanciful. Cuts will mean less money for artists and less art.
The results will also be less outreach work – workshops where poets, artists and musicians go into classrooms and attempt to engage children with what they do. Only a small minority need be affected by the experience for it to be entirely worthwhile. After all, only a very small minority become Olympians. Outreach projects are an essential part of widening access to the arts to include those who would never be able to afford the cultural experiences the wealthier take for granted.
We should ask why parents take their children to museums and galleries – particularly those made free by Labour – encourage them to learn to play a musical instrument or take dance lessons. It is surely not because they are convinced that their child is the next Schubert, Picasso or Nureyev, but because of the priceless value that this learning experience will have.
Artists are, in many ways, like entrepreneurs. They have the creative and inquiring minds that allow them to bring us wonderful things that no one had thought possible. They are innovators and they are inspirational. This is surely reason enough to widen access to the arts as much as possible – tackling poverty of aspiration is vital in the encouragement of social mobility and equality of opportunity.
Even in uncertain economic times, we should acknowledge that funding artists has a utilitarian value and is a good thing in itself. Cutting arts funding is both short-sighted and mean-spirited. It deprives us of a future source of jobs and revenue. Most importantly, it will deprive millions of Britons of the chance to see, hear and experience something that has the capacity to change their lives.
Benjamin Fox is parliamentary advisor to the Socialist Group’s Vice-Chairman of the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. He is also chairman of GMB Brussels
