Arts funding: Update
I was speaking to the yesterday about the implications of its much-heralded autumn spending cuts on arts institutions.
I asked if there might be some scope for Lottery money allocated to the arts - which is increasing from the current 16% of the total pot to 18% next year and 20% the year after - to be set aside to help lessen the effect of the cuts on struggling theatres, galleries, arts centres and so on in much the same way as the Arts Council England's Sustain Fund did during the recent credit-crunch-induced recession.
The department said such an initiative might be possible, although it refused to confirm one way or the other, recognising perhaps that hopes of an increase in philanthropy will have their limits - particularly for regional arts bodies.
An arts journal by 
Comment number 1.
At 22nd Jul 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:See Hunt and Vaizey - cost cutters to HMG, just arrived from the opposition benches, absolute amateurs with no experience.... witness on stage their p**t falls as the learn the ropes, live, before your very eyes - see as they turn from (moderately) fresh faced youths to jaded old men in the blink of an eye.
Roll up! Roll up! and come inside to the very last chance to see....!!!!
Everything in the arts has always been fundamentally a commodity, just like soap powder. Except that the 'claim' made is that it washes the attendees brains a different hue. There have always been choices to be made - and on very many occasions the wrong choices are made!
Short term objectives, such as the saving of the jobs of the civil servants and ministers win over the support for the arts( and indeed sport not forgetting the S in DCMS).
Is it better to have less 'art'(or sport) subsidised to the same level as today or the same 'art'(or sport) with the same share of subsidy as before from the smaller pot? I would recommend the latter, but, I am afraid, the former will be implemented.
(The logic behind this is the same logic that I have advocated elsewhere on the wider economic front - do not make people redundant to reduce the wage bill but reduce everyone's pay. The effect of this is that social inequality is reduced; rather than increased as would be the case if the same wage is paid to fewer people and others are put on the dole. This objective is avowedly political and I don't make any attempt to deny it! Something good should come from this adversity.)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 24th Jul 2010, ArtFan wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)