Arts Council seems distinctly un-excellent…
Clemency Burton-Hill 4:25pm
In Piccadilly Circus this lunchtime, under an apocalyptic grey sky and wearing plain white face masks to evoke the classical symbol of the dramatic trade, a ‘flashmob’ of hundreds of actors, directors and stage professionals gathered on the steps of Eros to silently express their continued grievance with the Arts Council of England (ACE). Today marks the last day of possible appeal for those unlucky arts organizations who were slapped with the shock news just before Christmas that, despite a recent fifty-million pound boost from the DCMS to ACE coffers, they would be losing some or all of their subsidies. These unfortunate organizations, who include in their number London’s much-loved Bush and Orange Tree theatres, were given just over a month to appeal – much of which was taken up with the non-weeks of Christmas and New Year – despite ACE giving them no indication of why they had lost their funding, or what criteria had been employed in the decision-making process.
Today’s eerie silence was in contrast to the rambunctious heckling taking place at the Young Vic theatre last week, packed to the rafters as it was with members of the devastated theatre community (from drama students to superstars such as Kevin Spacey and Sir Ian McKellen). Equity, the actors’ union, had invited Arts Council chief Peter Hewitt along to try and justify the actions of his organisation – and you had to hand it to him, he was brave to show up at all. Such was the anger, despair and confusion in that room last Wednesday that persona non grata Hewitt was forced onto the back foot. Raising his voice belligerently and jabbing his fingers like a lying politician under fire in the House, Hewitt was nevertheless powerless to dispel the implications that he was running an arrogant organization of questionable integrity that was micro-managed to the point of ridicule; held deliberately few theatre professionals in its board of ‘consultants’; operated under a cloud of totally inexcusable secrecy; and had, with its embrace of trendy devised/physical theatre and street drama, pushed traditional, text-based work completely off the agenda.
Indeed, there was little he could say in his defence. I am certain that not a soul in that theatre last week or in Piccadilly Circus today would question Hewitt’s article of faith that ‘an independent Arts Council must be free to make choices’ about the organisations it supports. Of course cultural institutions ‘failing to deliver’ should have their funding called into question. But what is ‘delivering’, in this sense, actually supposed to mean? Our new, remarkably beneficent Culture Secretary James Purnell made a big hoo-hah about ‘excellence’ when he directed that much-needed fifty million towards the arts. But when it comes to theatre, what on earth, pray, is ‘excellence’?
Let’s just be, like, really radical for a moment and suggest that excellence might be, say, putting on plays in a room with a stage in it that lots and lots of people go to see and enjoy. That would seem a pretty good start – but wait a minute, that’s exactly what the doomed Orange Tree and Bush Theatres (to name but two) do, year after year! Both are, by any sane person’s criteria, demonstrably centres of excellence. Guardian drama critic and theatre historian Michael Billington recently called the Orange Tree ‘indispensable’ and points out that it ‘unearths more buried treasure than the National Theatre’. Josie Rourke, artistic director of the Bush, one of Britain’s most treasured crucibles of new writing, made the shocking revelation that, having immediately applied for Freedom of Information documents after receiving the bad news just before Christmas, her team discovered that many of the figures the Arts Council had factored into their decision to cut Bush funds were in fact plain wrong. The announcement that in some cases they had under-recorded Bush audience numbers by two-thirds drew a horrified gasp from the Young Vic audience. As anybody who’s ever tried to book tickets at the Bush will know all too annoyingly well, it’s usually impossible – because the shows are so good they invariably sell out.
So what’s really going on here? Who, and what, is behind these spurious-seeming cuts that have been shrouded in secrecy and executed in such a way that Hewitt’s ACE looks like the worst sort of bully: a cowardly one. It would be a tragedy for London if either the Bush or Orange Tree were to close, but the city, rich as it is in other flourishing theatres, would cope. But what of Exeter’s Northcott Theatre, or Derby’s Playhouse, or all the other local theatrical centres whose futures are now in serious jeopardy? The strangling of British regional theatre in the 1980s and 1990s was one of the most grievous social experiments in recent memory, leaving a cultural vacuum inside many British communities that has not been easy to fill. God forbid we should be about to watch it happen again.
To join the protestors against these secretive and unexplained cuts to some of Britain’s best-loved theatres at a time when the Arts Council has been given extra public money, please sign the petition on the No 10 website at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Stop-the-Cull/.
Previous
Trumpeter Lanfried
January 15th, 2008 4:59pm Report this commentI suppose all the money is going on the Olympics
Recusant
January 15th, 2008 4:59pm Report this commentPlease can you tell me why the nurse and the dustman should be forced to pay for the desire of actors to strut their stuff on a stage? If what they do is good and worthwhile then the audience will pay for it. If not they can do it for free. But why they, and their averagely well-endowed audience, should be involuntarily subsidised by all beats me. Unless, of course, Clemency, you think you know what is best for them.
Daniel
January 15th, 2008 5:30pm Report this commentRecusant, if we were to have a say in where our taxes went all chaos would ensue. (I for one would withdraw my funding from speed cameras and police) This spending falls in my mind under the duty of the government to create a positive environment for us. This may be by encouraging participation in niche sports, through supporting the arts, or even by ensuring we have clean streets. To begrudge this expenditure is rather "mean" - there are significantly greater questions to ask about how they spend our money (Iraq, numerous pointless quangos and so forth). The important fact as Clemency has pointed out, is that they have moved from being a supporter of the arts, to a controlling the arts through faceless, politcally driven bureaucrats. This is horrific, and I urge you all to do as I have just done, and sign the petition. (For all the good it will do!!!)
CBH
January 15th, 2008 5:55pm Report this commentDear Recusant, I appreciate your concerns, but the issue at stake here is not whether or not the government should subsidise the arts at all - an interesting but entirely separate arguement - but, given that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport actually increased the Arts Council subsidy last autumn, why ACE has gone about cutting subsidies to excellently-performing arts institutions without giving a) clear reason why or b) reasonable time to appeal.
Trumpeter Lanfried
January 15th, 2008 6:31pm Report this commentI missed the point about the Arts Council subsidy being increased last year. So th money hasn't gone to the Olypincs, yet. You say whether the government should subsidise the arts at all is an interesting but entirely separate argument. I agree. But whenever you have government subsidy you will get rows like this, because those who lose out will always shout the loudest.
D MItchell
January 15th, 2008 7:52pm Report this commentSo, the budget has increased but several subsidies are being withdrawn. Where, then, is the money going?
Max Kaye
January 15th, 2008 9:20pm Report this commentIs there a petition to abolish ACE? I'd gladly sign up.
William Norton
January 16th, 2008 10:23am Report this commentI may just be being thick here but if the Bush and Orange Theatres are so successful their tickets sell out immediately, um, why do they need a subsidy? Sounds like they're underpricing their tickets. Supply and demand and all that.
Chris Perkin
January 16th, 2008 2:10pm Report this commentWilliam - I think I can go some way to answering your question. If the Bush or Orange Tree were to price their tickets at such a level as to support all their activities I for one would not be able to attend. Subsidy means they can resource new work and pay living wages to artists and arganisers, but it also means tickets can be affordable and more people can attend. It is subsidy, donations AND box office income which keeps theatre vaguely affordable, the quality reasonably high and the audiences strong.
Also, the nurse and dustman are paid by tax-payers. They, like theatre practitioners, teachers and others all contribute greatly to different areas of society which, thankfully, can at least be somewhat insulated from the pressures of supply and demand.
Of course it's a question of priorities and balance and people will disagree but remove any one of the areas mentioned and we would all be significantly poorer.
The debate here is about how the Arts Council have made decisions and implemented very damaging policies with a lack of integrity and transparency.
I would like to add The National Student Drama Festival to the list of institutions threatened by the cuts. It is heartbreaking that the Arts Council does not value this most excellent and useful of organisations.
William Norton
January 17th, 2008 10:41am Report this commentChris Parkin: I take the point about how the Arts Council has gone about making its decisions, which seems typically inept. Frankly, I could control my grief if all those conceptual performance street artists or challenging new sculptors were shot and the money instead went to keep down the cost of a proper theatre ticket at the Bush or the Orange. I've never heard of the National Student Drama Festival but if we have to have an Arts Council (and I accept that we do) then it sounds like the sort of thing it ought to be supporting. Of course, it's the subsidy-dependency mindset that gives the Arts Council the scope to be so damaging through its daft stop-go funding decisions. Which prompts a further thought (to which I don't know the answer): why can't theatres cover the costs of all their activities with a reasonable ticket price?
General Conyers
January 23rd, 2008 7:24pm Report this commentI always thought the Spectator was, broadly speaking, a conservative magazine. (Note small c - I wouldn't want anything to do with the Conservative Party either.) As 'contributing editor' - as I think the fragrant Clemency is - it would be nice to find her championing the only sensible conservative view of the Arts Council: abolish it with all speed. Apart from a few exceptions, it is an engine of liberal/left activity within the arts, indeed it demands that its recipients be so, just check out a form asking for funding. I always find it nicely ironic that after many, many years of liberl/leftist orthodoxies prevailing in arts and education, people are not interesting in seeing liberal/left art and theatre - the reason they are bleating for subsidy. Something has gone wrong. If people wish to create art they will find a way; if it's worth anything it will find an audience. It's really as simple as that.One thing good about abolishing the arts council is that it will give us all chance to survey the true cultural landscape of Britain, which may not be a pretty sight, but will show us just where we are, not where the Arts Council cliques tell us we are.
Back to top