The case for the defence

The past ten years have been peculiar times for the arts. Under the Labour government pots of money were thrown at culture. But strings came with this funding, requiring art to serve political ends. While there has been cash it has been less for culture and more for schemes promoting social inclusion, community issues and urban renewal.

Rather than rebel against these demands the Arts Council has been at the vanguard. As a consequence, artists needing support have had to jump through hoops asking more about their sexual identity than about the art form. This has contributed to high-profile failures, as the purpose of projects became disorientated. These include the Public in West Bromwich, which was erected in our name but failed to ignite people’s interest, and other white elephants, such as the unpopular National Centre for Popular Music. A lot of money has been wasted.

At first the calls for the chop were only whispers behind the scenes. Then, in the spring, a closed-door colloquium brought together arts leaders with the chief executive, Alan Davey, for a frank exchange, concluding with an informal vote on its future. The majority of attendees proposed abolition.

Soon after, the increasingly prominent right-wing think tank the New Culture Forum published a report, ‘The Arts Council: Managed to Death’ by Marc Sidwell, advocating that it be removed and that the nine regional arts councils be directly funded by the Department of Culture Media and Sport.

Since then, there has been a cascade of criticism at every step the council takes. Arts professionals, policy wonks and journalists have lined up to complain that it funds the wrong bodies the wrong way, that it’s too politically correct — or not correct enough — that it isn’t making judgments — or that it is making too many — and that it should go, with mutterings about government taking on the responsibility.