Should art be funded by the government?
Arts funding is a contentious issue and has been for decades, as the rise of the phrase “Mickey Mouse degrees” entirely proves. The advent of modern art did little to help the perception that it was a vacuous hobby for self-indulgent rich kids, and its social benefits are often outweighed by the objective weirdness of the artworks cynics will use as an example of its worthlessness. But the creative industries have always been more than a middle-class venture, although the stronghold of generational wealth dominates regardless. If anything, that in itself is an argument in favour of arts funding because cuts to it will only entrench the cultural class divide further.
The blow of the Covid crisis, swiftly followed by the cost of living crisis, has effectively doubled the financial blows being weathered by UK arts venues across the country, which has given rise to all manner of debates about funding allocations. Local authorities remain the largest public funder of the arts, and some councils are being forced to slash or abandon budgets altogether.
As Jack Gamble, CEO of Campaign for the Arts, put it to the Guardian: “This funding crisis is fast becoming a national emergency.” Gamble said English councils have effectively halved their cultural investment since 2010, the cultural impact of which is playing out now, with venues resorting to crowdfunding, closing, or price-gouging, each option as bleak as the last.
There is also a definitive regional disparity when discussing arts funding. So much so the government announced plans to deliver 21.8% of Arts Council England (ACE) funding to regions outside of London in its 2023 – 2026 investment portfolio. London still gets the lion’s share, with an annual 152 million compared to The Midlands’ 84 million. Those numbers will likely appal some people, particularly during times when record numbers of people are relying on food banks. In the face of a genuine economic emergency, arts funding quite naturally seems trivial.
But others have countered that art is an essential social tool. ACE points to “social prescribing” as a vital tool, linking vulnerable members of the public with volunteer-led arts activities. The NHS too recognises publically funding arts spaces, with one testimony on their website declaring: “To say that art saved my life is an understatement; it has transformed it beyond any recognition of what it used to be,” after accessing classes through social prescribing.
The arts sector contributes massively to the economy, but that’s a virtually pointless endorsement if it’s not accessible to all. Arts funding taking a backseat is a natural consequence of the financial and Covid crisis, but those arguing the government shouldn’t fund it likely don’t realise the social benefits.
Nobody, I’d hope, is saying the taxpayer should start raining money on performance artists and niche improv theatre groups. But when there’s a direct benefit in the wider community and the economy, the conversations about the crackdown on arts funding need to be more nuanced. The idea of “arts funding” is also too non-specific. What exactly are we referencing? Are we prizing glue sticks out of the hands of children doing year three art lessons or capping the number of students able to study creative courses? It’s the UK, so obviously, both are true.
When Rishi Sunak decided to cap the number of students doing “low-value” university degrees, it was a declaration that not only was the government uninterested in funding arts degrees, but also that they were considered less worthy. Using employment prospects as the only measure of that is entirely misguided. Art can be intensely political, putting a visual face to historic injustices and important social movements. It can also be devastatingly beautiful, weird, and tasteless. If you limit access to that on the basis that the job prospects aren’t great, the only people making it will be those who can afford it regardless.
Diluting access to art, either through funding or a vocal disdain for its inherent value, is a complete misstep by the government and one that will ultimately affect the quality of the art we see in the future. University courses should be accessible to all backgrounds, but instead, we’re drifting towards an upper-class monopoly which will only reinforce all preconceived ideas about bad art. Creativity should require courage and a diversity of voices, not rich parents. A crackdown on arts funding is a crackdown on good art, on the cultural industries at large, grassroots venues doing their best to survive, and even the most established venues in the country – because if enough people are dissuaded from engaging in art, they’ll be nothing worth seeing there.
