Councils should not subsidise the arts

Socialists (of all parties) like to caricature the debate about arts subsidies as being pro or anti the arts. The idea that unsubsidised art might be better than the subsidised alternative is a notion not even to be contemplated. If a theatre was not subsidised would it necessarily close? Or would it have to put on plays that the public actually wanted to see? There are plenty of successful unsubsidised theatres.

The critique on arts subsidies by Sir Kingsley Amis from over 30 years ago still applies. He said arts subsidies cause:

 "...plays without plots, a canvas entirely covered with black paint offered as a picture, poems that are meaningless patterns of letters - I needn't go on."

Local councils around the country spew out vast sums of money in this area. Often Conservative councils have managed to maintain their art funding by being more efficient. I can understand why this is a point of pride. But whether their arts spending is of any benefit is dubious. In the ward I represent, Ravenscourt Park, there is POSK, the Polish Cultural Centre. It thrives with many artistic events. It has a theatre, a jazz cafe. There is dancing, cabaret, exhibitions.  It has no sibsidy from the council or anyone else that I know of.

Leeds Council owns 11,904 paintings

Last month I noted that the Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary, Hilary Benn, had attacked the Government's advice to councils on 50 Ways to Save.

Mr Benn's complaint was that, included in the suggestions, was one about council's art collections and whether revenue could be obtained by art leasing. He thought this was an absurdly trivial matter.

But are the sums involved really so derisory? Let us take the example of Mr Benn's own council: Labour-run Leeds. In response to a Freedom of Information request they tell me they own 11,904 paintings, drawings and prints and 1,882 sculptures. Their collection is insured for £100 million - it is likely to be worth considerably more.

Councils should sell surplus art works

St Helens Council owns half a million pounds of art works, according to their response to a Freedom of Information request from the St Helens Reporter. The council claims that most of the collection is "regularly" put on public display. How does it justify hanging on to those items that are not?

Often when councillors suggest selling art that is sitting in storage, they are told by council officers that it would be illegal. This is broadly nonsense. Is the law different in Cambridgeshire where the county council sold a Lowry painting for £541,250? Or Leicestershire where paintings worth £170,000 have been sold? Or Bolton? There they have 1,100 paintings worth £16 million of which 50 are on display. They sold some for a few hundred thousand pounds to pay for a new warehouse to store the vast remainder - as the one they had was crumbling and leaking.

The proceeds of sales are not always ploughed back into "arts service." Bury Council sold a Lowry for £1.6 million. The council was reprimanded by the Museum Association and told it would have faced disciplinary proceedings for breaching the "Code of Ethics" had it not already resigned.  It must have cried all the way to the bank.

While Brent Council closes libraries, they spend £20,000 on a new sculpture

Generally the spending cuts applied by local authorities have coincided with council services being maintained or enhanced. However one of the more outrageous exceptions is Labour-run Brent Council which is closing six libraries - while spurning the option of maintaining them with volunteers.

Yet the same council is spending £20,000 on a new sculpture. The brief from the Arts Development Administrator of Brent Council is that it should be "sensitive" to "landmarks such as Wembley Stadium". It sounds as though whatever is approved will be hideous. Not merely wasting £20,000 of public money, but detracting from the new Chalkhill Park, where it will be placed.  There is not just the £20,000 sculpture commission, but the Arts Development Administrator's salary on top, of course. The council is also paying "Scruffbag Productions" to make a film on Olympic values. What sort of madness is this?

I have written a piece published in the current issue of Standpoint magazine about the importance of Boris Johnson dismantling Ken Livingstone's legacy at City Hall in terms of cultural policy. Under Ken, arts spending was politicised with greater regard to nurturing sectional grievances and "diversity",  rather than excellence. There should be competitions, exhibitions, open air concerts - provided they are of merit, and of nil or very modest claim on the Council Taxpayer.  This is a area where I am optimistic that Boris will make strides in his second term.There is less cause for optimism regarding Brent Council.

Leicestershire sells £148,650 of art works found in storage

 
Leicestershire County Council has sold £148,650 worth of items from its art collection. The  items had been left in storage for many years and around another £50,000 is due to be sold.

Offering by Avinash Chandra (pictured) raised £16,000.

Should councils run arts centres?

The BBC online offers some top tips on saving money from a Birmingham fringe meeting with Cllrs David Burbage, Stephen Greenhalgh and Edward Lister.

Among them:

Don't run arts centres. Stick to what councils are good at doing, advised Edward Lister, such as keeping the streets clean and maintaining infrastructure. Don't run arts centres or museums -
outsource them to charitable trusts instead. Not only did doing that save Wandsworth money, and led to a better run theatre, there were now productions "that are actually worth going to - there's no dead hand of Wandsworth Council trying to be an arts organisation. We are no good at things like that. That's not our world," said Mr Lister.

Council officer on £155,000 writes poem on evils of money

Mark Wallace of the Taxpayers Alliance reflects on the hypocrisy of the Executive Director of Resources and Customer Services at Croydon Council

How councils behave in the face of spending cuts is crucial – all eyes will be on them to see how they deport themselves in this entirely new fiscal environment.

Some will embrace the need to be imaginative, creative and radical to find savings. Many more will probably do what is necessary in a more grudging manner. Some may even deliberately pursue cuts that will harm the public in order to sabotage the drive for deficit reduction.

What no-one foresaw, though, was that any of them would start publishing poetry about it.

Yes, you read that right. Nathan Elvery, Executive Director of Resources and Customer Services at Croydon Council, has published a poem in the Municipal Journal (where else?) about the fiscal crisis, entitled “Poetry in Commotion”.

Arts censorship in Newham

What happens in a borough where the theatres are heavily depended on local council subsidy and there is an attempt to put on a play critical of the local council? Censorship.

Mike Law's blog reports on a mess Newham Council has got itself into. They held a prize which was won by playwright Clive Power for his play Hollow my Leader, about a fictional east London borough.

Sample dialogue:

CHRIS: "No, I was talking about your anti-poverty strategy. Your own personal one. Paying yourself a Leader’s allowance of seventy-odd grand a year. And expenses. And large allowances to your leading councillors as well; what effect do you think these payments may have on keeping any opposition in your own party quiet?"

After some clumsy attempts to prevent any performances taking place it as now been allowed to go ahead at the Stratford Circus - provided the theatre doesn't publicise the performance.

Here are the details.

Southwark as the cultural heart of London

Southwark Council are holding an Arts Conference today sponsored by Tate Modern with speakers including the Shadow Arts Minister Edward Vaizey and Munira Murza, the City Hall Culture supremo. Here Cllr Lewis Robinson, Executive Member for Culture Leisure and Sport on Southwark, gives his views.

One of the current fashionable buzzwords on the lips of every politician is “localism”.  I thought in opening this event today I would reflect on what this means for arts and culture and Southwark.

The Arts to date have weathered the current economic downturn better than feared.  A mixture of “staycations” and a weaker currency have seen visits and ticket revenue remain relatively buoyant at national institutions.  But we should all recognise that after the next General Election, the next challenge will be what impact restoring the public finances has on the arts.

And this is where “localism” will come into play.  It would be too easy for Government and local authorities, facing straightened circumstances to say “we don’t do culture” without thinking through the consequences.

However, in Southwark, like Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea, we have a unique combination of local, national and international institutions providing a cultural backbone to the Borough, running from the Dulwich Picture Gallery, South London Gallery, to the Tate Modern and the raft of other organisations
along the Southbank represented here today.

Barnet does do culture

Between now and the next General Election seldom with a cabinet minister's speech be complete without some invented or distorted quote from a Tory Council leader. In the case of Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw he always quotes the Barnet Council leader Cllr Mike Freer as saying: "We don't do culture in Barnet." Bradshaw said it in his Labour Party Conference speech. He said it in his Progress lecture. It shows he believes in recycling. But the problem for Bradshaw is that the quote, offered unsourced and without context, is not true.

Cllr Freer says:

What we said is that given the financial straightjacket the Council has operated in for the past eight years, we have had to make hard choices on our budgets. We have said we can't do everything and we had five key priorities and we have aligned our budgets accordingly. That meant we did not spend large sums of money on the Arts, we retained our grant to the Artsdepot and devolved the culture development officer to them. in a broadly middle class area we took the decision that our residents would buy theatres/arts if they chose and we would spend council tax on education, making the borough cleaner, greener etc. We have of course invested considerable sums on our Libraries (which is culture) to make them modern,. Relevant and fit for purpose.

If Mr Bradshaw thinks dancing topless at Glastonbury is culture then I think we've got it right and he's got in wrong. The fact that Labour Cabinet Ministers spend so much time attacking Barnet, suggests we've got it right.