“Culture Vultures; Is UK arts policy damaging the arts?”

In a controversial new report entitled, “Culture Vultures; Is UK arts policy damaging the arts?” Arts academics and cultural commentators argue that the current agenda-driven government policies for the arts are in fact damaging the arts in the UK.

Art lies at the very heart of society and its needs, but as yet there has been little success in attempting to quantify it as one can quantify the quality of water. This is the central issue that continues to dog arts policy makers, academics, commentators, audiences and artists alike.

How do we actually go about understanding and assessing the value of culture?
How do we speak about the arts without degenerating into quasi-scientific nonsense or teary-eyed sentimentality? Perhaps the question of valuing art is inextricably bound up with the valuing of human life, the environment, the creative impulse in all its forms and other essential issues that rarely get onto the policy agenda-trail.

In the report published by Policy Exchange, a leading UK think tank , the findings are that Government policy (despite all its good intentions) has created a Culture of Bad Art. The “Culture Vultures” report shows how official claims about the social benefits of art are based on exaggeration, and that arts practice suffers as a result. The controversial report will be launched on Tuesday February 7th 2006 at Policy Exchange’s offices in London.

Munira Mirza, arts commentator, broadcaster and editor of the report says; “Politicians today often claim that the arts are now not only good in themselves, but make a vital contribution to the economy, urban regeneration and social inclusion. But is there actually any evidence to support this ? This collection of essays shows that many of the claims made about the social benefits of arts are exaggerated, resulting in wasteful projects of poor artistic quality.” Mirza adds, “The responsibilities of artistic excellence is simply not enough. Artists and cultural organisations are under greater pressure to prove they can transform society.” Mirza clearly “…welcomes the much-needed long-term cash injections administered by this Government…(but) The problem with Government funding these days is that it comes with strings attached.”

Andrew Brighton, former Head of Events at Tate Modern and an arts writer, agrees: “…The autonomy of expertise, which is crucial to the integrity of the arts, has been undermined. Many artists are beginning to feel that their work is only valued if they can prove it has a social impact.”

Josie Appleton author of “Museums for People” goes a step further, arguing that, “This arrangement favours PR types, not serious artists- the kinds of people who can hold smooth workshops and keep everybody onboard.” Appleton suggests that despite all the improbable claims made about art, …” art cannot give people an identity, or make up for the lack of neighbourhood services…”

Munira Mirza astutely points out that this ” …mantra of creativity can often sound like nothing more than political displacement activity,” and that we might do better to appreciate something like Tate Modern as “…part of our cultural landscape rather than as a “solution” to the poor infrastructure and housing provisions in inner city London.” She adds, with intended irony,” New housing construction is at its lowest point since 1924.”

The report claims that Government arts spending has become skewed by the ”social inclusion” agenda and the “cultural regeneration” agenda and warns of a “culture of mediocrity”, resulting in ineffective and inappropriate social policies. Munira Mirza, says…”Whilst this government has given generous funding to the arts, the evidence suggests that they have been damaged as a result. Official thinking is slave to bureaucratic policy targets rather than the spirit of creativity.”

The contributing authors are a mixture of influential academics and cultural commentators, who articulate the failure of arts-based projects funded by the Arts Council and DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) to deliver on promised goals.

“If you read the policy literature, it seems uncontroversial that the arts can
stimulate economic growth, reduce social exclusion and improve our health –
in short transform our society. Yet, as this book seeks to show, there is
surprisingly little evidence for these claims,” Mirza argues.

The authors also aim their fire at local authorities, one of the largest funding groups of the arts in Britain. James Heartfield writer and lecturer in Cultural regeneration at Westminster University comments, “…Local authorities have also turned to cultural regeneration as a phoney substitute for real economic revival. For the residents of those cities, much-needed economic regeneration has been put on hold. Instead of renewing infrastructure, every municipal government has prettified cities with flowers, festivals, paintings and sculptures.”

Dr. Eleonora Belfiore, of Warwick University adds that the Government’s discussion about the social impact of the arts relies on what she describes as, “…A very selective use of the available information and evidence. The growing trend towards instrumentality (bureaucratising) has not been slowed down by the obvious lack of evidence of the existence of such impacts”. Belfiore also cites the problem of what she calls, “ the evidence dilemma.” Suggesting that this search for evidence ( of the arts’ social impact ) leads us to hasten after the often expensive and unlocatable “holy grail” of proof. Professor Belfiore maintains that current cultural policy excludes the issue of ethics. She quotes Paola Merli; who goes much further. Merli believes that current arts policy is predicated on the assumption that…” the poor should be soothed through “therapeutic” artistic activities.” These are the issues at the very bottom of our cultural barrel and it’s clear that the dredging-up of them is vital if we are to re-organise and re-prioritise the arts in this country.

Josie Appleton, points out the phenomenal growth in spending on “public art” in town spaces: “In 2002, the National Lottery reported that in the previous six years it had spent £72.5million on 1500 public art projects. In the 1990s, 659 permanent sculptures were built ; meaning that today, we are building six times as many sculptures than during the highest point of “statue-mania” between 1900-1909.” But, no one asks about the quality of the art; “Today’s public art is not really the expression of community values or desires: It’s driven by officialdom. The regeneration industry has become a law unto itself, developing its own standards and methods for evaluating public art,” says Appleton.

As Munira Mirza points out, the criteria for funding means that organisations are drowning under a tidal wave of ticking boxes and attaining targets. These kinds of bureaucratic strategies are all bent on “measuring and proving” the social impact of the arts. This is the one thing that cannot be done as the tool for measuring this has yet to be invented.

“For many people working in the sector, the requirement to collect data represents a growth of state power and bureaucracy,” states Professor Sara Selwood, at City University and leading expert on arts policy.

The report has made recommendations to Whitehall and arts quangos:

1. More honest and independent use of evidence in cultural policy. Too much
research is driven by arts advocacy and is therefore biased.

2. Less bureaucracy around arts funding. The funding framework forces artists
to spend valuable time and resources on ‘ticking boxes’, at the expense of producing excellent work.

3. Debate about the true value of the arts. The government and arts quangos
should promote the importance of art for its own sake.

Culture Vultures: Is UK arts policy is damaging the arts?, edited by Munira Mirza, is published by the independent think tank Policy Exchange, London. And is sponsored by the City of London.

The chapters focus on the impact of the arts in the fields of urban regeneration, the economy, health and wellbeing, public space and community cohesion, and social inclusion.

The contributors are:

Josie Appleton, Author and Arts and Cultural commentator.

Dr. Eleonora Belfiore, Research Fellow in Centre for Cultural Policy Studies
at Warwick University specialising in the social impact of the arts.

Andrew Brighton, Former Head of Events at Tate Modern and arts writer.

James Heartfield, Writer and lecturer on cultural regeneration at the University of Westminster.

Munira Mirza, Writer/broadcaster on arts and multiculturalism University of Kent.

Professor Sara Selwood, Head of Cultural Policy and Management at City University and the country’s leading expert on arts statistical trends.

What a lot of art policy rhetoric fails to grasp is that Art is essentially an individual activity and an individual experience. Art can certainly promote a sense of connectivity and discussion but it is no panacea for poverty, lack of employment, status-anxiety and isolation – ( incidentally all these difficulties are commonly experienced by artists themselves. )

“Culture Vultures: Is UK arts policy damaging the arts?” is a great read. Each of the contributors bring with them a wealth of experience, expertise, perspicacity and wit. They plainly say what the many have not dared to say for far too long. They take the Emperor’s New Clothes of “arts policy rhetoric” and strew the imaginary items before us like a carnival-esque re-enactment of our arts-funding history.

By turns disturbing, funny, excruciating, thought-provoking and informative it is a must-read for artists, organisations, policy-makers and interested members of the public. Get a copy now, or better still attend the launch, hear the guest speakers and purchase the book on the night.

The Launch Event: