There is nothing like a supportive opinion poll to cajole politicians into action. So it may be more than mere coincidence that at the beginning of the year, shortly before the Department of Culture, Media and Sport announced it had allocated £12 million in new funding for the strategic development of the cultural sector, that Arts Council England published a report revealing widespread support for public funding of the arts.
The Arts in England report contained findings from a national survey into public engagement with the arts conducted by the Office of National Statistics for the Arts Council of England between September 2003 and January 2004. Of more than 6,000 participants in the study, 79% said they thought the arts should receive public funding and over 90% of respondents had attended at least one art-related event within the past twelve months. Overall, the findings were extremely positive and reflect the Arts Council’s chairman Sir Christopher Frayling’s optimism that we are now living in a golden age for the arts.
The £12 million in new funding was earmarked specifically for a new leadership programme that aims to develop the skills of future arts leaders. The Cultural Leadership Programme will commence in April 2006 and run for two years before it is reviewed at the end of 2008. The form the programme will take is still to be decided and Arts Council England, which is leading development of the programme in conjunction with other sector partners, has published Cultural Leadership Programme – A call for ideas outlining the scope of the proposed programme. The Arts Council will be accepting submissions on the proposal from all interested parties until 14th October.
The Cultural Leadership Programme is being billed as an important step towards achieving a sustainable and inclusive arts sector. In its consultation document, Cultural Leadership Programme – a call for ideas, the Arts Council states the proposed aims of the programme as to: embed strong leadership in the cultural sector, and enhance the diversity of our current and future leaders. The programme will thus target individuals across the racial/cultural divide.
The intention is to equip them with the skills to run organisations that will win the approval of both audiences and artists. In addition these cultural leaders will receive stipends to allow them to pursue personal development objectives and facilitate developing networks with other leaders to ensure the cross-pollination of ideas and sharing of best practice across the arts and other industry sectors. That’s the theory although it remains to be seen how this will work in practice.
The consultation document is intentionally, some might say typically, vague. The most obvious barrier to achieving the programmes aims will be creating the time in which to do so, given that ‘lack of time’ is the reason senior arts managers and executives consistently give for not being able to pursue goals and objectives which fall outside their list of urgent considerations.
Difficulties in execution aside, the government’s decision to publicly support the long-term personal and professional development of the people at the head of arts organisations is a welcome shot in the arm. It is also an acknowledgement of the growing public support for cultural activities in the UK. As well as the survey results, it is alleged that more people visited museums last year than attended sporting events. But at the same time, much has been made of the managerial deficiencies of senior staff within some of the country’s most famous institutions. As has the somewhat embarrassing fact that a number of high profile arts leadership positions (South Bank, Saddlers Wells, etc.) are currently filled by non-UK citizens, because there wasn’t anyone of the appropriate calibre locally available.
So far there has been little, if any, criticism written about the proposed Cultural Leadership Programme. It is regarded, along with its more exclusive cousin, the Clore Leadership Programme – set up solely for the development of the upper echelon of arts leaders – as a sure step in the right direction. It is heading along the path that will lead to improved programming and more stable organisations, capable of supporting the work of more and better artists.
But will it work? The Arts Council’s consultation document, whilst it sets out the scope of the proposal, says little about the processes by which it will achieve it’s vague aims. The call for submissions will undoubtedly yield comments from the main (i.e. well-funded and with available human resources to allocate to such a task as responding to government documents) arts and cultural organisations. However probably very little will come from the smaller grassroots companies and collectives who have neither the time nor the declared interests (given they are not the subject of the proposed programme) to respond.
The danger here, however, is that these proposals are invoking a top-down approach to arts management where arts leaders are segregated from arts workers and artists themselves, by definition and through specialist training. It was Chancellor Gordon Brown who stated in his 2005 Budget speech, “To help improve the business impact of cultural creativity, the Government will provide £12 million over two years from 2006/07 to Arts Council England and others to promote excellence in management and leadership within the cultural sector.”
The fact that the purpose towards which this money could be spent was chosen by the Chancellor and not by Arts Council executives indicates that, as reported by The Guardian’s Charlotte Higgins in February, the government is ‘”becoming more prescriptive”, ring-fencing more and more funds for specific purposes.’
In the same article Sir Christopher himself is quoted as saying that he fears the arms-length principle – established at the time of the Arts Council’s postwar foundation so artists would be free from political agendas – “may be slowly ebbing away”.
If the Cultural Leadership Programme is structured in such a way as it removes arts leaders from the core of artists and instead aligns them more closely with government-controlled agencies and funding bodies, then it could do more than just fail to meet its ambitious aims.
To download a copy of the Cultural leadership programme: a call for ideas, CLICK HERE
