Who would follow the US model of funding the arts? The U.K.
UK arts funding to undergo radical overhaul is a depressing article about the cuts happening to the arts in the U.K. The cuts will be made to the Arts Council England total giving, which will reduce total funding by £100m--nearly 25% of its budget, which could equate into 100 organizations loosing their funding. The ACE will attempt to make the recipients more accountable for public support, and larger recipients will be urged to help smaller organizations with plant and labor.
The alleged theory behind these cuts and modifications are said to be "dynamic and ambitious, so the arts aren't going to die in this period, they are going to thrive" Which is an interesting theory, who knew less money meant you were going to thrive?
The goal is to make the decrease as least painful as possible. The necessary cuts will be made in a transparent manner, over the course of the next 10 years. The goal being that larger organizations will help support the smaller ones.
This idea is ridiculous to me. It appears that they are trying to put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig. Cuts to the arts are never good, and no UK, the arts do not somehow thrive with less money. This news should come to as a shock to those stalwart arts advocates who believe that the UK model is efficient and sustainable. Turns out they have finally run out of money.
I think there is some truth to the idea that people do better with less money. Before you freak out, read on. With a tighter budget organizations must be creative and careful with their spending. I am by no means advocating drastic cuts in funding to the arts. However, I am suggesting that companies become more fiscally responsible with the money they have and prepare themselves for the possibility of cuts.
ReplyDeleteI wrote a few posts about this for Chet's class last quarter. Many of these organizations have never been run without being almost fully supported by the government. In their desperation, they are turning to the current U.S. model of non-profit arts funding as an example moving forward. This makes me cringe...we are already having trouble in this country, which has an enormous history of philanthropy and monetary support by the public. What will happen when these UK arts organizations attempt to remain in existence while relying on a public whose idea of philanthropy may not involve the arts? The UK needs to figure out something-and fast. And if they do, please pass it our way!
ReplyDeleteHistory is cyclical. Perhaps the climate in the UK supports public funding. Just because we are having difficulties with our system within our own country doesn't mean it can't work somewhere else.
ReplyDeleteAlso, maybe arts organizations in the UK will appreciate their money more if they actually have to work for it rather than expecting to get certain sums from their government.
I am by no means implying that the United States doesn't need to change. However, the changes that need to be made are not limited to the funding model for the arts and other nonprofits.