How much is enough?

It's time for the arts to put its own figure on the value of the arts and to make a more robust, coherent case for their continued funding, argues STUART McLAUGHLIN,of Business2Arts

IN THE TIME that I have worked closely with the arts community, I have observed and often commented on the lack of evidence and rationale behind many of the cases for funding that are presented by the sector. In the good times this was no obstacle to a steadily increased share of public funding (but was almost certainly a restricting factor). However, now that circumstances are more challenging, the absence of data and a robust case, especially when set against the departmental bedfellows of sport and tourism, is extremely damaging.

While measures are finally being taken to establish the economic value of the arts, this information comes to the table very late. With this in mind, I believe the sector needs to take what it tells us and develop a different and bolder approach to how it makes its case to Government.

In my view, the only plausible case to be made for arts funding is for the sector to calculate the correct level of funding for itself and base a case on this which is fundamentally supported by fact. Not the current level of funding, not the Celtic Tiger level, not the Bord Snip level, but the right level.

By the right level, I mean a level of funding that enables us to have an arts sector that both creates world-class work for the enjoyment of audiences in Ireland, and supports our reputation overseas. I mean a level that enables our institutions to operate for the enjoyment, education and benefit of their stakeholders, and at the same time provides for the development of new talent, which will rise and feed the pool.

This approach, providing a specific rationale linked to an economic case, would set the arts community apart from the many groups that are merely defending current funding positions. This would give credibility to the sector, pre-empting accusations of ongoing naivety about the circumstances we face.

IT IS CLEAR that now is a time for leadership and greater joined-up thinking in the cultural sector. In the face of adversity, this is beginning to happen, often driven from within the arts sector by some of the strong representative bodies. The difficulty remains, though, that the arts is a collection of disparate groups with varying interests rather than a coherent sector. As they gather on the common ground of public subsidy, in which they see the Arts Council as fellow victims, we are being distracted from an assessment of the very organisation charged with administrating the arts itself.

In recent communications from the Arts Council, the public are asked to “take a bow” in acknowledgement of their investment in the arts. But before we take our bow, should we be delighted with our investment regardless of any substantive assessment of the effectiveness of the council, and any realistic accountability or transparency in its approach to funding? Should we pat ourselves on the back for financing an agency that appears to have slipped quietly into the conversation the information that, regardless of any future Bord Snip cuts, it has already sunk €6.9 million of the 2010 budgets in the 2009 spend? While I understand the (flawed) rationale for this, I find the lack of communication on this issue unpalatable both as both a taxpayer and as a board member of two arts organisations.

To seek the support of the taxpayer, we must be able to provide a coherent case which makes sense. These measures may or may not be linked to productivity and man-hours, but they must be linked to efficiency, quality, value for money and impact. This approach should stand alongside the strong intrinsic and social reasons why the arts are an important presence in our lives. These are the questions the taxpayer is asking of our health service, our education system and our national broadcaster, so the arts should answer coherently also.

We require significant reform within the Arts Council if the arts sector is ever to establish itself as an effective voice, and this, I believe, is critical in supporting the case for retaining ministerial representation. In this context, it’s useful to look at the work of Gerry Robinson with Arts Council England. When Robinson became chairman in 1998 and set about transforming the council, his work was underpinned by the belief that efficiency and accountability within the council was necessary before making the case for increased funding to government.

By and large, this approach proved successful in making the case in England, but a similar approach has yet to be applied in Ireland. Almost all structures grow cumbersome over time, especially during growth, and the Arts Council is no exception. Now is a time for radical adjustment, as is happening in the private sector as businesses review and reduce costs, becoming leaner and more efficient.

Perhaps we should look to the model of Culture Ireland for inspiration. As a relatively young organisation it retains an efficient structure with tightly managed resources. Decision-making is linked to clear policy objectives for the promotion of Irish culture in key “markets”. Ironically, An Bord Snip Nua has recommended the withdrawal of Culture Ireland funding despite the fact that the organisation is a beacon of efficiency with a clear link to core messages about the recovery of “brand Ireland” internationally. One hopes that such an uninformed recommendation will not be acted upon.

I realise that some of my ideas will be unpalatable to many. I can already hear the protests of those in the cultural sector, along with questions as to why an organisation such as Business2Arts, which is focused on private funding, might participate in the debate on public funding of the arts. Well, there are a number of reasons.

First, we can only achieve increases in private investment in the arts if we have a fundamentally sound “product” which can guarantee coherence on issues of governance and the entire funding landscape.

Second, three senior business people, in just the past week, have asked me why the arts sector seems to feel it has a right to funding. These individuals are all supporters of the arts, but it is clear that the “noise” they hear from the cultural community does not make the case well. They need to hear why the arts are both economically and intrinsically essential to the new Ireland that is emerging.

AS A TAXPAYER, my thoughts are driven by a genuine passion for our arts and culture and a desire to see them survive and thrive. It is not entirely irrelevant that these thoughts are, in part, informed by the same standards that philanthropists and sponsors often apply in deciding where to invest. The decisions we are party to within Business2Arts reveal that when it comes to personal wealth or that of shareholders, donors take a deep interest in how much funding is required, what will be achieved and how they can evaluate the outcomes. Here, we are talking about public funds, so shouldn’t we feel similar ownership about how our money is spent?

Let us be clear. This is a sector which is already in crisis and which requires radical thinking. A glance at the programming in many of our cultural venues reveals schedules are being stretched, which is not linked to audience demand. Galleries are leaving longer gaps between exhibitions (when they are effectively or partially closed), theatres are dark for far longer periods than usual, audiences are under great pressure, and output from some of our major production companies is far lower than would have been the case previously.

Unless we are honest about the “correction” that is already taking place, we risk further damaging any case for the arts, as their impact and perceived value for money is already in decline. As with all sectors, it is time for an approach that allows the arts to best respond to this “perfect storm” of negative factors and emerge stronger when the situation improves.

Stuart McLaughlin is chief executive of Business2Arts

KEY POINTS

1 I want doesn’t get! Rather than campaigning to defend funding, without making a coherent case, the Arts Council and arts community must calculate and communicate the right level of funding for the arts

2 It’s the economy, stupid! While understanding

and appreciating the intrinsic value of the arts is important for society, we must accept that decisions in this climate will be made on an economic basis

3 A loud voice cannot compete with a clear voice, even if it’s a whisper. Retention of a voice for the arts at the Cabinet table is critical to ensure that the role of culture in society, in the current context, is understood – but the sector must work harder to make the messages clearer

4 Put your own house in order. The current debate on arts funding is distracting from an evaluation of the Arts Council itself. The lack of transparency and inefficiencies in the council’s own structure are damaging its ability to make a case, especially as it campaigns for the hearts and minds of the taxpayer

5 There’s more than one game in town. Private funding will become a major focus in coming years, but the arts sector can only achieve increases in private investment if it has a fundamentally sound “product” which can guarantee a high level of coherence on issues of governance and the entire funding landscape