Hand-wringing over hapless Arts Council England
NewsThe Observer/Guardian outdoes itself today with an editorial that gives itself a hernia in its efforts not to offend. Here’s all you need to read:
… The classical music sector feels particularly aggrieved, rallying behind its highest-profile casualty, English National Opera, which – after a period of hard bargaining – will for the next five years lead a dual life between its old London home, the Coliseum, and Manchester. The deep fears among classical musicians that “nobody is listening to us” at a time of exceptional hardship were articulated last year by John Gilhooly, chairman of the Royal Philharmonic Society, who suggested that ACE should recognise that “for the entire nation to prosper we need London to prosper”, and that it should adapt its levelling up strategy “to embrace this new landscape”.
In the other camp, an open letter to Dame Mary (Archer) last week, signed by 249 arts leaders representing 220 organisations around the country – including many from London – made a case broadly in favour of the current policy, while voicing their own fears of a “concerted effort” in some quarters to give the impression that the arts world was in open revolt against ACE….
What’s the point of an editorial that cannot bring itself to take sides?
Any idea who wrote it?
Any idea about who writes any of the stuff on GMG? In fact any idea about where GMG stands on anything beyond BLM, the depths of Islamaphobia amongst the white working class, Boomers boo hoo! and it’s ambivalence on anti-semitism whilst full throated anti-Israeli reporting on behalf of Hamas? Who writes the stuff is secondary to how most of the stuff gerts written in the first place.
Any idea who wrote it…certainly wasn’t you, was it?
I have no idea who was behind the editorial – but have spotted an arts critic on the Observer who on more than one occasion has described a pianist’s performance as “magnificent”, despite many disastrously wrong notes. Although having tin ears is no disqualification for commenting on policy, their team is clearly not universally top notch at the moment.
if wrong notes are your criterion for how good a performance is, Alfred Cortot has a few words for you
Ooh, Cortot, an expert speaks! You are off the point. The performances in question were hack work by a staff pianist at the Royal Opera House and (unlike Cortot and other great pianists) his relentless failed notes were not musical, just embarrassing and not ready to be put in front of a paying audience. They did not deserve mention, except negatively, never mind the word “magnificent”. I assure you that the reviewer I have in mind has never heard a Cortot recording but is probably a friend of said hack. Not worthy of the great paper that the Observer used to be.
Have to agree with you, Norman. My guess is the majority of the editorial board sympathizes with the arts community, but it was decided that would run afoul of their rigid insistence on siding with the “progressive” perspective come hell or high water. Hence the mealy-mouthed nonsense.
The Arts Council works for the most right-wing Conservative government in history, following its directives to slash funding based upon two main principles: first, that they think too much public money is given to the arts; and secondly, to weaken the ability for art to challenge aspects of their own views. Quite where you got the idea that current arts funding plans are “progressive” are anybody’s guess!
Perhaps it’s less about Progressive v Conservative than the general feeling amongst the ignorant in both camps that classicsl music has ” had its day” and needs to be wound down freeing up resources for purposes – “woke” or “anti woke” – to taste. Its rubbish of course and dangeros rubbish too but I genuinely doubt its mainly down to one or other side in politics.
‘The most right wing.. of the day’
Good grief, what planet do you inhabit. This current Conservative Party is almost more left wing than Starmer and Co.
Two wings of the same party as Gore Vidal said many years ago.
Spot on. Oscar Wilde said that a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. For cynic, read ‘The Arts Council of England” and for someone read ‘an organisation’.
Their motto: ‘If it won’t fit on a spreadsheet, it’s worthless’.
The CEO of struggling Northern Ballet recently told soon to be unemployed members of his orchestra that he is not allowed to publicly criticise the Arts Council. Even better, he admitted that he is expected to take every opportunity to publicly thank them for their support! Not even the sight of other arts bosses finally putting their heads above the parapet has persuaded him to grow a pair and change course. No doubt he will be rewarded in due course!
It really is time for arts admin to understand that their role is to promote the Arts not to kill it!
As far as the arts go, it’s worse than Stalin’s Russia. For all the evil they brought about, at least they supported the arts, including orchestras, opera houses and companies and individual artists. You could go to see an opera or concert for peanuts.
Yes, I know – the price of that was that you had to keep your mouth shut, but at least in terms of arts sponsorship they could not be faulted.
“For all the evil they brought about, at least they supported the arts”
It’s good to hear that Stalin managed to achieve some form of balance.
Where to begin!! What defines ENO? Is it the orchestra and chorus with a magnificent reputation or is it the Coliseum and it’s ‘directors’? Who does the ACE grant support? Pardon me for believing the ENO orchestra and chorus are the heart of ENO and should be the beneficiaries. They have been cast aside with no consideration for the human costs involved while the country is paying in one day for illegal immigrants to be put up in luxury hotels for the same cost that would support ENO for a year! We are supposed to be a compassionate country according to the chancellor in a speach last year, where does government/ACE compassion begin and end.
I trust that ACE/ government will someday admit that the funding is supporting an ailing Coliseum and the inflated salaries and bonuses of it’s directors who have dissociated themselves from ENO!
“luxury hotels”, not just “hotels”?
This is a total misrepresentation of the ob/g article. The editorial makes the point that quibbling about how inadequate funding is distributed is not the main issue. The point is a good one.
That is not so. The main point, if there is one, is that ‘the state’ has failed the arts. In the same breath it maintains the pretence of ‘arm’s length’ funding through a quasi-autonomous ACE.
“its new crop of client organisations need time to demonstrate that excellence comes in many forms. It would be a disaster for everyone if the foundational principle of arm’s-length funding, free from political whim and the short-termism of the political cycle, was undercut.”
That’s a pretty robust conclusion. Even the most illiberal reader must surely realise that Mary Archer has been appointed by the current government because they know exactly what she is going to say. Fortunately the recipients of her report are overwhelmingly likely to be a government led by a Guildhall flautist and an unashamed lover of Glyndebourne.
If you’re talking about Angela Rayner, we know she went once at the invitation of someone else. Does that really make her “an unashamed lover”? I went to a football match once, but …….
How much difference is the flautist going to make after July 4th? There’s little money washing around at the moment and a lot of people with very high expectations.
And more pressing needs…
There really is a musical instrument named a flaute? Per Sir James Galway — I play a flute!
“Flutist” – American English. “Flautist” – British English, and that’s according to “Webster’s” – America’s ‘most trusted’ Dictionary. According to an entry Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flute the Oxford English Dictionary states that “Flutist” is recorded as early as 1603, whereas “Flautist” doesn’t appear in writing until until 1860 and development from Italian “Flautista” is up for debate.
Interesting that the Guardian which on would have expected to be in favour of public funding for the arts sits on the fence when public funding is decimated.
Except that it didn’t. In the full article, it makes the clear, unambiguous argument that people in the creative arts are being manipulated into fighting over funding, in order to mask the fact that the amount of funding on offer is derisory. The reason you don’t know that is because Norman Lebrecht has a personal bias of some kind against The Guardian, and Norman Lebrecht has deliberately chosen to not tell you the whole story, to suit the perspective that he wants you to think.
Where the Guardian is right is that it is pointless arguing over crumbs. Where they are wrong is the suggestion that another government can provide the magical cake.
A continuous public spending cash drain on social services, health and housing, as well as the after effects of the pandemic has left us with chronic national debt. No one likes talking about this. The government now pays around 120 billion in interest alone on that every year, a record high. If anyone thinks a new government can afford to put the arts higher on their shopping list, they haven’t understood the problem.
I profoundly disagree with you, JB. I’ve been saying ever since the start of austerity in 2010 that I would rather pay more tax than see public services decimated. 14 years later, the country is in a parlous state, with public services and infrastructure falling apart, and the costs of fighting the blazing fires of under-investment mounting endlessly higher. Yet the Chancellor thought it appropriate to spend billions cutting the National Insurance tax – twice. The UK has one of the lowest tax takes in the western world. More investment is needed, but it is possible to live in a thriving society without spending vast amounts of extra money. If current arts spending would make a meaningful difference elsewhere it might be necessary to cut, but public arts spending in England direct from central funds to institutions is, I believe, less than £0.4 billion per year – under £10 per person. This amount represents little more than a rounding error when compared to other departmental budgets. The major performing arts institutions in the UK didn’t see their routine funding rise above inflation during the economic boom years of the 90s and 00s. I think that’s reasonable enough, as long as funding is protected during lean years, but all we’ve seen is cut after cut. This government’s attitude to the nation’s cultural assets has been deplorably irresponsible, and we’re seeing more and more of the miserable consequences play out. There’s no end in sight as long as this lot are in charge and we need change now
“and we need change now”
Well you’re going to get a change of “lot” in July, but don’t hold your breath. The definitions of our “cultural assets” vary, and are certainly not the same as they were several decades ago.
Ye well blame Covid and the hysterical response to see why the country is in crisis. You CANNOT SHUT DOWN AN ECONOMY and then expect everything to be fine
With a wages bill of c. £28.5m the ACE is over-bloated.
By trying to see both sides, The Guardian at least recognises there IS another side to the arts funding debate.
Unlike you Norman.
By the way how’s the overthrow of the arts council going, now that the Archer Review is dead in the water?