Arts and cultural centres across England are at a “tipping point” as many face closure or restricted operations without continued public investment, the chair of Arts Council England has warned before next month’s government spending review.
Sir Nicholas Serota, who runs the body that distributes public funds to arts organisations ranging from national institutions to community-based ventures, said it would be a tragedy if people outside big cities were denied access to the arts.
Serota said: “The arts have been on standstill funding since 2010 and [organisations] have shown themselves to be enormously inventive and resilient in finding new sources of funds and working in new ways. But there is a limit to what can be achieved.
“It would be a tragedy if we were not able to maintain momentum.”
The government’s spending review on 11 June is expected to focus on growth and key public services, giving rise to fears that budgets for other sectors may be hit.
A report, Leading the Crowd, published by Arts Council England (Ace) on Friday, found that public funding in arts and culture attracts additional investment from the private sector, a phenomenon known as “crowding in”.
It says: “Public investment acts as a catalyst … These funds help organisations attract philanthropic support, sponsorship and grow their commercial income streams.”
Private investors confirmed to the report’s authors that “decisive public investment … was critical to their willingness to invest and to the scale of their support”.
Investment may come from corporate bodies, universities and philanthropic organisations. Arts and culture organisations also generate revenue from ticket sales, shops, cafes and venue hire. Public funding represents 15-20% of most arts bodies’ income.
The report cites a number of case studies, including the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art in Gateshead, the Lowry in Salford Quays, Manchester, and the Royal Shakespeare Company in Stratford-upon-Avon, which have secured significant private investment on top of public funds.
“The investment of public money gives an endorsement to a project that helps draw in private investment,” said Serota.
Arts organisations have become much more professional about raising money from private philanthropy and commercial partnerships, but even so most had been forced to make cuts. “We are getting to a tipping point where some of them will find it difficult to continue, unless there is continuing public investment,” Serota said.
Ace recognised there was enormous pressure on government and local authority spending, he added. “In some places, people have said the arts are nice to have, but are not an essential part of the fabric of our community.
“Our report shows that economic and social benefits of public investments in the arts should not be discounted. These institutions help establish the identity and ethos of a given place.”
He cited the Middlesbrough Institute of Modern Art, founded in 2007 and now part of Teesside University, whose “presence in the city has served as a beacon and a catalyst for other developments”. It had also encouraged young people to stay in the area, and contribute to making a community.
In parts of the country, the response to the decline of industry was investment in retail in the belief that would revitalise town centres. “But 1990s shopping developments are now empty because the whole way in which retail operates has changed,” Serota said. “But arts facilities are still there and are thriving.
“We know money is very, very tight, but money given to the arts has a disproportionate impact on people’s lives, wherever they live.”
The Labour party had a long history of supporting the arts, he added. It created the Arts Council in 1946, and in 1965 Jennie Lee, the UK’s first minister for the arts, produced a seminal white paper that recognised the social and educational value of the arts and the need for public funding. Labour introduced free admission to national museums and galleries in 2001.
“These are landmark moments, and they were difficult decisions often taken at times of economic stress,” said Serota.
The amount of public money spent on the arts was small in comparison with education, defence or the health service, he added.
“Saving money on the arts is not going to restore the NHS to the levels people expect. But if you take away these really quite small funds from cities and towns across the country, you will see theatres close, art gallery hours restricted and life will become less rewarding.”
Arts were more generously funded in some other parts of Europe, he said. “There was an outcry recently in Berlin because of a threat to reduce the city’s arts funding to about €800m. The total we have for the whole of England is £450m.
“If we were to invest more, there would be a huge return. But in the current circumstances, I can hope but I can’t count on it.”
