³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Ìý

Commentators discuss arts funding cuts which became known yesterday.

In the theatre industry magazine the day's news unfolding:

"Talk about theatre! (And that's what we were doing all day yesterday, thanks to Arts Council England's announcement of who was here to stay, who have been knocked off their funding perches, and who was being newly embraced). There was more drama and tension, of course, between 7.30am and 10am yesterday - the hours when existing and prospective clients amongst the 1,333 who had submitted applications - were told their fate, than in most nights in the theatre...
Ìý
"What was compelling, watching the news unfold on Twitter (where, by following the hashtag artsfunding and ACEfunding, tweets were arriving by the dozens every second) and slightly more soberly on The Guardian's live blog, was the mixture of anguish, relief and surprise, but also the carefully manipulated message that came out: there was definitely a concentration of good news, as those who had been given good news (or at least weren't entirely chopped) expressed their relief and in some cases jubilation. Yet there was an underlying concern that such good fortune would not be the fate of everyone, so it was not appropriate to celebrate too loudly."

that the cuts have been over-dramatised:

"If we are going to blame anyone, we should perhaps look at the Arts Council and its obsession with political correctness. The organisation moans about cuts of 30 per cent, but Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt insisted that only half of that should come from 'front-line' arts."...
Ìý
"This takes us down to 15 per cent, and that applies only to the money that comes directly from the Government. Arts organisations have other sources of cash: the Lottery, ticket sales and sponsorship. They could be looking more realistically at a reduction of 5 per cent over four years."

The the cuts were well executed:

"They took away from the strong and gave to the weak, operating on the correct assumption that institutions with good business models and alternative funding could best afford to lose out. Crucially, they made everyone, from the Royal Opera House to the Bureau of Silly Ideas, apply from scratch: no exceptions, nothing taken for granted....
Ìý
"In the end there were 695 winners and 206 casualties. It wasn't pretty but it was not a disaster. Others would do well to examine this model: an example of skilled pruning which, while undoubtedly painful, provides plenty of scope for growth."

The that in the long-run arts funding may increase as a result of publicity of the cuts:

"Yesterday was a black day for the arts. Yet paradoxically the arts are not entering a new dark age. The old argument about whether the arts should be publicly funded has been won, not lost. There is far wider recognition today, including among politicians of all parties, of the creative dynamism and economic vibrancy of the arts sector than a generation ago. The arts have taken a hit. But they are still standing. It is time to start preparing the case for better public arts funding when conditions allow."

Opera critic that the arts have got off relatively lightly, and now they have to learn how to treat their donors:

"[T]he sector still has a lot to learn about wooing and nurturing patrons. Last year, I parceled a small legacy out to some of my favourite arts organisations. I was shocked at how slow most of them were at the basic business of sending a brief letter of thanks, and even more shocked when requests for at least an acknowledgement were met with something like rudeness. If the arts want our money, they will have to do more to charm us into giving it."