SUPPORTING THE ARTS AND CULTURE

What value do we place on culture? Is it based on matters of morality, ethics and insight, or is it a straight forward political decision?

 

I was listening to Front Row, an arts review program on Radio 4, on Tuesday 23^rd July 2024. The link is: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0021b8t.

 

The program centred around arts sponsorship in the UK, “amid growing protests and campaigns”. Some literary festivals have severed ties with sponsors Baillie Gifford, an Investment Management Company. An open letter singed by over 50 authors threatened to boycott the 2024 Edinburgh International Book Festival because of the firm’s investment in “corporations that profit from fossil fuels”. In May 2024, both the Edinburgh Book Festival and the Hay Festival announced that they would suspend their sponsorship deals with Baillie Gifford in response to the letter. The Hay Festival referred to “claims raised by campaigners and intense pressure on artists to withdraw”.  In June Baillie Gifford announce that it has ended all of its remaining sponsorship deals with literary festivals, which funding was approximately £1M per year. This is unfortunate.

 

In addition, the National Portrait Gallery and the British Museum have removed the name of Sackler from spaces and walls marking the extremely generous funding they have received from the Sackler Family, and turning away any additional funding. The Tate, the Serpentine and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York have all removed the family’s name from galleries and buildings.

 

Essentially these cultural organisations have refused financial support because it is seen to be tainted money. It appears that the source of the funding causes so much concern that it seems unconscionable for the “arts” to accept it. Opioids and fossil fuels clearly imply dirty money and therefore untouchable.

 

There was a time not long ago when tobacco companies ruled and many events were sponsored by companies such as Imperial Tobacco and W.D. & H.O. Wills. The sporting calendar was filled with their sponsored events for at least a century.  

 

Over the years there has always been a question mark over the source of funding for the arts and indeed for political campaigns. It becomes a moral and ethical question as to whether or not the source of the money can be considered ‘sound’. The criteria and high moral tone adopted is cause for concern.

 

In the United Kingdom there are a number of reports gathering together facts and figures relating to the contribution of the arts and culture. Apparently 91% of adults engaged with the arts at least once in the last 12 months. There are some 970K employees concerned with the arts in one way or another. Some £49 Billion Gross Value Added to the UK economy in 2022.

The Economic Footprint is threefold:

1-    Direct Impact – the value generated and jobs supported directly by arts and culture organisations in the UK.

2-    Indirect impact – the value generated and jobs supported in domestic industries that supply goods and services to arts and culture organisations, and

3-    Induced impact – the value generated and jobs supported in the wider economy when employees associated with direct and indirect impacts spend their earning in the wider economy.

 

In effect there are wider ‘spill over’ benefits from employee’s spending in all areas of the economy. Nonetheless, there is a substantial economic contribution from cultural activity which cannot be ignored. What is boils down to is that money circulates. It has no conscience. It does not know about ethics and morality. Money just is.

 

If one of the 91% of adults engaging in the arts works in a munitions factory, for an oil or pharmaceutical company, should he be refused a ticket because his money is considered tainted?  Should theatres or museums have questionnaires about the source of a visitor’s funds before being allowed in? Just how far does one take it?

 

Arts and Culture are a problem. Because of the funding it can generate, it is referred to as an industry. As an industry it is responsible for contributing a substantial sum in taxes to the Treasury. In order for that to continue, like all industries, it requires maintenance and investment. It requires a continuing supply of its raw materials to continue to thrive.   The elements that make up the raw materials for the arts and culture industry are people. Young people all over the United Kingdom, in schools and colleges who exhibit any kind of talent require funding and assistance. That means serious investment from all areas in both the private and the public sector. There should be no bias or political assessment as to the use or source of the funds. No strings attached. Talent should  be allowed to express itself and finds its own place in the scheme of things.

 

The work, whatever it may be, will acquire its value through its performance. Such reactions and assessments made in respect of that performance will establish its usefulness and desirability. The more desirable the greater the value. The closer it is to humanity or the ‘human condition’ (should such a thing exist) the greater its value. From the moment of its existence the work will embody its own morality and ethics. Whether it performs as a simple statement of some truth or spills over into propaganda, will again be a matter of interpretation. That will depend upon its overall reception. Is it something to be accepted or ignored, lauded or lambasted, perhaps even banned? That will be the basis on which it will be valued.

 

So in as much as book festivals and other exhibitions of art and culture may promote new work and fresh perspectives from young and upcoming artists, whatever the investment the better. The source of the funding is immaterial. The work funded may indeed be hyper critical of the body donating the funds.  If the funding is made without strings then the work can speak for itself. I see no problem with a young writer taking the money and telling the management at Baillie Gifford “Change your investment policy, stop supporting fossil fuels. You can make profits from more ethical investments”.

 

In short, political judgements can be more objective. The current trend flows from an acceptance of climate change science. There is an urgency and great cause for concern whether we like it or not. The reaction of the 50 writers to Baillie Gifford seems like ‘cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face’.

 

On the other hand, truly questionable or criminal activity as a source of profit, is more problematic. The situation with the Sackler family money and the fines imposed on their pharmaceutical company, Purdue Pharma, in respect of OxyContin, make any donations extremely difficult to retain. That money should more likely be handed over to the victims of the drug, and their families, rather than providing a space to hang paintings. Merely removing the family name from buildings and exhibits is a gesture, and, presumably the donations having already been spent, makes it difficult to return. 

 

In effect there is nothing that does not require assessment. Moral judgement and ethics must be addressed in the making of decisions, which is why it is more than somewhat baffling that there should be any problem in deciding which way to vote in the American elections. A convicted felon. who cannot even vote, has no business being on the ballot.  

 

But I digress, my point is, one should support the arts and culture of a nation, and the people best able to provide for its continuing existence and development. It could just be a straight forward political decision. What’s difficult about that?