Should politicians and funding agencies adopt a new approach to culture?
In the final National Treasures programme of the summer, Lawrence Pollard and guests consider how we value our culture.
Looking back over the series in which a variety of national treasures have been examined for both their practical and non-monetary value, the programme asks if politicians and funding bodies should adopt a new approach.
Panel
Margaret Hodge MP - Arts Minister
Sir Christopher Frayling - Arts Council Chairman
Dame Liz Forgan - Chair of the Heritage Lottery Fund
Janet Street-Porter - Cultural commentator
Simon Jenkins - Cultural commentator
Robert Hewison - Critic, cultural historian and associate of the think tank Demos
Larry Phillips - Decision analyst and LSE professor
Have Your Say
How do you think the government and arts-funding bodies should assess cultural value?
Please state clearly if you wish to remain anonymous as your message may be read out on air or published electronically.
Clare Higson near Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk What an interesting and thought provoking series - the passion and enthusiasm of Mr Pollard, and his in the main well chosen guests, has truly made me rethink "art" and "culture". Having lived many years in France during the halcyon days of serious government sponsorship of contemporay culture in all its diversity, Britain has a long way to go before the "no such thing as society" generations re-group and receive practical levels of funding at a local authority level. Our amazing Clock Museum has recently been closed despite huge local pressure. Anyway more Pollard, more programmes.
DJ Trangmar in Rutland Interesting discussion about the distribution of cash for "Arts". I have the impression that JSP is probably right about the Club. I would find it hard to believe that distibution of funding reflects population distribution (ie is London biased) or any clear cultural distribution (ie is class biased) or, maybe worst of all, any distribution of type of project requiring funding, ie is conservative and safe). Why not a closed colliery, very much part of our culture like it or not, over five foreign paintings? The Royal Festival Hall, Cutty Sark and the Royal Opera House are all very well, but what else has received on such a grand scale, especially in the provinces?
Anthony Nelson, London Like other commentators I found the programme very compelling - particularly in its range of views expressed. I was interested to hear Janet Street-Porter make mention of the state of Stonehenge as a embarrassment (which it certainly is!) and surprised to hear Dame Liz Forgan later state that the solution to the problem was 'undeliverable'.This isn't correct - there is a deliverable solution on the table, the problem is that the politicians, and apparently also the Heritage Lottery Fund, don't want to fund it!
Alan Smith, Holt, Norfolk Briefly, very briefly, in a word, excellent programme. But did I miss in one of the shows: where was the discussion about the role of the cultural industries - media, universities, galleries, politics (given Street-P's juvenile socialit (sic) outlook), culture itself - in shaping our sense of culture? Wouldn't a good pairing have been pitting Radio 4 against the 02 arena, for example? More please - especially as Mr Pollard is a bit of a National Treasure himself. Please pass this on to him.
Trevor B Plant Excellent programme.
Terry Tkachuk - Dorset Congats on a good series and very well handled by Lawrence.JS Porter is right: there is a bias in UK about the definition of cultural value and by inference, what gets funded. It would have been interesting to consider whether films, from an Arts perspective,are eligible for public finance from the heritage and lottery bureaurats.Good series - Regards,Terry.
Judith Menes Consett Co. Durham A very interesting discussion today. I think an important criterion for funding is maintaining choice and richness and variety in our culture. Successful commercial activities such as popular music and football do not (at present) need public support, whereas opera, for example, would not survive without it and therefore would be lost. It would be lost to the elite that can afford to go to Covent Garden, but this sets a standard of excellence, and it would also be lost to the small venues around the country, like Consett, where I have seen very enjoyable performances by small touring companies. There is an excellent ballet company from Wales who perform original and enjoyable works in the provinces - to lose this dimension would impoverish national life, and choices available to people who may well like art as well as football.
Dympna Le Rasle I agree with Janet Street-Porter when she says that arts funding is run by a club. The Arts Council is not an elected body yet they spend millions of tax payers and lottery punters money on things that they are not consulted about and have no control over. We can't vote the Council out if we don't like what they do. I work for a company that brings original reminiscence musical comedy revue to the places older people live or socialise and we are consistently turned down. We only asked for £5000! They don't want to fund things that ordinary people enjoy. The "club" dictates what they think tax payers and lottery punters should have and not what they want.
Monica Callaghan, Wakefield Why do Janet Street-Porter and Simon Jenkins think it is necessary to attack the vast majority of the population who are "middle class" and who enjoy so-called middle class culture? I would bet that they do not go to bingo or the dogs but enjoy that same middle class culture themselves. People who enjoy opera or ballet are as deserving of respect as those who do not. In Leeds we have the West Yorkshire Playhouse which puts on many contemporary plays, so everything is not old and traditional, but without a sense of the history of our country and ourselves, we are diminished. Funding therefore needs to be distributed between all the different forms of culture, without sneering at the middle class. Margaret Hodge was also talking nonsense in saying that people up and down the country can "participate in the Olympics". I doubt there will be much chance of my getting any tickets for any of the events, and if I do, there will be travel and accommodation costs on top, and no doubt these will be increased for the occasion. All in all this was a very interesting and thought-provoking programme
B. Byrne - England I agree wholeheartedly with Janet and Simon - NOTHING is more important to wellbeing than art and culture. Sport is a very poor substitiute and the huge costs are undemocratic in the extreme.
Joan Robertson NW London Surely I am not the only person in the UK who enjoys opera and the ballet, Queen and an evening at the Dogs. Has any of your speakers been to a Friends' rehearsal at the ROH or ENO? Elitism? Rubbish. Get real!
Gillian Perkins Listening to JSP again, I can't help feeling that she is woefully ill-informed - and most of the others on the panel were not much better. Do they not realise that virtually any arts organisation worthy its salt, whether Arts Council funded or not, spends much of its time and money on working with young people, in clubs, schools, and anywhere else we can. As the director of a non-funded organisation, I have gone out to raise money from trusts and commercial groups so we can reach out to local schools. We have managed to work with thousands of children giving them an introduction to that most enjoyable of the arts - classical music!
JONATHAN DAVID MELLOR, MADRID, SPAIN I agree with JSP on one point: it often seems "the arts" is run by and for an elite and elitist club: I can't imagine many scenarios other than a BBC arts programme in which the conversation would get as heated as it did in today's programme. However, I think her argument that "old" is by definition crusty and "new" is all that is good and bright is misguided - surely they are not mutually exclusive concepts. I write on the morning that Pvarotti's death is announced: I'm confident he did more to bring people in contact with high culture (even if you think Nessun Dorma at the Football World cup is dumbing down) than free and obligatory trips to museums and the like. I think it was Alan Bennett - one of the truest British voices of the modern age - who suggested that only in England is the word "intellectual" used as an insult: British society has forever exhibited a terrible contradiction in such matters: patronising from one side and inverted snobbery from the other. The only answer is a balanced education that makes as much "culture" available without tryng to ram it down people's throats. To msiquote Dorothy Parker, "You can lead the horde to culture, but you can't make it think". Well done Lawrence for keeping your guests more or less under control and on message!
Noel Ferguson It was disappointing that no-one challenged the impression that 'classical' music is elite and middle class .Anyone who saw the uplifting prom with the inspirational Simon Bolivar Orchestra from Venezuela would know that this is far from true . Everyone can enjoy 'classical' music and it can be FUN . Public arts funding should not be used for supporting mediocre and populist projects but should certainly not be limited to so called middle class areas .
Iain Boyd Good program - though too many voices. But it's pitiful that arts and heritage funding is on such a back foot, requiring endless justification, consultation in an attempt to be answerable and unassailable. Why bother? They're going to get a hammering either way!Consider: when did anyone last ask if you thought your tax pounds were well spent on motorways or tanks, or someone from the Home Office stood up to justify expenditure?
John Hind, London UK In response to David Helliwell below, more precisely the lottery is a (voluntary) tax on the stupid to the benefit of the cultured and the talented. Not all poor people are stupid, not all talented people are rich and not all rich people are cultured – not by a long way!
Anonymous I would have wished the participants in this final programme to have shared more reflections and discussion on the impact of the preceding stimulating programmes on their previously held views about future funding allocations and on what constitutes a national treasure. There seemed more interest today in scoring points for already firmly held views, with little interest in exploring new avenues opened up by in the previous four weeks; the latter is what I personally enjoyed and gained from the debates!
colin sloanes swansea Considering the progamme National treasures debate is on radio 4 says a lot. Radio 4 caters more for the middle classes. Why not have the debate on radio 1, or all radio channels so that everyone nationwide has a chance to air their views.
Sally Cumbria I listened with interest to the programme today. One thing in particular raised a question for me. Margaret Hodge said that the present Government had abolished entry charges for Museums. That, of course, only relates to Government owned Museums. Local Museums, very important as a source of heritage and sense of self in an area to local people, and enabling visitors to appreciate more fully how an area has developed, must rely on local authorities,donations, private funding because no monetary value can be put on how important history is. With many local authorities conerned with cutting costs in any area they can, is it therefore inevitable that cultural and historical centres must be closed or diluted by commercial enterprises in order to be sustainable because, outside London, government bodies cannot put a value on community history?
John Cooke, Dent, Cumbria I have no objection to public money funding the Arts. What I strongly object to is what those who get their hands on this money do with it. By far the larger number of practicing artists work outside the circle of the Establishment and see nothing of this money neither are their views allowed to be heard in the world of State Art.
Mark Sharon, London I have some comments regarding the discussions. First, let's look at which newspapers and TV programmes are popular - then ask ourselves how we should weight public opinion. Some measure of knowledge of the medium must be included. It is fine for Janet Street-Porter to come up with her "working class" rhetoric, but she is arguably more middle class than not and has very little appreciation now of working class attitudes. Second, the sponsoring of artists like Damien Hirst is in part the funding of an artists lifestyle. It is also pandering to his/her publicity-seeking mentality - is Hirst's work art or merely a grandiose PR exercise? Moreover, a price tag of x million includes a hefty margin, whereas the restoration of Canterbury Cathedral can at least be defined in terms of cost of material and labour. Last the obsession with contemporary being better than historical for some commentators is again pandering to the modern ageist obsession with "youth" and pop-culture. Old was once contemporary, contemporary will become old. There has to be a better definition of worthiness for support than age or size of tabloid headlines!
Mike Kermode, South Cumbria re the last programme in the series. I agree with Janet Street Porter's comment about arts money diverting to one small corner of the country. I am chair of a small voluntary organisation promoting English traditional song,dance and music here in the northwest of England. We have been supported by the Arts Council up to this year when our bid was turned down.Nothing wrong with the bid, it was in my opinion, money being diverted to the Olympics
David Speed I seem to recall a program that featured JSTs personal attempts at contemporary art in her flat. All of which she admitted had failed to fulfill the original intentions. But then they were all privately funded. As for disbursements of lottery funding. I subscribe to the view that a simple category listing on the tickets would give the funder more say in where the money went. Ho-hum.
James Turnbull, Brighton There is a balance between spending public money on art that directly improves communities (schools projects, expressing identity) investing in artist to work and produce who should do that job anyway. A major problem is that an artist doesnt know what they are producing until they do it yet funding is realiant on outlining your aims and clearly defining outcomes before you can start. The UK isn't far off though, compared to Europe and wider afield.
Mike Futcher Amongst the Sheffield based contemporary artists with whom I hang we refer to some as “funding artists”. These are those who have mastered the arcane art of achieving Arts Council funding. As their time is spent form-filling and theorising the art often suffers. Many of seek funding instead from the Dole office.
David F M Helliwell No comment on how 'funding bodies' should work, but a comment on one of them - The Lottery - which should be abolished, as it is essentially a tax on the poor for the benefit of the rich!Unfortunately, this seems to be the way the country is being run by politicians today, as evidenced by Brown's insistence on increasing indirect taxation whilst lowering income tax - replacement of the fairest form of taxation with the unfairest form - to the detriment of the lower-paid and the benefit of the higher-paid!
Send us your views on this week's topic.
Disclaimer: The BBC will put up as many of your comments as possible but we cannot guarantee that all e-mails will be published. The BBC reserves the right to edit comments that are published.
Please state clearly if you wish to remain anonymous as your message may be read out on air or published electronically.
Clare Higson near Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk
What an interesting and thought provoking series - the passion and enthusiasm of Mr Pollard, and his in the main well chosen guests, has truly made me rethink "art" and "culture". Having lived many years in France during the halcyon days of serious government sponsorship of contemporay culture in all its diversity, Britain has a long way to go before the "no such thing as society" generations re-group and receive practical levels of funding at a local authority level. Our amazing Clock Museum has recently been closed despite huge local pressure. Anyway more Pollard, more programmes.
DJ Trangmar in Rutland
Interesting discussion about the distribution of cash for "Arts". I have the impression that JSP is probably right about the Club. I would find it hard to believe that distibution of funding reflects population distribution (ie is London biased) or any clear cultural distribution (ie is class biased) or, maybe worst of all, any distribution of type of project requiring funding, ie is conservative and safe). Why not a closed colliery, very much part of our culture like it or not, over five foreign paintings? The Royal Festival Hall, Cutty Sark and the Royal Opera House are all very well, but what else has received on such a grand scale, especially in the provinces?
Anthony Nelson, London
Like other commentators I found the programme very compelling - particularly in its range of views expressed. I was interested to hear Janet Street-Porter make mention of the state of Stonehenge as a embarrassment (which it certainly is!) and surprised to hear Dame Liz Forgan later state that the solution to the problem was 'undeliverable'.This isn't correct - there is a deliverable solution on the table, the problem is that the politicians, and apparently also the Heritage Lottery Fund, don't want to fund it!
Alan Smith, Holt, Norfolk
Briefly, very briefly, in a word, excellent programme. But did I miss in one of the shows: where was the discussion about the role of the cultural industries - media, universities, galleries, politics (given Street-P's juvenile socialit (sic) outlook), culture itself - in shaping our sense of culture? Wouldn't a good pairing have been pitting Radio 4 against the 02 arena, for example? More please - especially as Mr Pollard is a bit of a National Treasure himself. Please pass this on to him.
Trevor B Plant
Excellent programme.
Terry Tkachuk - Dorset
Congats on a good series and very well handled by Lawrence.JS Porter is right: there is a bias in UK about the definition of cultural value and by inference, what gets funded. It would have been interesting to consider whether films, from an Arts perspective,are eligible for public finance from the heritage and lottery bureaurats.Good series - Regards,Terry.
Judith Menes Consett Co. Durham
A very interesting discussion today. I think an important criterion for funding is maintaining choice and richness and variety in our culture. Successful commercial activities such as popular music and football do not (at present) need public support, whereas opera, for example, would not survive without it and therefore would be lost. It would be lost to the elite that can afford to go to Covent Garden, but this sets a standard of excellence, and it would also be lost to the small venues around the country, like Consett, where I have seen very enjoyable performances by small touring companies. There is an excellent ballet company from Wales who perform original and enjoyable works in the provinces - to lose this dimension would impoverish national life, and choices available to people who may well like art as well as football.
Dympna Le Rasle
I agree with Janet Street-Porter when she says that arts funding is run by a club. The Arts Council is not an elected body yet they spend millions of tax payers and lottery punters money on things that they are not consulted about and have no control over. We can't vote the Council out if we don't like what they do. I work for a company that brings original reminiscence musical comedy revue to the places older people live or socialise and we are consistently turned down. We only asked for £5000! They don't want to fund things that ordinary people enjoy. The "club" dictates what they think tax payers and lottery punters should have and not what they want.
Monica Callaghan, Wakefield
Why do Janet Street-Porter and Simon Jenkins think it is necessary to attack the vast majority of the population who are "middle class" and who enjoy so-called middle class culture? I would bet that they do not go to bingo or the dogs but enjoy that same middle class culture themselves. People who enjoy opera or ballet are as deserving of respect as those who do not. In Leeds we have the West Yorkshire Playhouse which puts on many contemporary plays, so everything is not old and traditional, but without a sense of the history of our country and ourselves, we are diminished. Funding therefore needs to be distributed between all the different forms of culture, without sneering at the middle class. Margaret Hodge was also talking nonsense in saying that people up and down the country can "participate in the Olympics". I doubt there will be much chance of my getting any tickets for any of the events, and if I do, there will be travel and accommodation costs on top, and no doubt these will be increased for the occasion. All in all this was a very interesting and thought-provoking programme
B. Byrne - England
I agree wholeheartedly with Janet and Simon - NOTHING is more important to wellbeing than art and culture. Sport is a very poor substitiute and the huge costs are undemocratic in the extreme.
Joan Robertson NW London
Surely I am not the only person in the UK who enjoys opera and the ballet, Queen and an evening at the Dogs. Has any of your speakers been to a Friends' rehearsal at the ROH or ENO? Elitism? Rubbish. Get real!
Gillian Perkins
Listening to JSP again, I can't help feeling that she is woefully ill-informed - and most of the others on the panel were not much better. Do they not realise that virtually any arts organisation worthy its salt, whether Arts Council funded or not, spends much of its time and money on working with young people, in clubs, schools, and anywhere else we can. As the director of a non-funded organisation, I have gone out to raise money from trusts and commercial groups so we can reach out to local schools. We have managed to work with thousands of children giving them an introduction to that most enjoyable of the arts - classical music!
JONATHAN DAVID MELLOR, MADRID, SPAIN
I agree with JSP on one point: it often seems "the arts" is run by and for an elite and elitist club: I can't imagine many scenarios other than a BBC arts programme in which the conversation would get as heated as it did in today's programme. However, I think her argument that "old" is by definition crusty and "new" is all that is good and bright is misguided - surely they are not mutually exclusive concepts. I write on the morning that Pvarotti's death is announced: I'm confident he did more to bring people in contact with high culture (even if you think Nessun Dorma at the Football World cup is dumbing down) than free and obligatory trips to museums and the like. I think it was Alan Bennett - one of the truest British voices of the modern age - who suggested that only in England is the word "intellectual" used as an insult: British society has forever exhibited a terrible contradiction in such matters: patronising from one side and inverted snobbery from the other. The only answer is a balanced education that makes as much "culture" available without tryng to ram it down people's throats. To msiquote Dorothy Parker, "You can lead the horde to culture, but you can't make it think". Well done Lawrence for keeping your guests more or less under control and on message!
Noel Ferguson
It was disappointing that no-one challenged the impression that 'classical' music is elite and middle class .Anyone who saw the uplifting prom with the inspirational Simon Bolivar Orchestra from Venezuela would know that this is far from true . Everyone can enjoy 'classical' music and it can be FUN . Public arts funding should not be used for supporting mediocre and populist projects but should certainly not be limited to so called middle class areas .
Iain Boyd
Good program - though too many voices. But it's pitiful that arts and heritage funding is on such a back foot, requiring endless justification, consultation in an attempt to be answerable and unassailable. Why bother? They're going to get a hammering either way!Consider: when did anyone last ask if you thought your tax pounds were well spent on motorways or tanks, or someone from the Home Office stood up to justify expenditure?
John Hind, London UK
In response to David Helliwell below, more precisely the lottery is a (voluntary) tax on the stupid to the benefit of the cultured and the talented. Not all poor people are stupid, not all talented people are rich and not all rich people are cultured – not by a long way!
Anonymous
I would have wished the participants in this final programme to have shared more reflections and discussion on the impact of the preceding stimulating programmes on their previously held views about future funding allocations and on what constitutes a national treasure. There seemed more interest today in scoring points for already firmly held views, with little interest in exploring new avenues opened up by in the previous four weeks; the latter is what I personally enjoyed and gained from the debates!
colin sloanes swansea
Considering the progamme National treasures debate is on radio 4 says a lot. Radio 4 caters more for the middle classes. Why not have the debate on radio 1, or all radio channels so that everyone nationwide has a chance to air their views.
Sally Cumbria
I listened with interest to the programme today. One thing in particular raised a question for me. Margaret Hodge said that the present Government had abolished entry charges for Museums. That, of course, only relates to Government owned Museums. Local Museums, very important as a source of heritage and sense of self in an area to local people, and enabling visitors to appreciate more fully how an area has developed, must rely on local authorities,donations, private funding because no monetary value can be put on how important history is. With many local authorities conerned with cutting costs in any area they can, is it therefore inevitable that cultural and historical centres must be closed or diluted by commercial enterprises in order to be sustainable because, outside London, government bodies cannot put a value on community history?
John Cooke, Dent, Cumbria
I have no objection to public money funding the Arts. What I strongly object to is what those who get their hands on this money do with it. By far the larger number of practicing artists work outside the circle of the Establishment and see nothing of this money neither are their views allowed to be heard in the world of State Art.
Mark Sharon, London
I have some comments regarding the discussions. First, let's look at which newspapers and TV programmes are popular - then ask ourselves how we should weight public opinion. Some measure of knowledge of the medium must be included. It is fine for Janet Street-Porter to come up with her "working class" rhetoric, but she is arguably more middle class than not and has very little appreciation now of working class attitudes. Second, the sponsoring of artists like Damien Hirst is in part the funding of an artists lifestyle. It is also pandering to his/her publicity-seeking mentality - is Hirst's work art or merely a grandiose PR exercise? Moreover, a price tag of x million includes a hefty margin, whereas the restoration of Canterbury Cathedral can at least be defined in terms of cost of material and labour. Last the obsession with contemporary being better than historical for some commentators is again pandering to the modern ageist obsession with "youth" and pop-culture. Old was once contemporary, contemporary will become old. There has to be a better definition of worthiness for support than age or size of tabloid headlines!
Mike Kermode, South Cumbria
re the last programme in the series. I agree with Janet Street Porter's comment about arts money diverting to one small corner of the country. I am chair of a small voluntary organisation promoting English traditional song,dance and music here in the northwest of England. We have been supported by the Arts Council up to this year when our bid was turned down.Nothing wrong with the bid, it was in my opinion, money being diverted to the Olympics
David Speed
I seem to recall a program that featured JSTs personal attempts at contemporary art in her flat. All of which she admitted had failed to fulfill the original intentions. But then they were all privately funded. As for disbursements of lottery funding. I subscribe to the view that a simple category listing on the tickets would give the funder more say in where the money went. Ho-hum.
James Turnbull, Brighton
There is a balance between spending public money on art that directly improves communities (schools projects, expressing identity) investing in artist to work and produce who should do that job anyway. A major problem is that an artist doesnt know what they are producing until they do it yet funding is realiant on outlining your aims and clearly defining outcomes before you can start. The UK isn't far off though, compared to Europe and wider afield.
Mike Futcher
Amongst the Sheffield based contemporary artists with whom I hang we refer to some as “funding artists”. These are those who have mastered the arcane art of achieving Arts Council funding. As their time is spent form-filling and theorising the art often suffers. Many of seek funding instead from the Dole office.
David F M Helliwell
No comment on how 'funding bodies' should work, but a comment on one of them - The Lottery - which should be abolished, as it is essentially a tax on the poor for the benefit of the rich!Unfortunately, this seems to be the way the country is being run by politicians today, as evidenced by Brown's insistence on increasing indirect taxation whilst lowering income tax - replacement of the fairest form of taxation with the unfairest form - to the detriment of the lower-paid and the benefit of the higher-paid!