Charlotte Jones: The devil in the detail

 The idea that philanthropy will fill the gap created by cuts in Government arts budgets is one that raises an eyebrow in some parts of the arts sector – but is met with outright derision in many others. So Jeremy Hunt’s vision (p1) for an arts sector funded by endowments that are built up from donations from corporate and individual giving will do little to placate the sceptics – and nor will the diversion of Lottery and grant-in-aid funding to match donations made to organisations that are already big enough, skilled enough and lucky enough to be in a position to raise their own funds.

 Our suspicions should be aroused by the absence of any detail about Hunt’s plans. At the launch event, Ed Vaizey was initially flippant but ultimately evasive about these: there appears to be no timetable for implementation; no clarity about how much of the £80m (if any) is new money for the sector; and no ideas as to how the undeniable fundraising expertise of the big London arts institutions will somehow be made to trickle out across the regions or down into the small arts organisations, whose staff have neither the time nor the skills to dedicate to fundraising. And when their grants are cut in April, neither will they have luxury of using fundraising consultants to fill the gap. We can only use common sense and experience to assess the likelihood of an organisation that has just lost its funding as being an attractive bet for a philanthropist: ‘an uphill struggle’ might be the
most optimistic assessment of its chances.

There is a lot of talk about endowments bridging the funding gap, and there seems to be an interesting divergence of opinion between Arts Council England’s Chief Executive Alan Davey, and Hunt. ACE’s assessment is that endowments could have a role to play in the longer term but are emphatically not the answer right now, and arts organisations should not waste their energy at a time when they are trying to simply survive. This contrasts starkly with Hunt’s apparent determination for them to start springing up right now – lured in by the promise of match-funding. But surely time-scale is not the key issue here; it’s whether the mechanism of an endowment will force a commitment to structural permanence which is neither desirable nor appropriate for some arts organisations. Endowments signify a commitment to the mainstream. Furthermore, there is always the danger that they will encourage empire-building and potentially lead to organisational bureaucracies that hinder rather than support creativity. Some organisations have a vision of living forever, but for others, the innovation, excitement and energy of their art stems from its spontaneity and freedom from boundaries. Grants may not be popular among politicians, but Hunt had better tread carefully if he thinks that endowments will take their place: the artistic spark is a delicate flame and he’s currently in danger of snuffing it out.