Abigail Pogson on how many London residents benefit from arts subsidy; the figures that suggest ‘local London’ is left out in the cold.
Rebalancing our Cultural Capital, a report by Peter Stark, David Powell and Christopher Gordon, has opened up a debate about whether too high a proportion of public investment in the arts (through Arts Council England) is spent in London.
The report paints London as the big beast, devouring hungrily the nation’s arts subsidy whilst the rest of the country feeds on scraps. Yet, in making this point, the report made me think: “what is the true nature of the capital?”
Unlike anywhere else in the UK, London can be profiled in at least three different ways: a world destination for tourists; the capital city of England and the current home to most of our national institutions, including arts institutions, which draw audiences from across the country; home to a resident population of 8.2 million with the widest wealth distribution of any world city.
Arts subsidy, through regular funding from Arts Council England, naturally plays to all three of these profiles, but the figures suggest that, perhaps because the former two factors are at play, the third profile – London as a home to a resident population – gets far less emphasis that might be expected. Yes, it’s possible to travel to Central London from any borough in Greater London, and many do, but it means people leaving their own community. For a great majority this is either unviable or unattractive and they therefore don’t make the journey. For the minority who do make the journey, this means their experience of the arts is outside of their local life. In short, local London is not effectively provided for and the arts are not woven into the local fabric of the city.
Rebalancing our Cultural Capital, a report by Peter Stark, David Powell and Christopher Gordon, has opened up a debate about whether too high a proportion of public investment in the arts (through Arts Council England) is spent in London.
The report paints London as the big beast, devouring hungrily the nation’s arts subsidy whilst the rest of the country feeds on scraps. Yet, in making this point, the report made me think: “what is the true nature of the capital?”
Unlike anywhere else in the UK, London can be profiled in at least three different ways: a world destination for tourists; the capital city of England and the current home to most of our national institutions, including arts institutions, which draw audiences from across the country; home to a resident population of 8.2 million with the widest wealth distribution of any world city.
Arts subsidy, through regular funding from Arts Council England, naturally plays to all three of these profiles, but the figures suggest that, perhaps because the former two factors are at play, the third profile – London as a home to a resident population – gets far less emphasis that might be expected. Yes, it’s possible to travel to Central London from any borough in Greater London, and many do, but it means people leaving their own community. For a great majority this is either unviable or unattractive and they therefore don’t make the journey. For the minority who do make the journey, this means their experience of the arts is outside of their local life. In short, local London is not effectively provided for and the arts are not woven into the local fabric of the city.