The anti-cuts case can't be just the elitism of the arts' intrinsic value, nor their social utility, but both
Three years ago at the Young Vic theatre 500 arts people dragged the then Arts Council England chief Peter Hewitt slowly over hot coals in protest against a programme of cuts, many of which were later reversed. Last week the Young Vic hosted another such meeting, but the atmosphere was remorselessly positive. The instrumental case for the arts as providers of social and economic benefit, the arguments which have been made to governments of both colours over the last 25 years, were presented with little anger and considerable example.
The initial response to this round of cuts appears to be that, faced with a disproportionate 29% fall in its own grant, the council has played a hand it should not have had to play with much greater skill than in 2008. For my own sectional interest, there's good news for new-writing theatres like London's Royal Court and Arcola and Newcastle Live, and for some organisations that develop and encourage new writing. However, cuts to others threaten the range of new plays, and the real-term 11% cuts to a swath of organisations may tempt theatres to the safe and known.
The arts need to prepare for the fightback now. The cuts have been so long heralded that they have taken on a patina of inevitability. In fact much can change, even during this parliament. Many councils will change colour, returning power to the party which imaginatively transformed declining post-industrial cities through cultural development in the last hard times. Meanwhile any potential post-2015 government will need to be pressed to see this retrenchment as reversible.
The arts have to hone their arguments to win this battle. Virtually the sole controversial note at last week's Young Vic meeting was sounded by Richard Eyre, who challenged a prevailing utilitarianism that "takes away from art the very thing that makes it alluring", its mystery, irresponsibility and joy.
Certainly, arts utilitarianism raises a dangerous question: if the arts are just about making us healthier, better educated and less violent, why not cut out the middle man? But the problem with the argument for intrinsic value is that it slides easily into arts for art's sake elitism. Richard Eyre's assertion that the arts are about "I" rather than "we" belies the collective character of the live experience. Just because the arts aren't social work doesn't mean they aren't social.
In a challenging pamphlet from the RSA, John Knell and Matthew Taylor claim that the arts lobby needs to make "a robust instrumental case for arts funding", not just in terms of social outcomes but also recognising "what is different and special" about the arts experience. They argue the intrinsic value of the arts should be defended instrumentally, and that part of such a defence should be about expanding participation by bringing down barriers between performers and audiences and by empowering consumers to have more influence on what organisations produce.
Knell and Taylor are being a bit unfair: there has been a huge amount of thinking on these questions, including Arts Council England's own 2007 report, which explored art's public value in increasing capacity for life, enriching experience and developing skills. Challenging the instrumental-intrinsic binary is not just a matter of wishful thinking.
The government's embracing of private philanthropy as a virtue rather than a temporary necessity demonstrates the need for such thinking. In his speech to the TUC rally on 26 March, actor Sam West emphasised the way in which arts cuts are skewed against the poor. At the Young Vic Richard Eyre described the future as "cultural apartheid". There's a politics as well as an economics to the cuts, and to the fight against them.