CULTURE CUTS

IN this time of budgetary economies it is not given to many organisations to receive almost unanimous praise for the way in which it has wielded the axe. Yet Arts Council England has implemented the government's instruction to save 30 per cent of its grants to the cultural bodies it subsidises in such a skillful way that complaints have been few.

The Council wisely resisted the temptation to inflict “equal misery on all” by simply cutting all existing beneficiaries by the same amount. Instead it started afresh by requiring all applicants, even those whose subsidy seems set in concrete, to make their case anew against criteria such an artistic excellence, innovation, diversity and audience reach.

Thus, the Royal Shakespeare Company was asked to justify its bid in the same way as a street arts group in Brixton.

The outcome was a cut of 154 previously publicly funded arts enterprises and the selection of 110 new ones with reductions for some and increases for others -- for instance the new Manchester International Festival gets 500'000 pounds a year for the first time. The arts need constant refreshment so the Council has been able to make a virtue out of the necessity of its changes while at the same time maintaining support for “national treasures” like the National Theatre and the Royal Opera although with cuts of about 15 per cent. A difficult job well done.