Rebel in the arts
By Grace Okereke
Whether you are an artist, company, festival, arts manager or institution—and whether new to the performing arts sector or long-established—there is one need we all share: money. It is fundamental for us to be able to function, whether to pay for materials, people, overheads, or so much more.
Where we diverge from this shared need is when we look at how we generate our income, whether we receive it on a consistent basis, and whether it is enough for us to keep afloat—both professionally and personally. In countries where open-access public subsidy is available, it can support thousands of projects per year, or core operating costs for multiple years. In turn, this supports creative workers (including artists, arts managers and technicians), companies and organisations, all of which positively add to a country’s fiscal economic landscape. This type of funding, though privileged for anyone to have, is usually quite competitive and can be tough to get. Nonetheless, I appreciate having the ability to access money in such a way.
Over the years, as I have educated myself about the political, social and economic factors that influence the funding landscape, I have often thought about the equitability of it all. In theory, allowing anyone the opportunity to receive funding to carry out an artistic venture feels instinctively equitable. However, more often, I find that some of the systems that surround the application processes can feel elitist. Political trends, coupled with heavy administration that is shrouded in bureaucratic and inaccessible language, can often impact who decides to apply. “Strong” applications don’t always make for good projects, and “weak” applications can often—if ever given the chance—be excellent examples of performance work or participation activities, or audience engagement activities. I work predominantly in the independent sector, and public funding, for me, has been a vital necessity to my success and that of the artists I work with. I learned about the system and how best to write applications, and I did so happily. But that is not the same for most creatives, whether artists or arts managers. In the UK, independent arts workers make up between 70 to 80 per cent of the workforce within the performing arts sector. So, in my mind, it would be right that the lion’s share of public subsidy funding would be received by this group. And by received, I mean that funding goes straight to them and is not distributed through large organisations using the ideology of the trickle-down effect. But to be clear, I am not suggesting that organisations, institutions and similar bodies should not receive public funding. Many are deserving, and the money they receive underpins their ability to exist, allowing them to be able to carry out their work. However, if you are a large institution who can leverage income from other sources and, from that, generate enough money to operate without receiving publicly subsidised funding, is it not ethical to not apply for it? If these institutions believe in supporting their sector, would leaving more money in the pot for those with a greater need not be the right thing to do?
I understand that there are complexities and nuances to these questions, but I do wonder why public funders continue to support large institutions that could feasibly survive without them. From the perspective of the institutions, I am sure their goal is to maximise all funding opportunities. But could they fathom not being as big, to allow others the chance to grow? From the perspective of the funders, I understand that supporting large institutions can be strategic, as their international reputation and reach mean they can help achieve their funding objectives and support cultural diplomacy. In fact, there are times that I think receiving public money ensures a level of accountability for these institutions, who may not
be as inclusive and accessible if not being pushed to be so. However, I still wonder if, instead of spending millions of public funding each year to support select flagship venues and institutions, we should consider our entire region (country) as the flagship. If more creatives, and even smaller companies and organisations, were funded and we focused on raising the standards for all, could we create a nation that demonstrates collective artistic excellence?
Maybe I am being too radical in my thinking, or maybe I am just ahead of the times. Either way, I see this issue as one of moral courage. From one side, courage not to limit the accessibility of funds to those on the lower end of the receiving scale, but to make a horizontal line, which would focus on a more egalitarian approach to funding distribution. And from the other end, courage to state that by taking less (or not at all), you may be giving more to the wider sector.
