Christopher Gordon is one of the authors of Rebalancing our Cultural Capital, a report on the balance of arts funds between London and the rest of England; Sharon Ament is the director of the Museum of London
Dear Sharon:
Our questions for the Rebalancing our Cultural Capital report focused on deteriorating local authority funding and the failure of those nationally responsible to set meaningful objectives for expanding production capacity in city-regions.
The department for culture’s reaction seemed like a denial of government’s responsibility and of the Treasury’s “equity objectives”.
There will be no real address to the gross London bias until geography returns as a serious determinant of policy.
Christopher
Dear Christopher:
I’d like to see an intelligent debate around three things: the value we put on culture as a nation; the totality of England’s cultural outputs that celebrates regional differences; and how we foster excellence, wherever it happens to be located.
Many of our world-class cultural organisations are based in London. Funding for culture across England is severely under pressure. There is a long-running lack of imagination when it comes to recognising arts and heritage. This is a nuanced issue and it must avoid simply being typified as the north/south divide.
Sharon
Dear Sharon:
Our report was careful to acknowledge the unique position of London as a global “creative city”. The arts council retorted that “the old argument between London and the regions is stale”. Wrong. From our consultation with the arts community across England, there is enormous enthusiasm for the kind of (modest) investment change that we have proposed.
The unfairness in distribution of public money can be misrepresented as a north/south divide, but the issue is that 75% of England’s ‘culture’ decisions are now made centrally.
Christopher
Dear Christopher:
Are you suggesting the diminishment of London’s institutions by stripping away funding? Because that’s happening already. Or the relocation of the British Museum outside of London? The strength of brand names such as Tate and the V&A creates hugely positive effects on local economies outside London.
For me it will be a mark of success when I see cities such as Liverpool exporting their own cultural brands such as the Bluecoat across England. To do this it requires more than money, it requires self-confidence.
Sharon
Dear Sharon:
Our proposal is specifically restricted to Lottery money. Core treasury funding of London’s cultural infrastructure would not be affected and there would still be Lottery funds available for genuinely new and additional projects. London would still scoop 55% of England’s available total “public” national arts funding.
What we focus on is: building up regional capacity with the decisions to be made at sustainable local partnership levels; and expecting “national” institutions to take their national responsibilities seriously.
Christopher
Dear Christopher:
I wish the solution was as simple as you suggest. In an environment where collections have been sold and where museums are closing we must all work together. Your report raises significant questions about funding that merit intelligent discussion and collective action.
I’d like to move from pondering the likely negative impacts on London to a more concrete set of proposals based on detailed analysis.
Sharon
Dear Sharon:
Our questions for the Rebalancing our Cultural Capital report focused on deteriorating local authority funding and the failure of those nationally responsible to set meaningful objectives for expanding production capacity in city-regions.
The department for culture’s reaction seemed like a denial of government’s responsibility and of the Treasury’s “equity objectives”.
There will be no real address to the gross London bias until geography returns as a serious determinant of policy.
Christopher
Dear Christopher:
I’d like to see an intelligent debate around three things: the value we put on culture as a nation; the totality of England’s cultural outputs that celebrates regional differences; and how we foster excellence, wherever it happens to be located.
Many of our world-class cultural organisations are based in London. Funding for culture across England is severely under pressure. There is a long-running lack of imagination when it comes to recognising arts and heritage. This is a nuanced issue and it must avoid simply being typified as the north/south divide.
Sharon
Dear Sharon:
Our report was careful to acknowledge the unique position of London as a global “creative city”. The arts council retorted that “the old argument between London and the regions is stale”. Wrong. From our consultation with the arts community across England, there is enormous enthusiasm for the kind of (modest) investment change that we have proposed.
The unfairness in distribution of public money can be misrepresented as a north/south divide, but the issue is that 75% of England’s ‘culture’ decisions are now made centrally.
Christopher
Dear Christopher:
Are you suggesting the diminishment of London’s institutions by stripping away funding? Because that’s happening already. Or the relocation of the British Museum outside of London? The strength of brand names such as Tate and the V&A creates hugely positive effects on local economies outside London.
For me it will be a mark of success when I see cities such as Liverpool exporting their own cultural brands such as the Bluecoat across England. To do this it requires more than money, it requires self-confidence.
Sharon
Dear Sharon:
Our proposal is specifically restricted to Lottery money. Core treasury funding of London’s cultural infrastructure would not be affected and there would still be Lottery funds available for genuinely new and additional projects. London would still scoop 55% of England’s available total “public” national arts funding.
What we focus on is: building up regional capacity with the decisions to be made at sustainable local partnership levels; and expecting “national” institutions to take their national responsibilities seriously.
Christopher
Dear Christopher:
I wish the solution was as simple as you suggest. In an environment where collections have been sold and where museums are closing we must all work together. Your report raises significant questions about funding that merit intelligent discussion and collective action.
I’d like to move from pondering the likely negative impacts on London to a more concrete set of proposals based on detailed analysis.
Sharon
