Elitism and ballet: funding through lotteries

[Simon G]

This was in today's Guardian (major broadsheet newspaper in the UK) regarding the funding of the ROH and other "elitist" arts venues.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/arts/story/...1147015,00.html

The main point of contention is that the majority of the UK's arts funding (and here we have this filthy little Orwellian thing called the National Lottery which plays every day now and is otherwise known as the poor man's tax). However, the majority of funding for all manner of public services including, worringly the health service, is now being culled from the revenues drawn in from the lottery.

The issue regarding funding for the ROH is that the companies don't tour to the rest of the UK, are London-centric and starve other arts organisations which do serve the needs and political interests of the communities they create in of vital revenue.

When seen in this light, as one other poster pointed out, an organisation which is "Royal" ergo funded to the hilt, sending out those crass little begging letters becomes all the more distasteful and disingenuous.

I know this is very often overlooked but the political nature of art is of vital importance. Politikus - a citizen belonging to a society. Does not an arts institution which takes its revenue from all strata and demographics of its society have a duty to serve the whole of that society with the art it creates in order to justify its existence? I know this is an ideal but it sure as hell should serve more than only the 1% of the society it currently does and in a greater catchment area than only London.

The RB does not have to fulfill the codicil of touring non-Royal arts organisations must to ensure their Arts Council grants. This as the article pointed out is an injustice, but one not likely to change. But given the light of this privileged position it makes the inappropriate solicitation currently in force, just plain wrong.

[Alexandra]

there are some interesting political points in arts funding, to be sure. In some countries, the arts are funded by high taxes on liquor and cigarettes -- the "sin tax" Supposedly the sins of one part of society pay for the pleasures of another. While in today's world art is for all -- in theory -- it isn't in practice. It's for those who have been educated to appreciate it (at home, since art education isn't taught in schools) or who stumble upon it on their own. Since you can't teach the "high arts" in school because that is elitist, the system is self-perpetuating.

[dirac]

State-sponsored lotteries are truly diabolical devices – as the term "poor man's tax" indicates, they soak the poor in disproportionate numbers. In California, they assured voters that lottery money would go towards education funding, but other funds for education would not be cut. Guess what happened. I quite agree that organizations benefiting from public money should do some things aimed for the public good.

My own high school was blue-collar and not very rich, but in so far as funding permitted, we were certainly exposed to the arts, primarily through the efforts of dedicated teachers. My father is a retired construction worker who enjoys attending concerts and other "high art" events.. Fortunately, no one ever told him that art is only for the educated and assorted stumblers, or I imagine he would never have dared to go in the first place.

[Alexandra]

Dirac, I think your father's story is indicative of another generational change. In the 40's and '50s, blue collar as well as white collar middle-class went to the arts on Sunday; it was a ritual for many families. (I have a friend whose father was a bus driver, and they'd take turns doing opera, ballet, symphony and museums). It's one of the many ironies of the well-intentions that branding the arts as "elitist" probably DOES drive many away.

p.s. In one neighboring state, the lotteries (which I agree are taxes on the poor) fund the publich schools.

[dirac]

Yes, they fund the public schools, but the point is that they are state-sponsored gambling in addition to being a sort of invisible tax, and the regular funding that schools would normally receive is then cut, when the point of such lotteries was that they were supposed to be funding over and above such aid, not a replacement of it.

[Mashinka]

My guess is that this report was commissioned for one reason only: to discredit current recipients of lottery funds in order to enable the government to get its hands on lottery cash to ease pressures on the exchequer (currently experiencing an approximate 11 billion shortfall).

The UK lottery was specifically set up to provide money for non-priority areas of spending such as the arts and sport. Covent Garden had been lobbying for a national lottery for years and was instrumental in the introduction of the lottery right from the beginning and was rewarded by generous handouts for its rebuilding programme.

As things stand at present, lottery money is ear-marked for "good-causes" in general in addition to the arts and sport, but the organization responsible for distribution does NOT carry out feasibility studies before allocating the money, hence some of the disastrous examples quoted. By issuing a report highlighting only the failures of lottery funding, the government is paving the way to treating lottery money as revenue for the beleaguered Chancellor.

[Simon G]

I have had to wait a short time before responding to Mashinka's posting, and I shall give her the benefit of the doubt that she perhaps is not British and doesn't understand the pernicious effect that the lottery has within our country.

Currently within the UK there are 14 separate lottery draws EVERY WEEK. Yes 14.

There is the daily draw, there is the main mid-week draw, there is the saturday draw, there are also two different other types of lottery draws on wednesday and saturday and NOW there is the EURO lottery draw, a new game which is run with Spain and France and the odds of winning are 74 million to 1. As opposed to the normal odds of 13 million to 1.

The most egregious lie concerning the lottery is that it was set up to fund good causes. Currently 1p from every ticket goes to fund a "Good Cause". Though those were originally intended to be arts and community based causes, they have increasingly come to be areas which the Govenment is cutting funding for, such as the Health service. One of the most repulsive adverts advertising the lottery in the UK was in a hospital ward introduced by nurses showing us the new equipment that 1p from every £1 has bought. Those "Good Causes".

The good causes of which there are many now have to jump through a labyrinth of red tape in order to get any access to that money whatsoever, and there are causes good causes which deserve that money.

The point of the article was that the ROH and Sadlers Wells have received over £100 million already to make up shortfalls and mismanagement. Also these institutions automatically received that money from the Arts Council, which whilst originally intended to be an independent funding body is now effectively run by the lottery ergo the government.

The lottery is an all pervading influence within this country which answers to no one, no official body and as such a report which calls attention to the iniquity within this lottery funding system, which caters in the majority to arts organisations which serve less than 1% of the country's population is welcome and necessary.

Mashinka, the most damaging form of thinking is one that excuses the ROH and its atrocious management and the money pit which it is. The national lottery and its stranglehold on British amenities and culture is too important to take such a glib attitude to.

[Alexandra]

And this is why we don't discuss politics on the board Simon, I think Mashinka lives in London and whether you agree with her or not, she has a right to her opinion. There's much disagreement in countries (and here, it's state by state) on whether the effect of the lottery is pernicious or beneficial. We'd be best to limit the discussion to the funding of arts.

[Simon G]

Sorry Alexandra, the problem is within the UK that now the funding of arts is indivisible from the National Lottery. The Arts Council is now funded almost entirely from Lottery revenue and any additional revenue from government funds means that the Arts Council is answerable for every penny. the problem is thus that the funding of anti-government, establishment etc what was once called experimental or innovative work is almost now non-existant within the UK. Indeed a few years ago the then culture secretary said words to the effect that any contentious arts-based work funded by the Arts Council would make the Arts Council answerable to the Government.

Unfortunately in this ever censorious western society politics and arts funding are worryingly increasingly linked. Although I firmly believe that arts must be free of morality or perceived morality, the irony is that the moral right to this freedom of speech is increasingly under threat.

I was disturbed and interested to see how Eminem (US rapper for balletomanes!) has now become almost a martyr to the cause of freedom on speech in arts. Eminem recently made a reference to dead presidents ie dollar bills in a song of his and is now insanely being sued by the supreme court for "anti-american" or terrorist thinking!

When as is the case for the UK where literally millions each day are being spent on the lottery and the "good causes" are in the majority funding existant highly funded institutions which serve such a small percentage of the UKs arts-going population the problems of arts and politics are again indivisible.

However, the arts funded lottery institutions such as the ROH really do themselves a disservice by their atrocious PR efforts. I have to say though that Sadlers Wells, has a far more egalitarian arts remit, is far cheaper (and a wonderful stage) and takes a far more all-embracing attitude to its production output. The old Sadlers Wells as anyone can recall was pretty pokey to say the least.

The problem with the UK as well is that in many areas not just the arts we are an incredibly LOndon centric society. In no small part due to the fact that this was once the capital of the most powerful nation on earth and unfortunately that class structure and disparity between have and have not is entrenched deep within the roots of our culture. I recently won some tickest to go and see Scottish Ballet in Glasgow and really couldn't be bothered to travel up there. I'm as much of a London snob as anyone, I admit it.

But this lottery business in this country is not good and with the increased number of lottery draws (sorry my previous figure was wrong it's not 14 its 16!!!!!!!). It only becomes increasingly worse.

Why the ROH issue is so contentious though is that the house was well over £100 million in the red due to the atrocious mis-management of the house by the board over several years, was effectively bankrupt and the lottery provided an instant get-out-of-jail-free injection of cash. The cash provided by the poor man's tax, the lottery, and in that case the ROH should have been obligated to honour this by extending the parameters of the catchment area to which it toured its art. But the reverse has happened and now the companies don't tour at all.

[Mashinka]

I'm not quite sure what it was in my posting that upset Simon G. so much and for the record I am an Irish national living in London.

The initial distribution of lottery money was 5.6% each to arts; historic buildings; sport and charities. A further 5.6% went to the millenium fund and it would be interesting to know how that 5.6% is being allocated now that the millennium has come and gone. That makes a total of 28% going to good causes. Simon G. quotes a figure of 1%, in which case, if accurate, there has been a radical decline in allocation that demands an explanation.

Saying that the assertion that the lottery was set up to aid charity is an "egregious lie" is a little misleading in the light of the figures I have quoted .

Lottery receipts have been falling steadily in the 10 years it has been in operation after the initial success of 68.7% of households participating from Nov.94 - Oct 95 but the sums involved are still vast enough for the Treasury to be eyeing enviously as I believe only 12p from each lottery ticket goes on tax.