Culture Chronicle

Is Austerity Good For The Arts?
The Observer - May 30, 2010
By Josie Rourke and Sean O'Hagan

Josie Rourke, artistic director of the Bush theatre, and Observer writer Sean O' Hagan discuss whether funding matters

"NO" - By Josie Rourke

It's no good holding hard times up as a source of powerful inspiration if we lose the platforms on which the arts are heard, staged and performed. There is no serious conversation to be had about "garret chic" and we need be careful that we don't fall into romanticising adversity. Not all art requires subsidy but a lot of it does, and the reason that the arts in this country have been engaged, excellent and provocative for at least the past decade is because they have been confidently funded.

If resources drain away as deeply as is being suggested in some quarters, artists won't adapt, or do something fabulous and counter-cultural, they'll just stop. Worse than that, independent means will become an entry-level requirement for new artists. We've all worked for free to get a start, written in our bedrooms, borrowed and begged some kind of prop, speaker or studio. The ability to do that - more often than not - is floated by parents who can afford to offer support and who, more often than not, live in London.

One of the most important things that subsidy does - and should be working harder to do - is to ensure that we don't limit the range of artistic expression to the privileged, who can afford to hang around for a break. It is certainly true that interesting times produce interesting art (although in theatre, the more topical or directly responsive the play the less likely it is to enter the repertoire; agit prop tends to date) but without decent subsidy, interesting times will not produce interesting artists because the range of backgrounds from which they emerge will be limited; the perimeter will narrow, and privilege will talk to privilege. For the full article, click here