Jo Caird: Assessing the Value of the Arts

The report considers the outcomes of those involved with the theatre
company Clean Break,
the arts charity Only Connect
and the education support charity Unitas,
based on the idea that involvement in the arts reduces reoffending. It takes into account economic benefit to the individual (i.e. from
potential future earnings following obtaining qualifications) and to
the state (i.e. money saved through not being spent on charging and
imprisoning offenders and raised through income tax on participants’
future earnings). To sum up a complex and sensitively-produced
50-page study in one sentence, arts charities working in the criminal
justice sector are a good investment.

This
is good news for these organisations and others like them in terms of
increasing the likelihood of securing future funding, but the very
existence of this report throws up a number of uncomfortable
questions about the way that the value of the arts is measured in our
society.

Anyone
involved in the business of making theatre or indeed anyone with a
passion for it, will attest to its value. I love theatre and believe
it should be funded from the public purse because of its unique
potential to open people’s eyes to different worlds of experience and
ways of thinking. Coming together to share stories is fundamental to
our nature as human beings and crucial in terms of empathy and
communication between individuals and groups. Theatre is also
frequently beautiful, moving and funny – a past time with the
ability to bring happiness through escapism.

The
trouble is that is it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
measure these ephemeral effects, and in the current financial
climate, when resources are limited and the state is having to choose
where to make the cuts it deems necessary for the continued health of
the nation (like many people, I’m not persuaded by the logic of the
government’s deficit reduction plan – now however, is not the
moment to open that particular can of worms), theatre-makers are left
with no choice but to attempt to justify what they do using the
language of economics.

Since
the government’s comprehensive spending review was published in
October 2010, in which it was announced that Arts Council England
would face 30% cuts, and following the news this spring of exactly
where the axe would fall over the coming years, many theatre-makers
and commentators have come out in defence of this art form, using
economic arguments to attempt to persuade policy-makers and the
public that theatre is worthwhile. From the VAT that the West End
raises for the Treasury through ticket sales, to the money that
tourists attracted to London for its theatre spend at hotels, shops
and restaurants while they’re here, it’s all totted up and the
conclusion is reached that theatre should be funded because it’s a
money-maker (or, in the case of the arts and criminal justice, as demonstrated by the report I began this post with, a money-saver).

While
I can understand why these arguments are made, I can’t help but feel
that this line of thinking is misguided and ultimately damaging to
theatre. By engaging with the Treasury’s rhetoric, we are helping to
push discussion of theatre’s intrinsic value to the sidelines, and
when someone then argues persuasively that another industry –
pharmaceuticals say, or arms – is a better investment, we are left
with no more cards to play.

What
is the alternative? Is there one? Many would argue that if artists
are going to take advantage of public subsidy they have to play by
the rules dictated by those responsible for dishing out the cash. But if we
want the debate to be less reductive in its terms, theatre-makers –
and theatre lovers – need to better articulate to policy-makers (it seems pretty unlikely that the government is going to change its modus operandi all by itself) why
theatre is inherently valuable.

It won’t be an easy task by any means, but if subsidised theatre is to maintain its creative integrity, I don’t see what other option we have.