The Oscars are in and accounted for. Over at the Telegraph, Nile Gardiner makes the point that patriotism in the form of the Best Picture winner The Hurt Locker has seen off Avatar's simple-minded anti-Americanism:
'Avatar cost up to $400 million to produce and market. In contrast, The Hurt Locker had a budget of just $11 million. Avatar is in essence a hugely expensive political statement against America’s leadership of the world, and the US-led war in Iraq. The Hurt Locker is not an overtly political movie, but it pays tribute to the tremendous bravery and sacrifice of American troops fighting in Iraq, at a time when Hollywood has produced a slew of anti-war movies.'
At Standpoint, NCF director Peter Whittle also welcomes the the fact that billion dollar success did not turn the heads of the Academy, and more broadly defends the whole Oscar shebang:
'...if one is going to have award ceremonies, there are many points to be made in defence of the Academy Awards. They are certainly done with some brio. The ceremony assumes people are and should be interested, and it procedes accordingly. This is far more tolerable than the smirky, post-modern, ironical tone of such occasions here: if you think it is all rubbish really, and that we're just having a bit of fun, then it's best not to do it at all. There's nothing worse than a half-baked award ceremony. Having attended a few while living in LA, I can say that I'd much rather have good honest American vulgarity than two-bit British tackiness and having to stomach the cringe-making provincialism of Jonathan Ross.'
Posted in Commentary add new comment
Submitted by peterwhittle on Mon, 2010-03-08 10:17.
Watch NCF director Peter Whittle talking about press coverage of the opinion poll woes of the Tory Party on Sky News here
Posted in Commentary add new comment
Submitted by peterwhittle on Sun, 2010-03-07 12:42.
We're very pleased to announce that as of the beginning of April, the NCF has a new office, at 55 Tufton Street, London SW1P 3QL.
The new building, which is in the heart of Westminster, has already been nicknamed 'Think Tank Central.'
The other confirmed tenants of the building are the TaxPayers’ Alliance, Big Brother Watch, Civitas, the Conservative Cooperative Movement, the Nothing British campaign, and the Africa Research Institute. The Centre for Policy Studies is next door, and both Open Europe and the Social Market Foundation are also based on the same street.
Posted in Commentary add new comment
Submitted by peterwhittle on Wed, 2010-03-03 11:57.
It's good to talk, writes David Hawkins, but we must look to the US, and go further
The Conservative Party’s arts manifesto was published last week, following some three weeks on from the Liberal Democrats publication, whilst Labour continues to formulate its approach. And as election fever grows, so too do the various fora for debating what the next administration – whatever the political shade - might bring.
Monday night saw the National Campaign for the Arts debate, “This country can no longer afford to subsidise the arts” with Bonnie Greer and Matthew Taylor set against the motion and Simon Jenkins and the Taxpayers’ Alliance (and NCF advisory board member) Matthew Elliott advancing it.
As it wisely transpired, no one wanted to see cuts to the arts and the fantastic yet delicate arts ecology we’ve built in this country, particularly over the past 20 years. We must all know by now that the arts have aesthetic, instrumental and financial benefits. But if they are as important as other areas of public spending in times of growth, then in times of retraction they have to be treated with the same level of equality. So we have to encourage innovation, enterprise and new models to get more for less.
Those in favour of the motion wanted to see a move away from the present grant giving model of the Arts Council which makes its funding decisions based upon unclear criteria and fails to benchmark progress or success around clear innovation targets. Matthew Elliott deftly escaped being portrayed at the natural bogey man of the night by outlining highly attractive alternatives to this direct grant giving model: that is, a more widespread culture of philanthropy, which looks at what works in the US - a wide social norm of giving combined with a clearer and more competitive tax system - and applies it to the UK.
Indeed the arts are the final frontier in terms of unregulated public spending. And ironically, I would argue that they are the most conservative of public sector priorities. The Arts Council budget of £575 million a year is retrospectively qualified thanks to its 1946 charter which placed the arts at the heart of British life, and recognised them as a civilising factor which would mark out the war weary post-1945 generation.
But why are we still wedded to this model? Keynes completely failed to include references to business sponsorship or, indeed, to private philanthropy in the Charter; the Arts Council’s resultant thinking and strategy is still locked into this mid-20th Century “Big Statism” thinking. Why should the top twenty cultural organisations in this country receive any public- funding at all?
Thus cast as an apostate, one is bombarded by endless statistics and justifications which “prove” that public funding is always the catalyst for private funding for all arts organisations. Not true, however, in a mature market like the United States where the main national museums, galleries and concert halls are funded exclusively by the private sector. Yes, their endowments have fallen between 20-30% during an unparalleled financial crisis, but thanks to the input of major philanthropists such as Eli Broad very few have actually failed. Indeed what is unique – and encouraging in the US model is that smaller, State-level arts organisations receive proportionately more public funding than small grassroots organisations in the UK.
Our cultural super-brands have a brutal stranglehold upon the successful development of community based arts organisations. I would propose a simple decapitation strategy. Give these top 20 organisations 5 or 10 year funding agreements – frontload funding for the first three years in some cases with the trade off that they build up and invest in their financial skills base and use a % of funding as growth capital. The result should be the establishment of effective endowment funds and other private donor-led income.
The Conservatives policy statement: “The Future of the Arts with A Conservative Government” calls for greater private investment - and the adaptation of private enterprise and innovation - in the arts, whilst walking the delicate tightrope of keeping the visceral liberal ‘lovies’ firmly in their box. Ed Vaizey has been quite assiduous in his utilitarian approach to the arts community – offending the least number and harnessing them to the argument that it is the funder – the Arts Council, the Lottery, the quangos - which need to get their act together. So we know that an incoming Conservative arts team will
- induce efficiencies so that costs are less than 5% and return saved funds to the arts. ·
- The national lottery will be restored to its four core aims – which will thus include the arts – remedying the lost £240 million a year into arts from the lottery each year since 1997. ·
- Endowments will be encouraged for larger organisations (hurrah!) which will be given long term funding commitments, match funding provisions from the Arts Council (surely the wrong body give the existence of Arts & Business?) and one-off endowment specific grants will be available from the newly restored lottery funding pot.
All highly promising. To this I would add developing effective legacy and wealth management cultivation direct to the endowment fund. · Effectively this will give us a wider culture of private philanthropy.
But can the Arts Council effectively deliver upon this policy? It is doubtful. What is needed to galvanise the private and philanthropic sector is an independent, low cost organisation with a skills set and leadership which understands the private sector and which can be both a delivery partner and a strategic advisor to the Secretary of State on cultural philanthropy issues. I would like to see Ed Vaizey move further in his thinking; only a non-departmental, non-Arts Council body can bring the private sector funding needed. Let’s look at the use of real venture funding models as the next step to assisting arts organisations to do more with less.
On Tuesday 9th March the National Campaign for the Arts is holding another election fora, an “Arts Hustings” event at Tate Britain with Margaret Hodge, Ed Vaizey and Don Foster speaking. Let’s see our political leadership spell out clearly that only in setting free our major organisations can we revolutionise our arts sector for the true benefit of our arts organisations and the public.
http://artshustings.eventbrite.com/
Posted in Commentary add new comment
Submitted by peterwhittle on Wed, 2010-03-03 10:12.
