England is the most consistent nation..- in Scotland there is a dramatic and steady deterioration..- For Wales the picture is more erratic … and -Northern Ireland’s Index scores are also erratic

Politics? Football? Weather?  January 1800, 1900 or 2000? No, this time the judgement from London is about the Vitality of the Arts in the nations and regions and its in December 2011.

The words are from  the UK National Campaign for the Arts in its Arts Index which it has now made available after a period where only its members could view.

Few people in Scotland will have had sight of the full report before now, as the National Campaign is largely associated with Westminster and England for most of us in Scotland, what with culture being a devolved responsibility and the  Scottish Culture Counts campaign delighted that the Scottish Government has listened to its requests and responded with a new national indicator for Scotland, to increase cultural engagement.

And so it is with dismay that we see that the first digest by Sam West as NCA shares its intelligence with the rest of us, headlines just how poorly Scotland is performing in comparison with England. Or was.  Although the Index speaks in the present tense, it covers the three years ending in March 2010, before the austerity budgets and cuts in English arts funding and a time when Arts Council England was propping up the sector with major lottery investment.  The same period in Scotland saw the hiatus in arts funding associated with the last days of the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen and with no arts lottery funding. And ,as the report states, some of the variances relate to the different ways that different nations describe allocation in funding.

The UK Arts Index uses twenty consistent numerical indicators including subsidy, earned income, financial reserves and attendances against a base index for the UK and against which annual, national and regional variances can be measured. It is a good resource and to be welcomed although of course it can’t, and doesn’t claim to, be the only set of measures by which we value the arts.. This version is playing catch up with its three year review with a promise now to produce annual figures. The 2010/11 figures are bound to look different, after the major ACE cuts in England and taking into account the new confidence in Scotland. Lets hope that colleagues in London can’t cry that the vitality of Scotland’s arts are deteriorating again.

After a very shaky and uncertain start, 2011 got better and better for culture in Scotland. At the beginning of the year, the cultural sector was braced for slashings and cuts and for possible political change with the associated churn of culture ministers and policies.  At the beginning of 2011, arts organisations in England were embroiled in the maelstrom of the Arts Council of England’s ground zero approach to creating a new national portfolio in the wake of major cuts from the Westminster government. For many in Scotland, with an ingrained memory of Scotland always being a step behind England  – as it always seemed to be before and in the early days of devolution – and within the uncertainty associated with the Scottish Government’s single year pre-election budget, similar swingeing cuts were anticipated.  Creative Scotland, although finally constituted, had still not produced plans and the cultural community remained  as cynical and sceptical as it seems to have always been.  And, pre the May elections for the Scottish Parliament, the stomachs of many in the cultural community sank, dreading yet another change of cultural policy and, perhaps, more, a new Culture Minister.  Before Fiona Hyslop took on the then junior role in 2009, there had been 9 Culture Ministers since devolution in 1999 and many a complimentary ticket and hour was spent trying to induct new ministers into the arts and culture in Scotland before the successor made an appearance.  With the prospect of yet another newbie, the cultural community deepened its apprecation of  Hyslop, who had proved energetic, politically astute, open minded and genuinely committed and conversant with culture in Scotland.

The shaky start of 2011 may have been the last judder in  the  Scottish Government’s  12 year  iterative expedition to express the public value of  culture to a devolved Scotland.  The territory was identified in 2003 by  Jack McConnell ‘s in his St Andrew’s Day Speech which was astounding as it was the first time that any senior politician in Scotland had even mentioned culture like they meant it, let alone expressed a political commitment to its value:

I believe we should make the development of our creative drive the next major enterprise for our society. Arts for all can be a reality, a
democratic right and an achievement of the 21st century. I believe this has the potential to be a new civic exercise on a par with health, housing
and education – the commitment to providing and valuing creative expression for all.

First Minister Jack McConnell, MSP; St Andrew’s Day 2003

The journey to placing culture “on a par” with health and education has been tortuous and has involved not only 10 ministers and a cultural commission but also the coming together of agencies and groups from across the whole spectrum of Scotland’s arts, culture and creative industries to form Culture Counts. Culture Counts has a simple purpose, that of ensuring that culture’s importance is reflected in the stated policies and objectives of both the Scottish Government and local government and its three requests in the lead up to elections were:

• Culture and creativity is specifically included in any national outcome structure, strengthening  the framework for local authorities to support culture.
• Maintain continued core investment for culture.
• Maintain and develop incentives for growth through specific initiatives locally and nationally.

At the very end of December 2011,  its clear that the ground work has been completed at last.  The SNP ‘s success at the May elections have provided an overall majority and a clear mandate which has stoked further the confidence of Alex Salmond and an SNP leadership which is so comfortable with Scottish culture that artists, poets and writers are frequently cited in speeches and at Holyrood and adorn Christmas cards.  Fiona Hyslop has continued and her role has been promoted to Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs, with Culture no longer seen as a junior post. Fiona Hyslop has listened to the arguments on the vital importance of being explicit about culture when it comes to the National Performance Framework.  And in the budget, culture has not been singled out for the greatest punishment as it appeared in England.

There were several important cultural announcements, openings and events in Scotland in 2011 including the openings of the Burns Museum , the revamped Scottish National Portrait Gallery and National Museum of Scotland;  the 5th birthday of the National Theatre of Scotland, the accession of Liz Lochead to the role of Makar; a a cultural exchange partnership with China. Further investment was announced for the new V and A in Dundee.

The quitest announcement is perhaps the most significant. A new national indicator, to increase cultural engagement, was announced as part of a review of the national performance framework, Scotland Performs.

Cultural engagement impacts positively on our general wellbeing and helps to reinforce our resilience in difficult times. Cultural participation is known to bring benefits in learning and education; there is a significant association with good health and satisfaction with life. Our culture is key to our sense of identity as individuals, as communities and as a nation. Maintaining the quality and diversity of our cultural offerings in conjunction with enabling a strong level of engagement with culture helps to promote Scotland on an international stage as a modern dynamic nation. These factors also encourage visitors to come to Scotland, creating and maintaining jobs in cultural tourism; and support the conditions for Scotland’s creative economy by encouraging creative industries to be leading edge in their field, particularly as part of maintaining and growing city economies.

Scottish Government December 2011

The new cultural indicator is one of 12 new priorities, the others being to: improve digital infrastructure, improve levels of education attainment, increase the proportion of babies with a healthy birth weight, increase physical activity, reduce deaths on Scotland’s roads, improve the responsiveness of public services, reduce children’s deprivation. widen use of the internet, improve end of life care, reduce pre-mature mortality and to mprove self-assessed general health.  The incorporation of the cultural indicator in a set which includes matters of life, death, education and the internet marks the coming of age of culture within the policy framework of the devolved government of Scotland.

The new indicators supercede a bunch of indicators judged redundant including that which fuelled the bonfire of the quangos on which the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen perished. Creative Scotland, under the leadership of Andrew Dixon, has published its first corporate plan, made lots of postive announcements and proved a champion for the arts, screen and creative industries. The corporate plan and the budget cuts will mean the end to ‘flexible funding’ and this Christmas over 60 organisations are preparing the case for survival. But quietly.   Dixon and Hyslop stand shoulder to shoulder waving the Scottish cultural flag in a sea of positive spin so powerful that the less positive stories are submerged and the artistic community is less negative than before on the whole with many leaders positive about culture in Scotland now.

Culture in Scotland is finally on a firm footing as we enter 2012. The focus for the cultural community is now shifting to local authorities where further cuts are looming, armed with the new national indicator for cultural engagement.  Culture counts in Scotland.

Bust of Jimmy Reid, trade union activist and writer: by Kenny Hunter
at the Scottish National Portrait Gallery: ©Kenny Hunter

Today’s strike action by public servants has closed large parts of the nation’s cultural institutions and local authority services.  Libraries are closed and the fabulous new Scottish National Portrait Gallery has had to disconnect its first day of opening to the public with St Andrews Day in a sad case of poetic injustice.  Libraries and museums are bound in to public services, carrying the heavy weight of civic responsibility in conserving collections  held in trust for the nation or in providing education and information. These civic cultural facilities which we support through our taxes are operated by public sector workers and today those workers are on strike over changes to their pensions.

The arts, on the other hand, are relatively unfettered by civic burdens. Free to take risks, make money and entertain as well as educate, stimulate and inspire, arts facilities are largely run by people without a pension. Most people who work in the arts do not enjoy the benefits of pensions and other terms and conditions associated with the public sector.  Most people who work in the arts are self-employed artists, actors, stage managers, dancers, writers and illustrators.  The majority of those who are able to earn a full-time living in the arts are the support staff, the managers, arts centre directors, box office staff and technicians and few enjoy the protected conditions of the public sector.

So today, some arts centres are flexing their entrepreneurial muscles and imaginatively engaging with their communities. Horsecross Arts in Perth are running music and dance workshops for children looking to get involved in the arts since their schools are closed. And for most, from the Corby Cube to the Brunton Theatre Musselburgh,  its business as usual even if they are run by a local authority.

A few municipal arts facilities are closed because of strike action like the Pontardawe Arts Centre,  and The Princess Royal Theatre.  But there are other closures  in arts centres where the local authority has put the arts out to trusts to operate, like Glasgow Life. Most local authorities establishing cultural trusts do so mostly to avoid paying VAT and Non Domestic Rates.  But in TUPEing staff over to the new trust, the old local authority terms and conditions apply and sometimes stick.  So the Tramway, one of the most innovative and risk taking contemporary arts centres in Europe which is part of Glasgow Life has had to close today and cancel a talk by artist Lili Reynaud-Dewar.  The talk, rather ironically is about the exhibition Jean Genet’s Walls, Speaking of Revolt, Media and Beauty.  But there will be no Speaking of Revolt today as workers at the Tramway strike to protest about pension changes.

Purple balloons at the Royal Albert Hall

The privileges and responsibilities of artistic directors of theatres and arts venues traditionally range wide, from determining artistic policy and creative content to injecting artistic taste to aspects of business and operations. Many a director has chosen the precise shade of colour to paint the foyer or the toilets, in the belief that a venue’s artistic identity must be controlled tightly and within a finely tuned sensibility, like a boutique hotel or chef-led restaurant.  This artisitically -driven business model, where putting on the right work in the right way with the right colour of paint in the foyer is deemed to drive the overall success of the operation, attracting audiences and cash.  Amongst the greatest proponents of this model were the triumvirate at the Citizens’ Theatre in Glasgow in the 1970s, where a high style attracted not only increased audiences but increased public investments and where Philip Prowse chose the precise shade of red in the foyer.

But does having such a distinct personality benefit today’s performing arts venues?

The Auditoriums Meet Conference in Dublin last week convened the leaders and designers of some of the world’s latest landmark performance auditoria. Some were brand new venues like the Grand Canal Theatre in Dublin and the Curve in Leicester, both created during times of economic buoyancy and both of which have had to work had to carve out a place in the market. And then there were the Scandinavians, dedicated to the pursuit of acoustic and environmental quality regardless, it seems, of cost or time, like  the world’s most expensive concert hall, the Koncerthuset  in Copenhagen and its Norwegian neighbour the Kilden Performing Arts Centre in Kristiansand.

But more of the venues were transformations, not only of bricks and mortar, but also a transformation of the historic top down relationship with the audience.   Whereas 20^th century venues put on work, marketed it to the audiences and then, when they came, sold them a drink, 21^st century venues convene with their communities, audiences, affiliates and commercial partners and together create experiences.

Like Cinderella’s glittering carriage magicked from a pumpkin, Dublin’s 02  is an astonishing reinvention of the 9000 seat concert venue which not only accommodates with style and comfort audiences and artists for the central performance but also pays as much attention to other parts of the experience. Mike Adamson O2’s CEO was obsessive about getting the right lighting to create ambience in the various zones of the O2, from the bars where pints can be pulled in 20 seconds, to the VIP Audi club   and Premium,.  And Toronto’s Sony Centre for the Performing Arts, transformed from the Hummingbird Centre in the wake of an explosion of new venues, to become a multicultural arts centre with cup holders built into the seats. The overall experience is serviced through the $20 themed drink and dinner offer and a recognition that audiences will be live streaming, taking photos, as well as checking into Foursquare and Facebook during the performance.

This attention to all parts of the customer experience in attending an event is critical to the success of performance auditoria in the 21^st century.  The dimensions of the ‘experience’ includes not only the real but the virtual, and not only during the concert but before and after, and not only the individual experience but the experience in relation to others, before, during after and in the hall, the club,  the bar, the car park and on facebook, foursquare and gowalla .

Deeper affiliations and corporate partnerships create not only a greater use of lighting, like O2 blue, but genuinely collaborative partnerships of mutual benefit. Naming rights are the flavour of the decade, with the Grand Canal about to become the Bord Gáis Theatre, the Cloudy Bay bar in the Albert Hall as the chillout bar of SW7 and the O2 and Sony Centre demonstrating that its easy to switch from one name to another.

The methods and tools for engaging with audiences have similarly been turned upside down. The Smirnoff Night Exhange  segments its audiences simply – Are you a Paparazzi or a Poser?  Fanshake uses social media to generate masses of’fans’ in short spaces of time.

Copenhagen Living Lab  goes much deeper, applying an anthropological model to the live experience, analysing individual archetypes and their behaviours with reference to the work on liminality of Van Gennep and then Turner. These anthropologists described the very specific behaviours of communities involved in  ‘liminoid’ experiences, a term used to refer to the collective reflexion and almost transcendental  experience of the audience at  the live performance. Copenhagen Living Lab is concerned less with the philosophy but more with what an adoption of the defined behaviours can do for sales. The audience is involved in four phases: preparation, separation (from ordinary social life);  margin or limen (meaning threshold), when subjects of ritual fall into a limbo between their past and present modes of daily existence; and  re-aggregation when they are ritually returned to secular or mundane life.

While old school arts marketing stops when the ticket is sold, new audience engagement recognises and embraces the power of individual audience members, considers their motivations – posers or paparazzi, social or culture vulture – and upsells and encourages referalls at all stages in the ritual of performance.

A 21st century engagement with the audience generates fans and masses of sale. Its all a long way from painting the front of house areas.

Although the level of cuts to the arts and culture vary across the wealthier nations of the world, the story of how they are applied is becoming familiar. Priorities for public investment in the arts are now focussed on three areas: 1. Funding the core, or what are sometimes called ‘frontline services’, 2 investing in cultural activity which is seen to have a demonstrable economic impact; and 3, initiatives which are politically driven, where a minister or local councillor can make their mark through targetted investment to meet key national or local objectives.

Scotland follows this pattern,  in the context of a 5.4% reduction in the Scottish Culture budget and dark fears that some local authorities will withdraw arts funding in some areas.  The Culture Minister, Fiona Hyslop MSP has fought the culture corner within Holyrood and maintains that the Scottish Government is committed to culture, even though culture has a higher cut than other areas of the budget.  Giving evidence to the Education and Culture Committee scrutinising the budget in Holyrood this week, she referred to the challenges of protecting investment in culture while taking collective cabinet responsibility for delivering the Scottish Government’s ‘Single Purpose’, to grow the economy.  Her priorities in the budget have been to protect what she referred to as ‘frontline services’, a term applied not only to the core revenue budgets of the national collections and national performing companies but also to the  clients of Creative Scotland referred to as foundation organisations.  These provide much of the back bone of cultural infrastructure throughout Scotland, although not all, as the previous Scottish Arts Council division between ‘foundation’ and ‘flexibly funded ‘organisations means that some important organisations are missing from the cohort Hyslop describes as the front line.  One off investments include capital expenditure for the V & A in Dundee and in Glasgow music venues in time for the Commonwealth Games.

Marshalling all her arguments in support of contributing towards economic success, Ms Hyslop partly justified continued £10m investment in the Youth Music Initiative in terms of its contribution to the development of skills. YMI was an initiative introduced during the leadership of Jack MacConnell and Scottish Labour to provide free instrumental tuition to primary school pupils across Scotland in the face of a sharp decline and huge discrepancies in the services offered by local authorities, a scope since widened to include diverse projects to involve young people in music in community contexts.
The YMI fund is £10m annually, itself equivalent to 20% of the overall grant in aid received by Creative Scotland and, as a ringfenced fund, like the ‘front-line services’ is protected from the 2% cuts which Creative Scotland must manage. This puts it into the super -league of national performing companies, where funding is ringfenced and protected from cuts.

The arguments Ms Hyslop uses are wider than skills development. Such is the political commitment to this scheme that YMI is defined as a front-line service:

“At a time when Scotland is facing deep cuts in public spending imposed by the UK Government, my first priority has been to protect the provision of frontline services such as the Youth Music Initiative.By maintaining funding for this scheme, we are investing in Scotland’s young people. As well as fostering and developing their musical skills and unlocking their creative potential, the Youth Music Initiative teaches our young people to be innovative, resourceful, confident and responsible.

There can be do doubt that a universal engagement in music by young people has benefits to individuals and society, a view shared by the Scottish Government. But  does the proportionately large investment in music signal a belief that investment in music has higher value to the public pound than investment in other areas?

Philosphers and critics including Walter Pater, and  Shopenhauer have argued that

All art constantly aspires towards the condition of music

(Walter Pater).

Any such stratification is out of tune with the neo-egalitarianism which defines the public cultural community. Cultural leaders advocate for public investment wielding two blunt instruments: a combination of general statements about the transformational power of the arts and some often-dodgy evidence of economic impact thus avoiding the need for any competition with cultural colleagues.

But there is a handful of studies which have attempted to establish IF  there is a relationship of cultural participation to well-being, studies which are based on an academic framework of enquiry as opposed to a gathering of evidence which can be spun in an argument.

The findings of these neutral studies can be controversial and unsettling.  One of the common threads is that engagement in some art forms has a higher degree of impact on health and well being than others.  This is particularly true for music.

The most recent of these studies looks at the relationship between culture and well being on the Italian  ‘Happiness Index’. The Impact of Culture on the Individual Subjective Well-Being of the Italian Population by Enzo Grossi & Pier Luigi Sacco & Giorgio Tavano Blessi & Renata Cerutti, and the follow up data mining provides wide, deep, statistically robust and algorythmically athletic evidence.

The level of subjective psychological well being in 1500 Italians was  measured by means of an index validated by decades of clinical practice: The Psychological General Well Being Index (PGWBI). The study concluded that, of all the social, economic, education, geographical and health factors which contribute towards well being health status and cultural consumption are the dominating factors that potentially affect well-being.

The research

shows that the contribution of cultural access is not simply related to other well known determinants of subjective well-being, like levels of education, income, or age, as it is contended by conventional wisdom in the field

culture ranks third, right after (absence of) diseases and income, and turns out to be substantially more relevant of categories like age, education,gender, or employment,

The study looked at the differences according to the art form and found  engagement with Jazz Concerts, Opera/Ballet,and Classical Music were much higher predictors of happiness than other art forms and that there were some activities for which high access entails a negative (though modest) impact, Poetry Reading and Cinema d’essai.

Classical music improves the Well Being Index score by 9.7%, and the more often the greater the benefit:

Grossi Sacco et el: music and well being

Whereas the same score for theatre is 2.38% and for visual arts its 3.89%.

As the authors point out, some of these results may have a particularly Italian flavour.

Such research moves on from the transformational arguments with cultural magicians sprinkling their fairy dust of engagement in the arts to bring vitality into the grey lives of recipients. It moves on from the instrumental.  It provides empirical evidence that culture is linked to well-being and provides particular evidence of the positive relationship between health and happiness and culture.

But some culture is more equal than others when it comes to health and well being, as these studies suggest and that makes for uncomfortable reading for cultural leaders vying for public investment.

The Scottish Government is the master of spin.  The Spending Review and Budget presented yesterday is fulsome in its description of successful achievements. It also kicks off with an analysis of the settlement from Westminster, blaming it for the scale of the cuts, pointing out that the cut amounts to 12.3% in real terms over the next four years. This is fodder for the arguments that Scotland needs more fiscal autonomy to succeed.. It then highlights the achievements of the Government  and focusses on good news.  The figures are arranged for display through several lenses with the clearest being the three year figures in real terms.

Real terms take into account  the impact of inflation. Much of public sector budgets are tied up in rising salaries and in the costs of escalating gas, electricity and transport  and these costs will be met before any other expenditure.  This will hit the arts particularly hard. Unlike social work, for example, the salaried workers are not the ones who deliver the life changing experiences.  Its artists, prop makers, musicians and dancers who are nearly all self-employed freelancers for whom there will be less cash.

There are some good news stories for culture in Scotland, for capital expenditure on the V & A in Dundee and  the preservation of international touring and Expo funds, all of these being obviously valuable in enhancing Scotland’s international reputation.

But behind the smoke and mirrors, the direct cuts to culture are moderately severe and are higher than to most other Government Departments, with the percentage of the overall Government budget allocated to culture reducing from .59% in 201o.11, to  .55% in 2011/12, to 51% in 2013/14 to .50% in 2014/15.

Next year, 2012/13, there is a decrease in the culture budget of £5.4 m, which is 3.6%.

In real terms this is 5.9% or £9.1m.

Over the period of the spending review, which is 2011/12 to 2014/15, the culture budget decreases by £22m which is 14.2 % in real terms

For Creative Scotland, there is a 2% cut in core revenue while other initiatives favoured by the Government are ringfenced. At £10m pa, the Youth Music Initiative is the the most significant of these.  This means that, after the ringfencing and the commitments already made by Creative Scotland in its corporate plan, the funds designated for strategic commisisoning are likely to take the hit.  This strategic commissioning fund is shown in the corporate plan as being £7m, and replaces the £8m currently allocated to flexibly funded organisations -including many small arts organisations.  If this fund bears the full blow of the 2%, it will be down by about £800,000.

The cuts to local government are £7.1bn over three years.  This bodes darkly for culture.  Culture is neither a statutory obligation on councils and neither are councils asked specifically to support culture as it is noticably absent from the Performance Framework.  Government’s  own justifcation for spending on culture is  for its instrumental benefits to other, often economic, outcomes.

COSLA,  the local authority association,  has responded to the cuts giving a flavour of the challenges the arts and culture will face:

“The hard nosed facts are that in reality Scottish local government is going to be 7% down over the period of this spending review.

“When you add in £1bn worth of demand on the vital services we provide that takes us to 15% down, and that can mean only one thing a significant reduction in local services and local spend, neither of which is good news for local economies throughout Scotland.”

Without a requirement to provide for participation in culture locally through the outcome agreements, the arts and culture are significantly exposed.

The Scottish Government are masters at managing the show and on past performance they are likely to produce a dazzling diversion from the bad news.   Will they pull the rabbit out of the hat in the shape of additional lottery funds for Creative Scotland to spend? Possibly. But that will not be a substitute for local authority cuts.

Homecoming Scottish Cup Cheerleading Team 

“Everyone is part of the cheering section”: Andrew Dixon  

There has been a lot of cheering for the arts, culture and creative industries in Scotland this week.  First we had the Scottish Government’s Government Economic Strategy GES  which identifies creative industries as  one of the six growth sectors.  GES aims to create an environment in which the creative industries can deliver economic growth for Scotland, some through general changes which will only happen if Scotland has more fiscal and taxation powers and some which are specific investments already announced though Creative Scotland.  In the GES, Culture Minister  Fiona Hyslop champions the sector for its growth and influence.

Then yesterday, Andrew Dixon, the cheerful CEO of Creative Scotland  met the Education and Culture Committee and was full of good new stories about the creative sector in Scotland and the achievements of Creative Scotland in its first year:

• the business model works
• 87 per cent of its current clients are satisfied
• the move to new offices at Waverley Gate has been transformational
• savings of £2m and ongoing savings of £1.5m which so far has been reinvested in the arts, film and television
• staff numbers down from a high of 155 combined Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen to 95 now
• new funds have been levered from Paul Hamlyn, Baring and McKendrick

In response to a question prompted by  Culture Counts’ campaign for culture to be made an explicit outcome in the Scottish Government’s performance framework, Andrew Dixon stated that local authorities  are THE most important partner for Creative Scotland.

Indeed. Creative Scotland is a significant but small part of the creative pie and local authorities spend almost twice as much each year on culture.

While the Culture Minister and Creative Scotland are cheering loudly, COSLA, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities,  the representative voice of Scottish local government, is largely silent on the importance of the arts, culture and creative industries.  COSLA lost earlier battles with the Scottish Government: it advocated for cultural entitlements during the Cultural Commission; it asked for a seat on the board of Creative Scotland and was granted neither.   While COSLA is a full partner in the Scottish Creative Industries Partnership  SCIP,  it does not promote an overall vision for arts, culture and creative industries in local government.  The danger of  this lack of leadership regarding culture is that vital facilities and provision may not be sustained and supported as public monies shrink further, except in several leading  individual authorites where there is a clear vision, evidence and understanding of the benefits.    Local authorities’ support for culture is neither obligatory, not being a statutory requirement, nor is it required by the Scottish Government.  The current National Performance Framework  Scotland Performs contain National Outcomes and National Indicators.  None of these are about culture.  Participation in cultural activity is measured by its instrumental value to achieve other outcomes.

All of these outcomes point towards achievement of the Scottish Government’s single ‘Purpose’ . That  ‘Purpose’ is ‘to make Scotland a more successful country, with opportunities for all to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth.’ .  For the Scottish Government, achieving economic growth is the key to everything else and will, amongst other things

stimulate higher government revenues and a virtuous cycle of re-investment in Scotland’s public services. and..  bring a culture of confidence, creativity and personal empowerment to Scotland.

Cultural participation in Scotland is vital to our creativity, identity, social cohesion, confidence and wellbeing.  Its value can not always be measured in monetary terms and it has a value beyond acting as an instrument to deliver Purposes or outcomes. This surely chimes with COSLA’s beliefs, as it considers culture as part of its  Health and Wellbeing portfolio. Let’s hear it.

Cultural Instruments:Ceòlas Fiddle & Step~Dance Night, South Uist

There are eight references to culture in the Scottish Government’s Programme for 2011 -12 published yesterday, four refer to the role of the arts and culture in supporting the plan for economic growth.  The other four are used in the other sense of the word, referencing the drive to change performance or management culture in public services.  There are more references to creativity and, while some of these references are to the creative industries, the dominant use of the word in the document is to describe a core trait of the Scots character which can be harnessed to achieve, yes, economic growth.

Scotland is a country rich in economic potential. Our people are creative, ambitious and resilient …Our vision is for a nation where the skills and creativity of all our people contribute to a growing and sustainable economy in our communities, villages, towns and cities.

While its great to see the recognition of the power of creativity and culture in contributing towards economic success, there is a distinct lack of reference to the vital importance of participation in culture for the general and rounded success of Scotland.

The Programme sets the scene not only for the specific legislative programmes planned but also for the forthcoming budget.  Markers are being set down for spending priorities all within the headings of making Scotland Wealthier and Fairer, Healthier, Safer and Stronger , Smarter, Greener and which will be measured on their ability to meet the 15 national outcomes.  Culture is not specified as a national outcome and therefore a commitment to it is not explicitly required by public agencies or local government.

Reducing the value of culture to its impact on other public policy and primarily on the economy is becoming common practice.  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)  for example, has been accused of being too narrowly focussed on using planning to support wealth generation.  In its response to the current parliamentary consultation on the draft  the Theatres’ Trust has highlighted the dangers of the NPPF which is ‘silent on culture’ while recognising the value to planning and community well being of sports and heritage, for example.

Recognising the value of culture as an instrument of economic growth is a positive outcome after five years of  research and influencing from bodies like NESTA .  Beyond Creative Industries in 2008 proposed measuring the ‘embedded’ value of creativity in all aspects of work, for example. This is only one dimension of  an interconnected and interdependent creative economy which includes a rich mix of  creative experiences and creative products; the diverse grass-roots, high art, experimental, individual artists, writers and  designers, and subsidised arts venues and companies.  The ecology is dependent on the existence of all of these elements and all have value.

Some of that value can be measured in terms of its contribution to economic growth. Indeed all almost every study commissioned by cultural bodies over the last thirty years has set out to measure economic impact.  These piles of economic evidence are balanced neither by evidence of the intrinsic values of participation in culture nor by evidence of instrumental values beyond the monetary.  The unique benefits of participation in culture on individuals and communities have not been subject to a robust process of valuation.

So it’s no surprise that culture and participation in culture appears in government policy as simply a means to an end as opposed to being an essential element of a rounded and healthy society.  The Theatres Trust has suggested some redrafting  to the NPPF.  In Scotland, a national outcome which explicitly states that our arts and culture are enjoyed and valued would go a long way to recognising that culture and creativity are  more than instruments to achieve economic success.

Stairs at side of Sydney Opera House by Mister Peterman on Flick'r 

There is no surprise that the latest report from Arts Development UK shows that local authority arts expenditure has decreased to two thirds of the levels reached in 2008. It is interesting that, in this second slicing of arts budgets, much of the cuts have been own blows to local authority arts services rather than to grants to independent and front-line arts organisations, like theatres and arts venues. Surgery is now being routinely applied to the soft underbelly of local arts services, including development projects and now to arts officers, whose activity is not obligatory for local authorities and whose presence is often unseen.

During the last two decades of growth in public investment in the arts with the funding of new infrastructure, ambitious events and audience development programmes, those we entrusted to spend our taxes enjoyed a relative largesse which allowed investment which often did not need to evidence an impact.   Research and evidence gathered by arts organisations and arts councils have largely been used as advocacy tools, with hard evidence often being buried if it doesn’t prove the required point.  This devalues the research process and diminishes its validity.  But a new cold dawn is rising as investors apply the scrutiny which is applied in science, medical treatment and engineering and technical fields.

The Paul Hamlyn commissioned report ‘Whose cake is it anyway’ sends out the first chill signal of this new order.  The report into the outreach and participation activity in museums and galleries finds that

this activity exists on the fringes of the sector’s activities, rather than at its core, and suggests that decades of investment in participation related activity, have not only failed to embed participatory practices in museums and galleries, but appear to have been instrumental in keeping this part of their work on the periphery

The report marks a distinct shift in tone from most of the usual research reports published which emphasise the positive. The BOP report on the impact of the Edinburgh Festivals, for example, is an excellent document which seeks to demonstrate benefits of investment much more widely than the economic measurements.  In talking up the positives, the report is used as an advocacy tool – and we are all for flag waving for funding festivals.  But, in sweeping under the carpet the fact that the relative economic impacts relative to invesment is reduced ( Every £1 public investment in 2004  generated  £61 new output. Using the same measures, every £1 of public investment generated £35 new output (table here), the report goes the way of most research reports commissioned by cultural agencies.  It needs to serve the purpose of the commissioners and not to seek the truth.

Respected researchers and consultants have been chipping away at this for some time, but they are largely ignored.

There was an interesting provocation from John Knell and Matthew Taylor challenging ‘the Arts’  to create a new currency with which to weigh the value of the arts in making citizens .  But although it was published for the most recent State of the Arts Conference run by ACE and the RSA which Taylor leads, it wasn’t even discussed .  There were few deaf ears thouugh in Galway last week  at  the Irish Theatre Forum conference.  The Irish National Campaign for the Arts have proven themselves streets ahead of England in expressing the value of the arts and its leaders are aware of the need to express and communicate the true value of the arts, which goes beyond instrumentalism.  But that value needs first to be established in a rigorous and scientific manner and not just in the rhetoric.

In Its not Rocket Science, (2010), Hasan Bakhshi, Radhika Desai and Alan Freeman challenged

two entrenched prejudices which block arts and cultural organisations from playing their full role in society and economy. First, arts and culture are largely excluded from R&D by definitions based on its Science and Technology (S&T) origins. Second, the arts and cultural sector relies on a conception of creativity that mystifies too much of its work, preventing it from accessing valuable public resources

The reality is that much of the arts and cultural community views gathering evidence of impact as a tiresome diversion. The feature on Arts and Health in the latest Arts Professional magazine  explains that the NHS requires proof of impact and includes several citations of the woeful lack of rigorous evidence gathered to date to demonstrate the benefits of engagement in the arts as a positive healing activity.  There are several calls to arms for the arts to get together to provide the evidence the NHS needs to justify investment in the arts rather than in some other health interventions.  Dr Jenny Secker, Professor of Mental Health highlights the need to move beyond the anecdotal.

Measuring instrumental impact on health is important but there is a more fundamental issue.  We need to get down to the basic life-enhancing benefits of art, describe that and then set up research to measure it.  Take empathy for example. Long-known as one of the core processes of being part of a theatre audience, empathy is a capability which leading neuroscientists fear  lost in a  video gaming  world.

Seeking to find empirical evidence of the positive impacts of engagement of the arts on active citizenship and wellbeing must become a clear objective for the arts and cultural community over the next few years.  To do this, there need to be a substantive independent and objective research programme which seeks the truth rather than seeks to make the case for more funding of current practice.  The research needs to include longitudinal elements and comparisons of the costs and benefits of engagement in different types of creative and arts activities against engagement with other activities.

Such an investment needs a research programme which is rigorously defined, conceived, planned, executed, analysed and communicated.  This means harnessing the skills of research scientists and academics and means being honest about the results.

The Edinburgh Festivals Impact Study published this week charts new territory in articulating, evidencing and advocating for the value of the Edinburgh Festivals.

Cultural and civic leaders first began articulation and evidencing the impact of major investment in culture with John Mysercough’s pioneering study on the economic impact of Glasgow’s 1990 City of Culture programme. Until that point, the arts were largely funded because they were the arts but an increased recognition of their role in delivering other social and economic objectives led to new investment in return for impacts in these areas. Over the last 30 years the UK and most of the Western world has largely valued financial growth above all so its not surprising that we have created a highly developed niche service industry which weighs and measures economic impact  with increasing refinement.

But the Edinburgh Festivals Forum has recognised the limitations of measuring only the economics.  After the collapse of the banks, society has moved beyond financial monotheism and returned to valuing our non-material journeys and actions as individuals and communities.  In that context, a contemporary cultural impact study should, as this one does, involve looking for impacts of positive individual learning, enlightenment and learning, and social development. And, in the context of the twin challenges of climate change and shrinking public expenditure, the study identifies that impact will need to be evidenced through the lenses of environmental impacts and financial sustainability, a concept the authors BOP link closely with the Festivals’ diversity of income streams.

The report contains much interesting data and analysis to support public investment.  What it does not focus on is a simple comparison on the difference between the levels of public subsidy, attendances and economic benefit between the last study by SQW in 2005 and this one in 2010.

This is probably because, using a simple comparison, it appears that the economic growth between 2000 and 2004 was, as recognised by the Festivals and funders, unsustainable.  Every £1 public investment in 2004  generated  £61 new output. Using the same measures, every £1 of public investment generated £35 new output.

So the Festivals are wise to move beyond the economic .The report highlights the good news, and the press release further distils positive findings on all these dimensions to present the best picture of the many fantastic benefits of £7.5m public investment in the Edinburgh Festivals including:

The Festivals play a starring role in the profile of the city and its tourism economy, with 93% of visitors stating that the Festivals are part of what makes Edinburgh special as a city, 82% agreeing that the Festivals make them more likely to revisit Edinburgh in the future and 82% stating that the Festivals were their sole or an important reason for coming to Scotland.

85% of all respondents agree that the Festivals promote a confident, positive Scottish national identity; and 89% of Edinburgh respondents say that the Festivals increase local pride in their home city.

The Festivals encourage and widen access to the arts, with 77% of audiences saying that the Festivals had enabled them to discover new talent and genres, and nearly two-thirds saying that the Festivals encourage them to take risks and see less well-known performances, events or films.

Only the most positive findings are promoted  by the Scottish Government including that “ 93% of parents agreed that attending Festival events as a family increased their child’s imagination.”  In fact the social and educational impacts for the Festivals are, as anticipated, significantly lower that those for arts programmes which are longer term and sustained, rather than event based.

As we move beyond economic impact and in to evaluating the benefits of culture through several wider lenses, we need to develop the metrics and methods for impact analysis of the arts so that they are robust, as suggested by Bill Ivey and by John Knell and Matthew Taylor.

But more than that, as a sector we need to have the confidence to put the results of such studies into context and not just to change our methods and level of reporting just to make our case.  We need to move beyond looking for evidence to help our arguments for public funding and design a rigorous and lasting research method which measures what we are trying to achieve.