ARS GRATIA ARTIS

Do we need the Arts Council at all? Indeed do we, in this year of cuts, even require a Ministry? Let's free Art and Culture from government control!

For me there has always been an inherent contradiction in the notion of government supported 'arts' (taking the broad meaning of that word to include performance, creative, applied and so on). There was a time when this implied, for example, that there was a statutory requirement that bodies even as grand as the Royal Opera House were required in return for their Arts Council grants, to ensure some of their seats (of course the ones in the 'gods' whence no one can see anything) should be cheap enough to encourage broad attendance by the public.

But this argument hardly applies now and it certainly doesn't seem to apply to that uber-government event, the Olympics where even the cheapest seats, for example for the heats of the Graeco-Roman wrestling are, when transport costs are added, out of the reach of many.

There are other arguments - I saw one in the Standard yesterday evening - that point out that the anticipated cuts in Arts Council grants will result in the demise of over 200 theatre companies. I wonder, if considered holistically, whether this is true? Will individuals desist from assuming the motley because Whitehall has withdrawn the King's Shilling? No; no more than schools will give up the school play or colleges and universities will halt revivals of "Charlie's Aunt".

The majority of the failing and fading theatre groups are, I would argue, failing and fading because they are 'experimental', often another term for 'unwatchable', and while I have no argument at all with those who wish to mount shows of this type, I see no reason why such events should not be supported by the altruism implicit in the concept of Cameron's "Big Society" rather than by the Ministry.

I am not a great believer in other people of whatever cultural background or enthusiasm, expressing themselves at my (i.e. the taxpayer's) expense. Also, while I do agree that some theatre or show seats should be cheaper than others, I would leave this to the commercial and social judgment of impressarios because there's another side of that coin.

Even if seats were one pound each, there are a lot of events where I would happily not be present and I am sure that holds true for everyone (albeit the events themselves may differ - it's this that supports the cultural milieu). In other words, price/money is not the issue. Many football matches are sell-outs at high prices and many are half-empty with low prices. And doesn't it annoy you when it's discovered that Wimbledon tickets, or Michael McIntyre tickets or Glastonbury tickets or, for all I know, tickets to watch Carlos Acosta perform his grand pliés are going for many times face value on the black market. Certainly when I hear such a thing, I am cross that the venue or operator - inevitably a taxable entity - is selling its wares too cheaply.

In fact one could argue that a sell-out event has been priced too lowly.

Many would say that the 'Arts' should not be about money - and I would agree. But they are about money as far as the government and, by derivation, the population of today is concerned.

In Paris, in its mind the capital of a more egalitarian state that Britain, entry to museums is not free except one day a week (Tuesday from memory). No one thinks this stray or unfair. In England, that major celebration of cultural identity, the Notting Hill Carnival, does not receive government grants and no one thinks this strange or unfair.

So if we want to be 'experimental' with Arts and Culture, let's experiment with cutting all but the bare minimum of State involvement. The results would, I promise you, be very exciting for the culturally attuned and for the Treasury's accountants!