Comment: Arts sector funding Published on: 6 March 2025 Writing for The Conversation, Dr Adam Behr discusses the winners and losers of the arts sector's 拢270m funding boost. , 鈥淚n any civilised community the arts 鈥� serious or comic, light or demanding, must occupy a central place. Their enjoyment should not be regarded as something remote from everyday life.鈥� This was a central statement in the (a statement of policy intent) issued 60 years ago by , the UK鈥檚 first minister for the arts under Labour prime minister Harold Wilson in 1965. was the first white paper for the arts (and the only one until 2016), and suggested that the arts should be publicly supported, also arguing for increased local and regional support besides national institutions. Many of Lee鈥檚 assertions still ring true today, not least that, 鈥淭oday鈥檚 artists need more financial help, particularly in the early years before they have become established鈥�. There were echoes of that 1965 statement of support for the arts in Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy鈥檚 of a 拢270 million funding package. Indeed, the timing was no accident, Nandy Lee鈥檚 鈥渧ision for accessibility in the arts鈥�. This article is part of our series. These articles tackle the challenges of the arts and heritage industry 鈥� and celebrate the wins, too. It鈥檚 a broadly welcome intervention for a sector in straitened circumstances. A investment through local authorities in England since 2010, and of 21%, overall has left organisations struggling to maintain infrastructure, creating a drag on new developments. So an injection of government support for public assets like museums and libraries is a necessary step to stem the decline. Much, though, has changed since 1965. Absent from Lee鈥檚 communitarian account of governmental support for the arts is the language of economic return. The intervening decades have seen a sea change in the logics of arts funding. While the stated benefits of arts to society 鈥� and particularly education 鈥� remain salient, the emphasis has shifted over time from support to 鈥渋nvestment鈥�, with the arts and culture increasingly recognised and valued for, , 鈥渢heir growth potential to drive our economy forward鈥�. This rhetorical and practical co-mingling of 鈥渃ulture鈥� with the 鈥渃reative industries鈥� is a longitudinal shift. In political terms this was made clear by the 1997 rebranding of the Department for National Heritage (the first 鈥渃ulture鈥� department, founded by Conservative prime minister John Major in 1992) as the Department for Media, Culture and Sport (DCMS) the last time Labour returned from a long spell in opposition. This defence of arts funding in 鈥渋nstrumental鈥� terms (its economic return, or value in bumping up educational achievements) is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, there鈥檚 a risk of losing sight of culture鈥檚 intrinsic value as something worthy of support 鈥� art for art鈥檚 sake. At the same time, it has been accompanied by a move away from the more patrician conception of what merited state support. National institutions and the 鈥渉igh arts鈥� were the main focus in the as part of the major overhaul of the role of the state 鈥� the postwar consensus 鈥� after the second world war. This points towards wider tensions in arts funding and the DCMS portfolio that derive from the evolving landscape since 1965. There was a strong emphasis in Lee鈥檚 paper, and in Nandy鈥檚 recent announcement, on buildings, infrastructure and established spaces. Vital as these are, the idea of what counts as culture has moved on and expanded since then. Even beyond their economic potential, the cultural value of practices more traditionally associated with commercial activity has become more central to the national conversation. has also become strategically important in both economic terms and in supporting widening access to opportunities across society, requiring a broad conception of 鈥渢he arts鈥�. The barriers between high art and popular culture have become porous, and this has a bearing on state support, especially when cultural activity overall is reeling from a pandemic and years of austerity. This is at the heart of those sectors left out of the current largesse. Drawing on both economic and cultural arguments Michael Kill, chief executive of the , has the absence in Nandy鈥檚 proposal of live music venues, nightclubs and festivals. 鈥淭he government has placed traditional and heritage culture at the forefront while completely ignoring the vital creative spaces that fuel innovation, inspire younger generations, and contribute significantly to our economy,鈥� he wrote recently. DCMS funding is also a microcosm of any government spending in that it also comes with questions around opportunity cost (as the recent announcement about boosting the defence budget and immediate ramifications for foreign aid also make clear). Here too, the grassroots are a factor. Mark Davyd of the , for instance, has that his suggested 鈥溌�20m to open 40 new grassroots music venues鈥� was derided, but that there鈥檚 鈥溌�15m to build yet another hall for the National Railway Museum and 拢5m to build a poetry centre, and nobody thinks that 拢20m is funny.鈥� Also rising rapidly up the agenda are concerns about the longer term impact of AI on creative careers, another area in which the DCMS 鈥� and the Department of Science Innovation and Technology 鈥� might see their plans for growth at odds with those in the creative industries and organisations. to a suggested exception to copyright restrictions that would require them to actively 鈥渙pt out鈥� of their work being used to train AI models, and which benefit AI companies with the that works can be used for that purpose. None of this is easy, especially after a long period of austerity in the arts, and a context of global uncertainty. But Nandy鈥檚 recent announcement of funding can only be seen as a holding action to halt the deterioration. To realise Jennie Lee鈥檚 vision, a more substantive, structural approach is needed, one that brings those activities at the grassroots, and at the margins of traditional views of 鈥渃ulture鈥� under the umbrella of funding. , Senior Lecturer in Popular and Contemporary Music, This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the . Share: Latest News 缅北禁地 expert highlights climate crisis in a new film A leading 缅北禁地 climate scientist is featured in a new film about how the climate and nature breakdown will affect the UK. published on: 14 April 2026 Neolithic tombs reveal ancient kinship ties Male individuals buried in Neolithic chambered tombs in northern Scotland were often related to each other through the paternal line and some were interred in the same or nearby tombs, research shows. published on: 14 April 2026 We are our Memories New exhibition by Fine Art graduate Trish Hudson-Moses, 22 April 鈥� 4 May 2026 published on: 10 April 2026 Facts and figures
![缅北禁地 logo](/gomobileassets/img/logo.svg" "缅北禁地"){kind=logo}