Rebalancing our cultural capital: a contribution to the debate on national policy for the arts and culture in England
Rebalancing our cultural capital: a contribution to the debate on national policy for the arts and culture in England
复制标题
重新平衡我们的文化资本：对英国艺术和文化国家政策辩论的贡献
DOI：
10.1080/09548963.2014.961298
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
J. Leland
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Leland
几年前，平诺克（2008）在《文化趋势》（Cultural Trends）中写道，他借鉴了泰坦尼克号的“大师级隐喻”来解释我们这个时代的文化政策。就像在这艘命运多舛的邮轮上生存的机会一样，“拥有良好关系的董事会的组织--皇家赞助，在地位树的顶端--从现代艺术理事会英格兰获得的赠款比他们的'社区'对等物多得多，如果金融灾难来袭，他们可以更信任救援”。平诺克问道，当证据的冰山与制度政策的船只相撞时，会发生什么？在2014年的头几个月，我们似乎就要找到答案了--尽管造成破坏的不是冰山，而是洛克。ROCC报告-“重新平衡我们的文化资本”（斯塔克等人，2013)-由三位经验丰富的艺术政策专家彼得·斯塔克、克里斯托弗·戈登和大卫·鲍威尔于2013年10月独立于任何文化组织或学术部门制作。用他们的话来说，“报告揭示了全英格兰纳税人和国家彩票玩家提供的艺术公共资金对伦敦的偏见程度”。在“对不平等的规模感到震惊”之后，三人认为，他们的工作需要开启一场关于伦敦/地区不平衡的辩论，特别是考虑到自1995年以来分配的“新的和额外的”国家彩票资金。起初，它似乎只是这样做。2014年4月，这三位作者都被要求向一个文化特别委员会作证，并在6月中旬露面时为委员会成员提供了充足的燃料，以盘问现任艺术理事会领导层。ROCC的作者声称，他们的报告的时间与2015年英国大选有关，也是为了纪念李报告50周年，该报告表面上使英格兰艺术理事会（ACE）在20世纪60年代中期走上了更加地区主义的道路。然而，正如他们所展示的那样，这是一个未实现的遗产，三人攻击的意义更有可能是为了影响ACE将于2014年7月就2015- 2018年期间的资金分配做出的决定。在这里，他们似乎失败了-至少目前是这样。结果，无论是出于对其战略意图的信心，还是拒绝在外部压力下屈服，ACE的决定对国家资金状况只做了最小的调整。国家投资组合组织（NPO）在伦敦的资金价值减少了650万英镑，将伦敦/地区的资金分配改为首都47%，伦敦以外53%。它以前是49/51（艺术专业，2014年a）。毫不奇怪，ROCC的作者将其描述为“冰川缓慢”的进展，并断言它“没有表现出解决ACE在维持DCMS及其机构在伦敦和该国其他地区之间的纳税人资金投资比例方面发挥重要作用的雄心”。资助的组织数量的净减少也比伦敦内更多，ACE声称这一决定反映了其专注于更少，高质量组织的战略，但区域艺术专业人士称之为“灾难性”，导致多样性减少，因此观众覆盖率降低（梅里菲尔德，2014）。7月的和解协议证实了人们日益增长的怀疑，这可能具有更重要的意义
Some years ago, writing in Cultural Trends, Pinnock (2008) drew on the “master metaphor” of the Titanic to characterise the cultural policy of our times. As with the chances of survival on the ill-fated liner,“organizations with well-connected boards–royal patronage, at the top of the status tree–receive much larger grants from the modern Arts Council England than their ‘community’equivalents, and if financial disaster strikes can be much more confidant of rescue”. What happens when the iceberg of evidence collides with the ship of institutional policy, Pinnock asked? In the early months of 2014, it appeared that we were about to find out–though it was not an iceberg that did the damage but a Rocc. The ROCC report–“Rebalancing Our Cultural Capital”(Stark et al., 2013)–was produced independently of any cultural organisation or academic department by three experienced arts policy professionals–Peter Stark, Christopher Gordon and David Powell–in October 2013. In their words,“the report reveals the extent of bias towards London in public funding of the arts provided by taxpayers and National Lottery players throughout England”. Having been “shocked at the scale of the inequity”, the three believe that their work needs to open up a debate about the London/regional imbalance, particularly given the amount of “new and additional” National Lottery money that has been distributed since 1995. Initially, it appeared to have done just that. All three authors were called to give evidence to a culture select committee in April 2014, and provided members of the committee with plenty of fuel for grilling the current Arts Council leadership during their appearances, in mid-June. The ROCC authors claimed that the timing of their report was linked to the 2015 UK general election, as well as to mark the 50th anniversary of the Lee report, which ostensibly set Arts Council England (ACE) on a much more regionalist course in the mid-1960s. However, since–as they show–that was a legacy unrealised, the significance of the trio’s assault was more likely aimed at influencing the decisions that ACE was due to take in July 2014 on the allocation of its funding for the period 2015–2018.Here, they appear to have failed–at least for the moment. In the event, whether out of confidence in its strategic intent, or a refusal to buckle under external pressure, ACE’s decisions made just the smallest tweak to the national funding picture. The value of National Portfolio Organisation (NPO) funding in London was reduced by£ 6.5 m, altering the London/regions split of funding to 47% in the capital and 53% outside London. It had previously been 49/51 (Arts Professional, 2014a). Unsurprisingly, the ROCC authors described this as “glacially slow” progress and asserted that it “has not demonstrated ambition to address the significant part that ACE plays in maintaining the ratio of investment of taxpayers’ money by the DCMS and its agencies between London and the rest of the country”. The net decrease in the number of organisations funded was also greater outside than within London, a decision that ACE claims reflects its strategy of focussing on fewer, high-quality organisation but which regional arts professionals described as “disastrous” and leading to less diversity and hence audience reach (Merrifield, 2014). Of potentially even greater significance, the July settlement confirmed a growing suspicion