After the Fitzwilliam Museum announced it would now warn visitors that looking at English landscapes might make them nationalists, I wrote for CapX to explain how Arts Council England is using taxpayer money to incentivise wokery.
As a review into Arts Council England has recently been launched I’ve decided to raise this issue with the Minister for Common Sense, Esther McVey, asking her to expand the review’s remit to include how ACE advances a political agenda with taxpayer money.
Dear Mrs McVey
I am writing to you regarding the recently-launched public body review of Arts Council England and to request that you intervene to expand this review to include how ACE advance political aims through funding criteria.
ACE is the biggest arts funding source in the UK. Its 2023-2026 settlement invested £445m each year in 985 organisations, over 80% of which comes directly from taxpayers. As part of new guidance, the Arts Council has stated it “will not remove or refuse funding to an organisation or an individual purely because they make work that is political.” However, political aims are in fact central to ACE funding, which is increasingly being used to fund ventures of dubious value and to further identity politics.
ACE recently tendered for a plan to “decolonise” museums, and in 2018 stated: “This year for the first time, museums have also been required to evidence how they are contributing to making the Creative Case for Diversity.” The advancement of identity politics has now become essential to accessing ACE’s funding streams, as artist and writer Alexander Adams has described;
‘Grants are now given on the understanding that there is a duty to promote “marginalised” creators (and serve “marginalised” audiences), judged by race, sexual orientation and so forth…. It is no longer permissible for recipient venues to programme and recruit solely on merit; instead, identity politics is integrated into policy and management, upon forfeiture of funding.’
Taxpayer’s money is not only incentivising institutions to engage in identity politics, but to prioritise it in the hope of further funding. Given the comparative scale of ACE’s budget, arts funding is practically a government-run monopoly this raises a question of artistic freedom, as those whose art does not prioritise identity politics are largely excluded from ACE funding.
While art has always been a powerful medium for expressing diverse viewpoints, it is inappropriate for public funds to be allocated towards projects that serve primarily political agendas.
Political art, by its very nature, tends to be divisive and polarizing, often serving as a platform for advocating specific ideologies or agendas. While freedom of expression is a fundamental principle, it is essential to evaluate whether taxpayer funds should be directed towards art with overt political messaging, especially when it may alienate segments of the population.
As long as conservatives allow progressives to weaponise institutions in order to war wage on our history and culture in the service of today’s political fights, we will continue to foster a divisive culture of identitarian politics. We must therefore enforce the neutrality of this funding; the choice between political causes and public funding must be forced onto the arts sector.
In conclusion, I urge you to take action to address the issue of funding for political art within the context of the ongoing review of arts funding. By considering the concerns raised and expanding the remit of the review accordingly, we can work towards achieving the overarching goal of delivering high-quality art while maximizing savings and promoting the public interest.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and to continued collaboration in ensuring the effective and responsible allocation of resources within the arts sector.
Sincerely,
Cllr Tom Jones.