The Physician Index of Great Britain stands at 111. That puts the cultural AEX of a country that likes to call itself the world's cultural No 1, four points lower than last year, but still one point higher than in 2012, the year when the government also began cutting subsidies in Britain. The 'National Campaign for the Arts', which has set up the index since 2008, notes substantial growth in audience revenues, a rise in employment and an increase in income through the National Lottery. So these positive developments largely outweigh a 30-point fall in government funding.
Does this prove that cutting cultural subsidies is not dangerous? The opposite is true, argues the organisers of the Arts Index. Indeed, the survey found that almost all cultural institutions have cut back on their reserves over the past three years. These are now 17 points lower than two years ago, and the decline seems to be accelerating. And we all know how dangerous that is. Besides, in 2013, the National Lottery had still not recovered from the huge profits that could be paid out as a result of the Olympics. It rose 35 points on the index compared to 2012, but then fell 72 points. That should scare everyone.
Moreover, the consequence of that 'growth' is that a large number of institutions that can be counted as part of the UK's basic infrastructure (major museums and theatres) will become dependent for 100% of their grant this year on the proceeds of that UK State Lottery. Money that is in no way guaranteed, and therefore offers no security whatsoever. Because dependent on the gambling appetite of the British. This is all the more worrisome because the business community's willingness to invest in the arts is still 30 points below its 2008 starting number.
Something that people are also concerned about is the rise in ticket prices, especially for theatres. These have often doubled, or more. For instance, ticket income rose by 12 points, but adult theatre attendance fell by 1 point. So theatre is becoming more expensive and exclusive: "We already have a theatre sector that is the least dependent on public money in all of Europe." declares chairman Samuel West. "What we don't want is a theatre sector that is unaffordable for a significant part of the population."
[Tweet ""We don't want a theatre sector that is unaffordable for a large part of the population."]Much concern is also expressed in England about the drop in the number of students in arts and creative subjects. That share fell by 10 points, which could well lead to a shortage in the future. According to the index's authors, public investment therefore remains necessary. Because if there is no growth, England might lose its position as a world cultural leader.
English (UK) 
Nederlands 
Français 
