Letter: Paying for the arts
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.ANDREAS Whittam Smith's argument that "the best way to save the arts is to remove the single payer" (17 February) papers over a number of cracks.
He is incorrect to suggest that most arts organisations rely overwhelmingly on a single funder. This is not the case for many organisations who already put together a patchwork of income from many sources, including the Arts Council or regional arts boards, local authorities, businesses, box office and private giving. Whilst the loss of one of these sources would be damaging, it would not necessarily be fatal.
Second, he assumes that, having plotted its demise, a culture of philanthropy towards the arts would spring up to carry the coffin of the Arts Council. I suspect that he is too optimistic. Whilst a number of Britain's larger arts institutions have indeed tapped into private giving, they have the strength of being highly visible, national organisations which can offer a great deal to their donors in the form of kudos. Many less well-resourced companies might soon find themselves face down in the malmsey.
Smaller organisations cannot compete in terms of prising open the wallets of the wealthy. Their clients might be the young, the unemployed, the disabled. They may operate on a local level, so that much of their work is unseen. Or they may produce experimental work. All useful, necessary and potentially of very high quality, but just not "sexy" enough to attract private giving. They would consider life without public subsidy as being very unfair indeed.
ROD BIRTLES
General Manager
Milton Keynes City Orchestra
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments