Arts Council England, its origins and development

In its original form as the Council for the Encouragement of Music and Arts (CEMA), what we now know as Arts Council England was set up in 1940 with government funding and chaired by Lord De La Warr, then President of the Board of Education. This was, of course, before the end of WW2 but its purpose, to help promote and maintain British artistic traditions and culture, was considered important and a key objective was to give financial assistance to cultural societies finding it difficult to maintain their activities.

De La Warr (responsible also for championing the development in 1935 of the De La Warr Pavilion in Bexhill), was soon followed by another illustrious name, the economist John Maynard Keynes. As Chair, he used his influence to secure more government funding despite the country’s poor, war-induced financial state and in 1945 enabled the funding of 46 arts organisations. In the same year it was announced that the Council would continue as a permanent peacetime body and it was duly Incorporated through Royal Charter as the Arts Council of Great Britain. The original charter can only be viewed at the National Archives in Kew but the second Annual Report, when published, described the purpose and policy as follows:

The objects of the Council, as set out in its Charter, are to develop "a greater knowledge, understanding and practice of the fine arts . . . and in particular to increase the accessibility of the fine arts to the public . . . to improve the standard of execution of the fine arts and to advise and co-operate with . . . Government Departments, local authorities and other bodies on any matters concerned directly or indirectly with those objects . . . “ (Arts Council of Great Britain, 1947, 2nd Annual Report, p.8)

It is also interesting to see some of the other illustrious names that made up the Council as published in the same report:

In 1966, a revised Royal Charter was published with minimal change to the main Objects and it wasn’t until 1994 that Arts Council England was formed, splitting away from Wales, Scotland and N Ireland where similar country-wide organisations were set up.

As it states in its website, Arts Council England (ACE) ‘has gone through many changes from its original remit’ and, in the introduction to its newest strategy document ‘Let’s Create’, the current Chair develops a floral metaphor to contrast the Council’s 1951 policy of supporting ‘few, but roses’ with the current, and to my mind a far more exciting prospect, of supporting ‘every variety of flower’. More explicitly, the Chair, Sir Nicolas Serota, states in the same introduction that the new strategy ‘will value the creative potential in each of us, provide communities in every corner of the country with more opportunities to enjoy culture, and celebrate greatness of every kind.’ (Let’s Create, 2020).

‘Let’s Create, Strategy 2020-2030’ is the second ten-year strategy produced by ACE. The first, entitled ‘Great Art and Culture for Everyone’ (2010), stated as its aim: ‘to build for the first time, with the public and our partners, a shared vision and a set of priorities to support and develop arts and culture in this country.’ 

The journey to ‘Let’s Create’:

Along with many cultural organisations, Arts Council England suffered financially under Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government. In fact, with ACE reliant on funding from central government, and so very much at the mercy of political ideology and policy change, its journey to current times has been complex, sometimes rocky and often questioned. It’s not the purpose here to look at this in detail but two factors stand out as influential and relevant to this research: the introduction of the National Lottery in 1994 and a review commissioned in 2008 by the Dept. for Culture, Media and Sport, ‘The McMaster Report’. 

The review made many recommendations designed to support greater access to the arts and recognised that art and culture should be for everyone ‘and has the power to change people’s lives, regardless of class, education or ethnicity’ (McMaster, 2008: p4). Further on in the report it broadens its definition of diversity to include disability but it feels as though acceptance that art might have value for people with special needs is in a fledgling state.

It also took the National Lottery a while to establish itself in ways that truly helped organisations and their activities to flourish. Early restrictions, such as funding cultural buildings but not what went on inside them, created anomalies and problems. But it did mean that amateur groups now had access to funds not available before, given, for example, the then narrower funding policies of ACE aimed at professional bodies.

To arrive at its strategic objectives and vision for 2020 to 2030, ACE describes how it has learnt from the roll-out of the last 10-year strategy, has consulted widely with organisations and communities, explored future trends, and reviewed the ways people benefit from the work of artists and arts organisations. All of the galleries along the south coast that I engaged with in my research receive significant funds from ACE and I understood from those interviewed that their organisations had contributed to the consultation.

The marrying of this new strategy with its current National Lottery relationship for managing funding is stating very clearly ACE’s position regarding the breadth of public benefit it is aiming for. It seems to bring genuine results with greater promise for access to the visual arts and the realisation of their stated vision:

By 2030, we want England to be a country in which the creativity of each of us is valued and given the chance to flourish, and where every one of us has access to a remarkable range of high-quality cultural experiences. 

Usefully, in the same document, ACE has also defined what it means by the word creativity, stating that:

Creativity describes the process through which people apply their knowledge, skill and intuition to imagine, conceive, express or make something that wasn’t there before.

This definition works well for me, particularly as my own investigations into art programmes reveal the importance of time spent creating - going through the process. Nigel Franklin of Arts 4 Dementia (A4D) talked passionately about the value to participants of going through the process of creating art. Alex Schady from Central St Martin’s (CSM) went a little further, saying that he wanted his students to understand there are different methodologies for developing art practice and that opening themselves up to others, via the workshops with people with dementia, might also lead to developments in their own practice.  For my own part, I went away from my role as a volunteer on those workshops knowing they had impacted on my own developing ideas.

Ideas based on reminiscence, developed from my late mother's slightly ramshackle sewing box. Oils on canvas, 50x50cm, 2022