Jennifer Dempsie: Think big about the future of our arts

The 24 per cent reduction to the UK government culture budget will sharply focus minds, particularly with the SNP government still to put forward its Budget Bill for Scotland to the Scottish Parliament. But intellectualising over the issue will not be enough: innovative and concrete ways must be found to nurture, nourish and protect the vibrant cultural life of Scotland.

At a recent conference in Brussels, the culture secretary Fiona Hyslop said that the creative industries in Scotland support around 63,000 jobs, generate an annual turnover of about 5.2 billion and, over the past decade, have grown more quickly than the Scottish economy as a whole.

So, given the sizeable nature and growth potential of this sector, why have the roles of the arts and creative industries not featured more prominently in the debate about growing Scotland's economy?

Instead, it appears the debate has centred around Creative Scotland chief executive Andrew Dixon's remarks early on in his appointment that the agency was "not just a grants-giving body".

A fundamental role of the agency is to provide funding to artists in grant form, honouring Creative Scotland's legislative requirement as set out in the bill that there should be "art for art's sake". But some may have been a bit quick off the mark in attacking Dixon's belief that Creative Scotland should also be seeking to promote entrepreneurialism and profit-making from and for the arts sector.

It is vital that Creative Scotland gives artists in Scotland the creative freedom to stimulate and produce art in all its forms through grant-style funding. Yet at a time when the UK government has just dealt a hammer blow of cuts to the UK arts budget, it is time to face up to the fact that our new arts agency has to look at alternative and creative ways of funding artists, national companies and creative industries - as well as giving grants.

As most people across the arts and culture sector in Scotland will be fearing, that very sector is usually the first to feel the brunt of government cuts and efficiencies.However, it seems that many of our North American and neighbouring European governments are bucking that trend and the importance of creative industries as a high-growth sector is hitting home.

In Germany, the federal culture budget has increased by more than 20 per cent since 2005 and the culture minister has stabilised the budget for the next financial year, explaining that the decision was based on "the government's view that culture is of primary importance to society". France recently increased the spend on its culture department by 2.7 per cent. French minister of culture Frederic Mitterrand said of the increase: "Though most of the countries of Europe have chosen to trim, often substantially, their culture budgets, France has made a different choice. The cultural offering is a determining element in our attractiveness as a country and its economic development."

Barack Obama has marginally increased the funding for America's cultural agency, the National Endowment For The Arts to $167.5 million in 2011. Whilst that is positive news, considering the US federal budget for 2010 is estimated to be $3.55 trillion, it really is a remarkably small budget.

Canada is a country which is recognised as having a strong policy and funding focus for the arts. Heritage minister James Moore has made a series of announcements to stabilise the funding of the Canada Council for the Arts at $194m.

For a country with a significant amount of the cultural treasures in Europe, Berlusconi's government spends very little on maintaining its cultural patrimony. Although it frequently boasts about Italy's cultural heritage, it does little to support or preserve it. The government hopes the shortfall will be met by private sponsorship.

It seems this is the tactic the UK government has also decided to follow. However, experience has told us that attracting commercial sponsors for the arts is extremely difficult, given sponsorship tends to focus on sport, not to mention the difficult financial climate.

It is a risky strategy and one which the Conservative-Liberal government would be wise to avoid, as leaning more on individual and corporate donors would lead to a procession of closures of independent and not-for-profit arts and culture activities, groups and institutions.

But what does this mean for Scotland?

One positive is the SNP administration sees the promotion of arts and Scotland's culture to the world as a central policy, something which opposition parties have been quick to attack as "the nationalist agenda". But that criticism is short-sighted, given the fact that creative industries are one of the fastest-growing areas in Scotland's economy.Labour leader Iain Gray has said little on the subject of culture or the arts, and the closest the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have got to broaching the subject is questioning the funding for Homecoming Scotland.

Given that the creative industries are a priority sector in the SNP government's economic strategy and feature in the economic recovery plan, I do not think Creative Scotland or culture funding in general will be singled out or face a majority share of the burden in John Swinney's Budget Bill later this year, particularly as there is the desire to see the new agency thrive. Also, it is clear that the creative industries are a high-growth sector and it would be out of step for the SNP to reduce support for such an important industry to our economy.

However, Creative Scotland is really going to have to set the heather alight if there is to be headway in ensuring that our creative industries realise their growth potential and Scottish arts continue to have a platform.

It is against this backdrop that I believe the cultural sector in Scotland and, importantly, the agency responsible thinks boldly and imaginatively about how we financially support our artists as well as protect their intellectual property and encourage entrepreneurialism.

We need to see a good venture capital model available for artists who want to be entrepreneurial and make a business out of their creativity.

Now is not the time, given the financial climate, to be shy of encouraging bang for your bucks if it is done sensibly and artistic values are protected.

Never has this been more true for our national companies. Let's take an easy example: the phenomenon that was the National Theatre of Scotland's Black Watch. If Black Watch had been owned by a commercial producer, it would have been showing simultaneously in a dozen cities around the world.

We have to ask why did this heavyweight production not reach its touring or profit potential. I believe the answer lies in a possible solution to the future funding of our national theatre. At present, there is a lack of commercial incentivisation, because the National Theatre has to return any profit or surplus to the government every year.

If this barrier could be lifted, the National Theatre of Scotland would have the green light to promote productions on a larger scale. Does anyone doubt that with this freedom, NTS wouldn't have made a tidy profit on Black Watch and have stored some cash away for the next venture?

More needs to be done to promote our artists on the global stage also, in particular musical artists. Our arts agency should be doing more than sending some bands out to the showcase festival South by South West in Austin, Texas, each year.As a passionate advocate of all that is creative about Scotland and a firm believer that this sector is integral to our wellbeing as a nation - as well as growth of our economy - I would dearly love to see Creative Scotland rise to the challenge and the sector come together to do what it does best: think creatively and independently to ensure a strong cultural and creative identity in Scotland.

Just let's not be afraid of a bit of commercial activity too.