Sir, Stephen Pollard is right to tease Philippe Sands, QC, and his fellow artists for the self-aggrandisement of their letter to The Times. But he is wrong to use that as a springboard to attack the principle of arts funding. In asserting that the arts “waste” public money, Mr Pollard accepts two common and lazy attacks on the arts. The first assumes that publicly funded arts organisations merely wait for the government to hand out the goodies, and do little else but bank the cheque. In fact, subsidy accounts for only about a fifth to a third of the funding for most subsidised arts organisations. The rest is raised from commercial activity and donations. Second, it is assumed that publicly funded arts are not popular. Yet Tate Modern is now the most popular visitor attraction in the country, and two subsidised plays, Enron and Jersualem, which began life at the Royal Court, are now packing them in in the West End.

Far from wasting public money, the subsidised arts give back far more than they receive, in economic terms through tourism and urban regeneration, and to the commercial arts by feeding through talent and ideas. That is why the Conservatives are determined to support the arts, not least by reversing some of Labour’s ill-thought-out cuts to lottery funding for the arts and heritage.

Ed Vaizey, MP
Shadow Spokesman on the Arts

Sir, Stephen Pollard misses the point about arts funding.

The guidelines that arts councils work to are designed to put all art forms on an equal footing. So, for example, an application from a busker has the same entitlement as one from the London Symphony Orchestra. This was presumably designed to redress an imbalance, but what has resulted is that the scales have tilted wildly in the other direction. Now everything has to be diverse, ethnic and supportive of minority groups. The result is that it is virtually impossible for many arts organisations to get funding for what many would consider mainstream cultural activities — chamber music, for example.

As crazy as this would seem, it is hardly fair to blame these groups for applying for money that they are entitled to — it is the system that needs fixing, and fast.

James Dickenson
Walsden, Lancs

Sir, Philippe Sands states that artistically thriving societies tend to be more democratic, egalitarian, economically robust and healthier. While I do not doubt that this is true it is worth considering whether artistic excellence actually precedes these factors. The logic of the argument indicates that the writer believes that the arts create wealthy and healthy citizens. I would suggest that wealth and health creates the economic spare capacity with which to support the arts and when there is little capacity less support will be available. The current strain on public finances requires special interest groups to make their case with a reasoned argument rather than by sloppy assertion.

David Ward Johnson
Middlesbrough