The Demise of BAC?
The possible - probable? - closure of BAC is very worrying. It’s not just the people of Wandsworth who should be worrying (and they very definitely should be, for BAC has been a major contributor to cultural and creative education in the borough’s schools) nor even just the theatre lovers of London, but the British theatre world in general. BAC has been a significant, indeed a major force in experimental theatre in the UK and work that has been created and companies which have developed there have gone on to be very important to theatre throught the UK and beyond. We have only to mention productions like Jerry Springer the Opera and companies like Frantic Assembly and Complicite to realise that.
What is particularly worrying is that Wandsworth is not a cash-strapped council in danger of being capped for overspending. It has the lowest council tax in the UK (and for a London borough that is little short of amazing) and huge reserves.
It is quite clear that the council’s main priority seems to be to keep the council tax as low as possible. That, of course, (as every council tax payer in the country will agree) not a bad thing, and councils which squander public money deserve to be attacked, but councils have a responsibility not only to provide basic services such as rubbish collection, transport, education, housing and care for the physical well-being of their constituents, but also for their cultural well-being.
The arts have always been dependent upon patronage: in Shakespeare’s day theatre companies belonged to royalty and aristocrats. The same aristocrats also supported musicians and artists, sculptors and poets. In the 40s, with the foundation of the Arts Council of Great Britain, politicians recognised that, to keep access to the arts affordable for the ordinary person, an element of state subsidy was essential. Big corporations also recognised that it was in their interests (even if just in terms of taxation) to support the arts.
Then along came the Thatcher government which, with tax reducation as its main aim, cut public grants with the aim of transferring subsidy to business. Organisations like Arts and Business became an important part of the arts funding mix. But what the goverment did not realise was that, in general, business wants to be associated with success and would not wish to be linked with failure. However to experiment is to risk failure. It is also likely to court controversy - not something a business wants to have associated with its name. Witness how quickly the Carphone Warehouse suspended its sponsorship of Celebrity Big Brother when the racism row broke out.
So organisations like the National Theatre and the RSC will attract sponsors but those like BAC are very unlikely to have much appeal to business, at least to the extent of the help it has been receiving from Wandsworth.
What is horrifying - because it suggests another agenda is at work here - is the fact that the subsidy (grant aid, rent and repairs) that BAC receives from the council amounts to 38p per person per year. The centre estimates that its visitors spend £2m a year in the borough, money that will be lost to Wandsworth if it is forced to close.
So add it up:
- the cost to Wandsworth is £317,000 a year
- the gain is £2m a year
- that’s a profit of £1,683,000 (although, of course, it doesn’t go into the council’s coffers)
There is not to be any scaling down of the grant: it will stop dead in April, leaving the Centre less than two and a half months to find alternative funding.
Either Wandsworth Council simply hasn’t thought through the effects of what it proposes. Or it doesn’t care. Or the decision is not economic but political and has more to do with what BAC is and does. Perhaps having a successful experimental arts organisation in the borough doesn’t sit well with the local Tory party which runs the council. Or perhaps it’s just that the council loves being the council with the lowest council tax in the UK and can’t see beyond that.
Whatever the reason the arts world needs to fight them!