From SHANTA ACHARYA, poet & organizer of the Lauderdale House poetry readings
This is devastating news indeed. The ACE funding decision is flawed, unfair, and irrational if not insane. We definitely live in ‘interesting’ times. However, I am delighted you will ‘continue publishing’, and ‘will not compromise in terms of quality or reach.’ I am sure that is the only way forward. Wishing you good luck and success!
I am extremely concerned about the loss of funding to Arc Publications as outlined in the recent ACE funding announcement and new National portfolio of arts organisations.
Let me declare my interest to start with – I am a poet whose latest book (fifth) was published by Arc in 2010. I am not a director of Arc or of any body associated with Arc. I am writing because I strongly believe public funding should be allocated in a fair and transparent manner to promote the greater good. I believe in excellence, but at the end of the day, who decides what is good, what is worth saving?
In light of ACE’s strategic framework for “excellence, founded on diversity and innovation, and a new collaborative spirit to develop the arts over the long term, so they truly belong to everyone,” the announced cuts are irrational and inequitable. The cuts are hugely prejudicial to diversity, and disproportionately penalize small presses that provide indispensable alternatives to the publication of poetry. Paying lip service to excellence does not make it happen automatically. If the ACE is genuinely interested in diversity, it should aim to spread its largesse more widely, not less. It is worth pointing out that a scandalously low 2% of the overall ACE funding was made to Literature in 2010-11.
No one disputes that going forward we need a comprehensive strategy for the arts and that technology is going to play a role in making it happen. But for the ACE to make the sort of savage cuts it has announced, it is indefensible. Arc received ACE funding for some fifteen years, presumably because it was doing a good job. Three years ago the ACE had such confidence in Arc they received a substantial increase in funding on account of Arc’s strong translation and publication programme. Arc has exceeded all ACE’s requirements to date. Thus, it is hugely puzzling why Arc was not included among ACE’s National portfolio organisations. The reason given to Arc was ‘lack of financial sustainability’. As ACE believed Arc deserved financial support all these years, it is not at all clear why Arc was considered lacking in financial sustainability or good governance now? The ACE grants do not pay the wages of the publisher, but are directed towards the publication of books. Surely, by withdrawing funding, these presses will become unsustainable, thereby making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is a deplorable decision in light of ACE’s declared “focus on excellent organisations and exceptional individual talent, with decisions shaped by a 10-year vision for the arts.”
Also, it is not clear why publishers like Bloodaxe, Carcanet, Faber, and Peepul Tree retain their funding (albeit some at reduced levels). Is the ACE suggesting that the work these publishers do is worth supporting, and not those publishers whose funding has been withdrawn? I would like to think the ACE exists to support all good poets, not just a select few, however outstanding the ACE might judge them to be.
I have not yet raised the long-standing issue of lack of publishing opportunities for poets from ethnic backgrounds as I think it is part of a larger malaise. It was only recently that Faber first published a poet from an Asian background. I am not suggesting there be a quota system in publishing; no, not at all. But when editors of publicly funded publications are not inclusive in their decision-making they contribute further to the existing inequalities in our society.
Had all funding been withdrawn, I would have been hugely shocked but could have argued it created a more level playing field for all struggling arts organisations? But the current policy of cuts makes enterprise and competition difficult. The value these small arts organisations (from whom funding has been withdrawn) make to society does not show up in our GDP calculations, or in the ACE’s figures. It is shockingly sad when random asset allocation decisions undermine everything that the arts in my view represent. Nor does it help to deliver the Government’s Big Society, a fairer society. As the amount of money involved is so small, I am hoping that these cuts can be reversed.