Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in Arabic Unlock the Editor’s Digest for freeRoula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.The writer is director of the British MuseumThe United Kingdom has always been proud of its vibrant cultural scene — and rightly so. It is home to some of the greatest museums, arts festivals, galleries, studios, concert halls and theatres in the world. We make an outsize contribution to global culture in these areas. Yet today it feels like we are at a critical juncture in terms of how we fund — and value — these national assets. I fear that if we allow the debate to become too pious, in particular around the question of corporate sponsorship, it will be audiences, visitors and future generations who will ultimately pay the price. I grew up in Yorkshire in a family below the poverty line and some of my fondest childhood memories are of visiting smaller regional museums and galleries across the north of England and very occasionally those in London. All of them were free to enter — and had to be for us to be able to visit them. Those trips filled me with awe and wonder, and I feel profoundly thankful to my parents for them. I also feel gratitude to the wisdom of cultural leaders and politicians in maintaining the principle of free entry that made culture accessible to families like ours. Part of the reason that free entry was possible was, of course, generous support from the many enlightened philanthropists and donors who fund our great civic institutions, as well as government. But now the bar for what is considered “acceptable” sponsorship is being raised ever higher.Peaceful protest is a key part of an open society, of course. However, a more combative form of activism has emerged in recent years, sometimes involving criminal damage, which actively seeks to pressure cultural institutions and venues across the country into dropping corporate sponsors. I have sometimes wondered why cultural institutions are targeted more frequently than other recipients of such support — sports teams, for instance. It also strikes me as odd that this new form of activism has gravitated to arts venues in order to protest geopolitical events rather than, say, Parliament Square. Is it right that the arts are collateral damage in the bid to gain attention for a cause?This approach is already having a chilling effect and will have deeply regrettable consequences if left unquestioned and unchecked. Take last year’s Baillie Gifford controversy. The asset manager had been generously funding literary events across the country for decades, but, under pressure from activist groups, its support was then rejected. Prices rose, and other literary festivals suffered greatly as a result Who benefited from this? Yes, the activists could claim victory, but the upshot was that the cultural sector lost yet more funding — with no obvious answer as to what would fill the void. In other instances, the rejection or withdrawal of certain funding streams has meant the closure of programmes that are often prime targets for corporate support: those that are expensive to run but highly valuable, such as innovative digital programming for schools and families. This is a growing trend across the sector. The British Museum, like our peers, benefits from a blend of government funding, the ultimate source of which is the taxpayer, and the support of philanthropic individuals and corporations. Both are critical to keeping our doors open and taking care of the extraordinary collection we house. We are often urged to drop corporate sponsors for a variety of reasons, but who would truly benefit from that? And what would take its place? Would it be right to seek more money from taxpayers who are already feeling the strain in a time of economic uncertainty? Should we introduce entrance fees, thereby placing a barrier to access for thousands of families like the one I grew up in? Should we scale back our work to ensure our objects and artefacts are loaned as widely as possible around the country — and thus seen by millions of people who might not visit the museum in London? Should we neglect the upkeep of our buildings or slow down our efforts towards becoming a net zero institution? I know these are not the primary concerns of protesters and activists, but they are the urgent questions that must be answered by those who seek to sever the ties between cultural institutions and their sources of funding. What replaces that money? Who fills those gaps? If they have no answers, then their claim to be concerned about the future of the arts and culture will ring hollow.
