ACGB and Community Arts
The beginnings of the Arts Council’s recognition (however uneasy) of Community
Arts as a ‘legitimate’ movement dates from the 1960s, a decade which saw an
increasing number of new ‘Arts Labs’ and other such ventures come into being
and begin to look for funding. Realizing that its existing structure was not
sufficient to deal with this new type of client, the ACGB formed the ‘New Activities
Committee’ in July 1969 to advise on applications for funding; it ran until April
1970 and ended with the production of the ‘New Activities Report’. The
recommendations contained therein led to the creation of the ‘Experimental
Projects Committee’ – which ran from November 1970 to December 1973.
By this time the projects being considered by the committee were deemed to fall
mainly
into
two
categories,
‘Performance
Art’
and
‘Community
Arts’.
‘Performance Art’ became the responsibility of the Art Panel and in 1974 the
ACGB set up the ‘Community Arts Working Group’, under the chairmanship of
Professor Harold Baldry. This Working Group convinced the ACGB that
Community Arts should be funded and also that it needed its own committee;
thus, in 1975, the ‘Community Arts Committee’ was formed for an initial two year
trial period.1 In 1976, an Evaluation Working Group concluded that ‘Community
Arts’ was a success and should remain part of the ACGB remit but that clients
would be better served if they were devolved to, and therefore funded by, their
respective RAA.
The initial deadline for this devolution was set as 1982 but this proved to be
overly ambitious — many Community Arts clients were not at all happy at the
prospect of being transferred to their RAA. The general fear was that the RAAs
did not have sufficient funds or manpower to maintain a separate Community
Arts section, and that this would result in Community Arts having to compete with
The budget the Committee was given was £176,000 for the first year – from which it funded 57
projects, and £350,000 for the second year – which funded 75 projects.
1
all existing RAA clients for a share of the available funds. While these difficulties
were being sorted out, Community Arts became a sub-committee under the
Combined Arts Section.
From its inception in 1979/80, Combined Arts was part of the Regional
Department but, in the 1985/86 restructuring, it became a separate unit within the
newly created Arts Division. Its brief covered Arts Centres, Performance Art and
Community Arts, and it was dissolved in 1988 when all these activities finally fully
devolved to the RAAs. In 1991, a new Combined Arts Unit was formed within the
new Arts Development Division, with responsibility for the ICA, the Notting Hill
Carnival, the South Bank, International Initiatives, New Collaborations, Live Art
and Youth Funds. At the same time, the Advisory Committee on Combined Arts
was also reformed. Of the series catalogued under the heading ‘Combined Arts
Unit, only ACGB/88 (Policy and Information Files, 1986-1996) is of relevance to
the researcher working on Community Arts.
In spite of the seeming success of its work with Community Arts, the ACGB
remained unconvinced of what exactly constituted ‘Community Arts’ and
therefore frequently debated whether or not it should continue to fund such
indefinable enterprises. A draft of Baldry’s interim report, from March 1974,
[ACGB/103/30 – folder 5] points out that ‘We have reached no satisfactory
definition yet and it may be futile to look for one: but we can pick out certain
features which together add up to a distinctive picture’. The report goes on to list
and explain the key elements of the ‘Community Artist’ and ‘Community Arts’:
(1) […] an individual or group of individuals, perhaps best described
as animateurs.
(2) Community artists are distinguishable not by the techniques
they use, although some (e.g. video, inflatables) are specifically
suited to their purpose; but by their attitude towards the place of
their activities in the life of society. Their primary aim is to bring
about change – psychological, social, or political – in a community.
(3) It cuts across the distinction between particular art forms.
(4) It cuts across the distinction between professional and amateur.
The report goes on to consider various possibilities for the more efficient funding
and monitoring of Community Arts; a hand-written note on page 5 suggests:
‘perhaps the RAA’s should receive the original applications and forward them in
priority order’. This was to become the beginnings of devolution.
Points 3 and 4 above encapsulate the unease the ACGB felt when dealing with
Community Arts; after all, the Arts Council was committed to furthering
professionals, not amateurs, and its structure was such that each art form fitted
neatly into its own section. Throughout its history, although it tried, the ACGB
never really came to terms with Community Arts and continued to debate
whether or not they should be considered part of its remit. Another paper —
Community Arts and the Arts Council (Council Paper 753) March 1980
[ACGB/113/18 – folder 1] — covers very similar territory, trying both to define
‘What makes Community Arts special’ and work out how the Arts Council should
deal with the issue. Written by the Deputy Secretary-General of the council, this
paper broadly concluded that Community Arts were not, in fact, special and
therefore should be fully devolved to the regions and not be given any increase in
funding. Naturally, this attitude incensed both the Community Arts groups and
CoRAA (Council of Regional Arts Associations).
This ‘solution’ to the problem, namely devolution, was eventually agreed upon
and by 1988 responsibility for all Community Arts had been devolved to the
RAAs.
Series, and files, which the researcher may find particularly useful, are:
Policy and External Relations Division: 1942-1996
Policy and Planning Unit 1950-1996
ACGB/103
Regional Development Department, 1955-1987
http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/wid/ead/acgb/acgb-103.html#toc0
ACGB/103/16
Community Arts Policy 1974-78
ACGB/103/20
Combined Arts Unit 1982-84
ACGB/103/25
Combined Arts Unit: Officers’ Correspondence 1981-85
ACGB/103/26
Community Arts Sub-Committee 1982-84
ACGB/103/28
Community Arts Advisory Committee 1985-87
ACGB/103/29
Community Arts Sub-Committee 1982-85
ACGB/103/30
Community Arts Committees 1974-79
(including a 1978 report on devolution)
ACGB/103/36
Combined Arts Unit Correspondence with Clients 1983-88
ACGB/103/120
Community Arts 1986-87
ACGB/103/122
Community Arts Sub-Committee 1984
ACGB/103/128
Combined Arts: Client Applications 1985-87
ACGB/103/139
Community Arts Committees 1982
ACGB/103/155
Council of Regional Arts Associations (CoRAA): Community
Arts Officers Group 1984-86
ACGB/103/163
Combined Arts Unit: Officers’ Correspondence 1985-87
ACGB/103/168
RAA Community Arts 1977-81
ACGB/103/169
Community Arts: Devolution reports 1977-78
ACGB/103/182
Combined Arts Sub-Committee/Committee 1985-87
(the new committee after the Glory of the Garden)
ACGB/103/183
Community Arts: Devolution to RAAs 1986-87
ACGB/103/201
Combined Arts Sub-Committee 1982-83
ACGB/113
Combined Arts, Community Arts and Arts Centres 19701986
http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/wid/ead/acgb/acgb-113.html#toc0
ACGB/113/3
Training of Community Arts workers 1975-82
ACGB/113/71
Community Arts Committee 1975-82
ACGB/113/72
Community Arts Working Group 1975-82
Note: Researchers should be aware that ACGB/113 has not been catalogued in
detail, thus requesting a file such as ACGB/113/39 (Miscellaneous Community
Arts 1975-1985) will bring 46 boxes of unsorted material!