Arts Funding Everywhere?

Mar 15

It’s been an eventful month in the news. While global headlines have been dominated by events in the U.S., with Donald Trump once again at the centre of political debates, closer to home, some significant announcements have emerged around arts and culture—particularly in funding. These developments present an opportunity to take stock, dig beyond the headlines, and consider what might be coming next. As we look ahead to the rest of the year, what shifts in funding and policy should we be anticipating, and what do they mean for the sector?

Arts Everywhere?

The recent Arts Everywhere funding announcement from the UK Government has put a substantial amount of cash into the cultural sector. £250 million is no small sum, and new investment in the arts should always be welcomed. But beyond the headlines, the real question isn’t just who is being funded—it’s whose priorities are being funded.

Here’s where the money is going:

Urgent building works and infrastructure upgrades in England (£250.5m)
Running costs for civic museums in England (£20m) and the 15 museums and galleries sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (approx. £15m)
Community ownership of heritage buildings in England (£4.9m)
Four cultural education programmes currently funded by the Department for Education (£3.2m)

Despite the fresh branding, much of this funding isn’t really new. Many of these priorities were inherited from the previous Tory government. What we’re seeing now is a repackaged, slightly rebranded version, with a few added bells and whistles to generate positive coverage. There are few surprises here. It feels like a set of relatively easy wins, designed to take the pressure off the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) rather than addressing deeper structural issues in the sector.

Support for Artists?

As Producers, for us one of the most striking aspects of the Arts Everywhere announcement is its focus on infrastructure and education—both important, critical, relevant, but neither directly addressing the growing crisis for independent artists and creative practitioners. The fund prioritises built infrastructure and arts education, but where is the support for artists themselves? Without sustained investment in the people who create and produce work, how will these newly funded spaces be filled with meaningful cultural activity?

The largest new fund, the Creative Foundations Fund, will receive £85m in 2025-26 for “urgent capital works to keep venues across England up and running.” Arts Council England (ACE) will distribute the funding, and while they have not yet confirmed the details, we expect beneficiaries to include theatres, arts centres, galleries, and music venues.

Yet, we know first hand that artists are struggling to make ends meet. Rising costs, fewer opportunities, and reduced direct support have created an increasingly precarious working environment. The safety net for independent artists continues to shrink, while institutions fight to maintain their own survival. Without more direct investment in artistic practice, infrastructure alone won’t sustain a thriving cultural sector.

What’s Next for ACE?

The next major milestone for the sector will be the confirmation of the 2025/26 budget, followed by the launch of the National Portfolio Organisation (NPO) funding process. This will provide some clarity on how much funding is available, but the bigger question remains:how will this funding be structured, and what—if any—strategic funds will be available beyond core NPO support?

We know that other sectors, like Higher/ Further Education, are finding efficiencies —whether by making redundancies, reducing teaching hours, streamlining courses, or adopting more flexible structures to remain viable. But is that a model the wider cultural sector can or should follow? Will there be room for bold new ideas, major national commissioning schemes, research platforms, or cross-sector collaborations? Or will the focus remain on propping up the existing system, leaving little room for innovative interventions?

The Return of Trickle-Down Funding?

Is there a pattern emerging in how funding is being distributed—one that prioritises large institutions, infrastructure projects, and strategic investment at the top to stimulate growth, with the assumption that benefits will eventually filter down to independent artists, smaller organisations, and local creative economies? Does this actually work?

What does history say… well it depends who you ask. Trickle-down can - in the right circumstances (leadership) fuel positive things. However, they can equally lead to imbalances—where major organisations secure long-term stability while independent artists and smaller collectives operate in more precarious conditions. IN times of hardship when funding is weighted towards buildings, leadership programmes, and established institutions, how much actually reaches those making new work? If large cultural organisations are expected to play a bigger role in supporting the wider sector, where is the accountability to ensure that happens in practice?

If the government is doubling down on this model, we as a sector must ask: what mechanisms are in place to ensure trickle-down funding actually reaches artists and grassroots organisations? Is that on boards to hold companies to account - or is that ACE’s role? And is there a danger that this approach reinforces inequality, rather than building a more equitable and sustainable cultural landscape?

What Kind of Arts Sector Do We Want?

The UK is at a crossroads when it comes to arts funding. Do we continue down a path of declining public subsidy and increased reliance on philanthropy, private investment, and commercial revenue—mirroring the low-subsidy American model ? Or do we push for a European-style model, where the state plays a larger role in directly supporting artistic practice and cultural infrastructure?

This is not just a funding debate—it’s a decision about the kind of cultural landscape we want. One where access to arts and culture depends on market forces, or one where creativity is treated as a public good?

Navigating the New Normal?

At Third Version Creative, we’re not just observing these shifts—we’re directly affected by them. The artists we work with and the places we connect to are facing increasing pressures as the funding landscape changes. Like many others, we find ourselves caught in the tension between needing to do more with less and recognising that this might continue to be the new normal.

We have already been working collaboratively— sharing services, building efficiencies, and operating through a consortium model with our partner Crying Out Loud to deliver an NPO Programme. In essence, we’ve been embracing partnership-driven ways of working to sustain a core body of work. But what more can we do? Are we ahead of the game in adapting to this reality?

Don’t get us wrong—partnerships are invaluable. They bring much more than just financial benefits. They foster shared expertise, creative exchange, and new opportunities. By collaborating across organisations and networks, we are creating a more sustainable and flexible approach that enables artists, producers, and creatives to benefit from shared resources. But are we also part of the inevitable consequence of diminishing public funding?

Is this the future of arts funding? Should partnerships replace individual survival strategies? And if so, what other models should we be developing together?

What’s Next? Is There Room for Optimism?

This is all tough stuff—depressing, right? The sector is facing major challenges, and the landscape ahead is uncertain. But is there room for optimism?

Perhaps. While government-led funding decisions may be beyond our control, the sector has always been adept at resilience, adaptation, and reinvention. New alliances are being formed. Independent artists and producers are finding ways to work together outside traditional funding models. Alternative investment streams—from social finance to international partnerships—are emerging. There’s creativity in how the sector organises itself, even in the face of cuts.

Some questions we’re pondering on: how do we turn survival strategies into sustainable, long-term solutions? What would a truly fair and forward-thinking arts funding model look like? And how do we ensure that artists, the lifeblood of the sector, remain at the heart of decision-making?

Until next time— keep going, and we’re here if you need an ear or a hand.

Sud