Artists must brush up on business

SCOTTISH artists might do well to worry less about the Muse and more about their business model.

Future grants of taxpayers' cash to artists could be based on the chances of commercial success, and the public will even get a stake in the end result, under controversial new plans being considered by ministers.

The Scottish Government wants artists to play a greater role in the country's economy and – while art for art's sake still has a place – financial assistance should be linked to the chances of making a profit.

The planned moved has divided Scotland's artistic community, with some claiming it is the most outrageous example yet of philistinism at the highest ranks of Government, and others predicting it could boost quality across the board.

While the debate rages, an investigation by Scotland on Sunday has revealed more evidence that the current system of awarding grants to artists does not always produce the desired results. In the past five years, more than £1m has been allocated to more than 200 prospective authors by the Scottish Arts Council (SAC). Our findings suggest as many as half have yet to get their works published commercially despite receiving up to £25,000 each.

Culture Minister Linda Fabiani wants to shake up the system as part of a wider review of the arts in Scotland. A Scottish Government official said: "There will still be a place for art for art's sake, but the focus will be towards trying to encourage art which will have an audience and a market and away from just giving grants."

The official confirmed they were looking at getting a stake in the artistic project in return for funding it. A share of profits would then flow into the public coffers. "This idea of buying a stake in artists works in other countries," said the official. "We think it would work well here too. Over time, the return would be much better for the whole of the arts world in Scotland."

Jim Haynes, founder of the Traverse Theatre in Edinburgh, said: "It always makes me nervous when governments talk like this. In my experience, governments and bureaucrats don't know what they are talking about when it comes to the arts.

"They should be prepared to give money to support the arts and accept that sometimes they will lose. There needs to be support for art whether it turns a profit or not."

Sculptor Gerald Laing said: "The problem with this is that the number of patrons with taste and the money to buy the works is much fewer than the number of artists with ability. That will have to be recognised. You could take decades for your work to be worth a substantial sum of money."

Others were supportive. Painter Hugh Buchanan said: "Artists should have to produce works that will be bought. Michaelangelo worked for patrons who paid him for his works. Let the buyers decide what they like."

Arts impresario Ricky Demarco said: "This is an excellent idea in principle, but I would urge those running it to be patient, and not expect an immediate return. Art can take many years to be appreciated, and what gets the biggest audiences isn't necessarily the best art or makes the best impression on people's lives."

Our investigation of SAC grants to authors looked at scores of handouts going back around seven years. In a typical case, from 2002, Dundonian writer Don Paterson was awarded £25,000 to create a play in Scots "translating the experience of the Bosnian war to a council estate in east coast Scotland". Paterson declined to comment, but his agent confirmed the play was as yet unfinished.

The SAC said it was unable to give a breakdown of which authors who had received bursaries had gone on to have worked printed and said it was not necessarily important.

An SAC spokeswoman said: "Likelihood of publication is just one of the criteria for our direct support to writers. Our bursaries are awarded in a spirit of providing creative and professional development, more often than not bearing fruit in completed literary work, if not printed publication."