The Kennedy Center in Washington, a sprawling monument to American performing arts, has finally closed the curtain on the Trump era. The former president’s controversial tenure as chairman of the board ended this week, with the institution’s new leadership vowing to return to its non-political roots. For those of us who view the world through the lens of the bottom line, this is a messy but necessary portfolio rebalancing.
Across the Atlantic, UK cultural institutions have taken note. The Royal Opera House, the National Theatre, and the British Museum have all issued statements reaffirming their independence from political interference. This is not mere virtue signalling; it is a calculated move to preserve their brand equity and, crucially, their government funding. Cultural organisations in Britain rely heavily on state support through Arts Council England and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Any whiff of politicisation would risk alienating the very MPs who sign their cheques.
Let us not romanticise this. The arts sector is in a precarious position. The pandemic gutted revenues, inflation is eroding real-term subsidies, and the cost-of-living crisis is eating into ticket sales. In such an environment, independence is a luxury that must be earned. The Kennedy Center debacle serves as a stark reminder that when institutions become political footballs, they lose the trust of patrons and lawmakers alike.
For UK cultural bodies, the lesson is clear: stay above the fray. The British Museum, for instance, has weathered storms over repatriation of artefacts and sponsorship from oil companies. Yet it has managed to maintain its reputation as a neutral curator. The Tate galleries have similarly navigated criticism about boardroom diversity without becoming a partisan battleground.
However, the threat is not just from the right. The Labour Party’s shadow culture secretary has hinted at demanding more diversity in board appointments. This is a slippery slope. Independence means independence from all political pressure, whether from a populist conservative or a progressive social engineer.
The market, as always, will be the ultimate judge. If UK cultural institutions retain their reputation for even-handedness, they will continue to attract private donations and government grants. If not, they risk capital flight in the form of disengaged donors and falling visitor numbers.
In the end, the Kennedy Center’s turmoil is a reminder that cultural independence is not a given; it is a policy choice. UK institutions have made their choix. Now they must live with the consequences, whether that be scrutiny from the right or demands from the left. The bottom line will tell the tale.
