The UK government has announced a £1.5 billion funding package for the arts, which it says marks a turning point after a decade of underinvestment. Spread across five years from 2025 to 2030, the money includes £600 million for national museums and other organisations backed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. A further £160 million has been set aside for regional and local museums.

While many cultural leaders have applauded the move, others are more critical, pointing to UK National Audit Office reports that the culture department consistently underspends. We asked three industry experts to weigh in.

Wider support is needed

Adam Behr, Reader in Music, Politics and Society, Newcastle University

A £1.5 billion investment is welcome news for a sector buffeted by years of austerity and inflation (not to mention the long tail of pandemic shutdowns). But the devil is in the detail, as ever, and the wider context: definitions of “infrastructure” beyond the landmarks, and its relationship to cultural workers.

While the scale of this settlement is encouraging, it will need to support the wider cultural ecosystems in which headline assets sit. Culture is not a series of isolated institutions; it depends on networks of freelancers, grassroots venues and small organisations operating on tight margins. Many are reeling from rising costs, including increased employers’ national insurance contributions.

The policy ambition here, especially alongside growing recognition of the regions, is a clear step forward. But capital funding that stabilises national and regional flagships will be degraded if the surrounding ecology continues to thin out. Careful deployment of the Creative Foundations Fund for capital projects and Arts Everywhere Fund for local growth will be vital to ensure benefits flow throughout the system, supporting sustainable work and everyday cultural activity.

Consider the artists not just the buildings

Wanja Kimani, PhD Candidate in Fine Art, University of the Arts London

The £1.5 billion government commitment, particularly the £160 million for regional museums, is a vital lifeline. By addressing urgent infrastructure needs, this funding ensures the physical survival of museums and galleries after a decade of strain.

However, these spaces are more than buildings. They provide room to reconnect and reimagine our future, but this potential requires new ways of working that reflect our current reality. To truly serve communities, museums must be willing to interrogate the gap between intention and impact, becoming more experimental and open to new forms of collaboration.

Crucially, I question how this benefits artists, often the most precarious and underpaid members of the cultural ecosystem. For this significant investment to be truly effective, museums and galleries must actively create equitable opportunities, remove economic barriers for visitors and facilitate genuine community-rooted collaborations. We must invest in the people who inspire us, not just the assets that house them.

Questions remain

Charlie Gregson, Senior Lecturer in Museum Studies, Nottingham Trent University

The new funding aims to address foundational issues through its emphasis on repairing cultural venues and creating more sustainable business models. This directly responds to several pressing issues, particularly in context of the Arts Council England suggestion that they will be less prescriptive to artists and organisations and reduce grant administration.

Key details are not yet available, particularly regional distribution of funds, how recipients are prioritised and whether strategic initiatives will fill specialist skills shortages. Criticisms from the sector include lack of funding for core costs, with no news on the continuation of the funding stream for Local Authority museums facing a shortfall.

The funding represents potential opportunities to develop socially engaged decision-making. What happens when a site cannot be saved, what value do communities place in the asset and what might be the impact of radical new approaches such as “adaptive reuse or release” (giving an old building a new purpose instead of tearing it down)? Developing such co-productive approaches could embed sustainability-led practice to create a leap in resilience that the funding seeks to achieve.

This article is part of our State of the Arts series. These articles tackle the challenges of the arts and heritage industry – and celebrate the wins, too.

Adam Behr, Reader in Music, Politics and Socieity, Newcastle University; Charlie Gregson, Senior Lecturer in Museum Studies, Nottingham Trent University, and Wanja Kimani, PhD Candidate in Fine Art, Chelsea College of Arts, University of the Arts London, University of the Arts London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Latest News