In his recent Limelight article A Cultural Leadership Crisis, Samuel Cairnduff references Michael Lynch’s comments regarding the composition of arts boards in the wake of governments shifting towards a view of philanthropy as being the solution for funding the arts, rather than themselves. As Lynch says:

“[Arts companies] started to get boards full of corporates or philanthropists. Artists got shoved to the side … And I think, inevitably, as times got tougher and things got more competitive, that has stifled the ability of many of our cultural leaders to come out and talk openly.”

In addition to thinking that having corporates on the board helps to raise money (a tenet that needs careful scrutiny before being seen as holy writ), it was also thought in some sectors of government that having business people on the boards would ‘improve’ the management. But has there been a decrease in companies struggling financially, or generating large deficits, or closing down altogether? I suggest the answer is no. And perhaps answers to ‘why’ should be sought other than in management practices.

Photo © Pawel Chu/Unsplash

Anyone...