As redundancies loom and opportunities for cultural experiences narrow, the arts risk regressing into a pastime for the elite
The grim news in the arts continues apace. Tate wrote to staff this week confirming that 313 employees will be made redundant. These workers are from the commercial branch of the operation, a company that began modestly in the 1990s as the Tate Gallery’s restaurant. Now it is Tate Enterprises, which runs the organisation’s shops, cafes, bars, publishing house and magazine, and rents out the museums for film shoots. It is a shift that neatly encapsulates the transition towards supposed sleek self-sufficiency that has been politically required of many arts institutions over the past decade. But what once looked like shrewd business practice – “extending the value of the Tate brand” – now seems an encumbrance. Tate has poured £5m into its commercial arm to prop it up, but that is money travelling in the wrong direction. It is warned that those who will pay with their livelihoods for the commercialisation of Tate are likely to be some of the museums’ poorest paid, often from black and minority ethnic backgrounds.
The galleries themselves – from St Ives to Liverpool – are open to visitors, but only in heavily reduced numbers, to those who have booked their socially distanced slots in advance. This reduction following months of closure is what lies behind many of the job losses. Fewer people in the galleries means less money spent at cafes and shops, which means less income. But the drop in visitor numbers is problematic for other reasons, too. It is wonderful for audiences to be able to return to museums – the National Galleries of Scotland begin to reopen from Monday, while the National Museum in Cardiff and London’s British Museum will reopen in time for the English and Welsh bank holiday weekend. But the danger is that visiting them will become an elite experience available only to the few.