The UK is in danger of becoming a no-go zone for international performers. Lyn Gardner has launched a passionate critique of the points-based visa system for being too difficult, time-consuming and damaging to the UK’s cultural reputation. There are numerous cases of high-profile artists, dancers and musicians being denied entry to the country having spent time and money filling out the pernickety visa applications. The justification for refusal is usually that the Home Office is concerned that the applicant will outstay their visa and vanish. Now, while this might potentially be a problem with student visas (as the Telegraph rants this week), we’re largely talking about internationally renowned performers here who have schedules packed with work across the globe. A guest ballet dancer is hardly going to skive off halfway through a run to frolic in our green and pleasant land – without paying taxes. Why should artists have to jump through so many hoops for the honour of performing on our rainy little island, when other countries welcome them with open arms? This is without even considering the numbers of artists (particularly in Africa) who can’t even apply for a visa, as they are required to travel to another country to lodge an application and to have a sponsor in the UK who can pay all their costs up front.

A survey by Reader’s Digest has revealed so-called shocking statistics about the British public’s lack of knowledge of classical music. Now, noone is disputing that the figures look bad (75% did not know that Elgar wrote ‘Pomp and Circumstance’, and 27% did not know he was a composer), but are they actually surprising? Classical music still finds it hard to shake off the image that it is difficult and elitist, but a lot of music education doesn’t do much to help dispel this. Further, does not knowing Elgar’s name prevent an appreciation of Pomp and Circumstance? Of course not. Sixty-one per cent of respondents said they liked classical music, so not knowing names is clearly not putting people off. Not knowing who Lady Gaga is wouldn’t stop someone from dancing along, and this feels uncomfortably like a chance for those who are classical music aficionados to feel smug – which is really not going to help its image. It’s all very well to climb aboard one’s high horse and look down at those who think that Bocconcini is a composer (when, obviously, Boccooncini is an Italian cheese ball), but I didn’t know that, and I both listen to classical music and have Music A-level. A question like that is just setting people up to look foolish. That aside, the fact that one third of respondents to the survey never listened to classical music is the more pertinent figure – after all, it’s hardly gobsmacking that people have little specialist knowledge of a something they never listen to.

We’ve been following an increasingly bizarre story from Egypt this week: what at first seemed to be a straight-forward theft of Van Gogh’s ‘Poppy Flowers’ (also known as ‘Vase with Flowers’) has spiraled into farce. First, Egypt’s Culture Minister Farouk Hosni announced that the painting had been recovered, only for that apparent sigh of relief to be based on false information. Then the Deputy Minister of Culture, Muhsin Sha’lan, was by default “implicated” in the theft by Egypt’s Prosecutor General, solely because he is in charge of the museum’s financial affairs. The painting was stolen from the Mahmoud Khalil Museum in Cairo, helped by serious security lapses – none of the museum’s alarms and only seven of 43 surveillance cameras were working. Sha’lan has not been charged with anything, but it’s an interesting precedent: if he can be held responsible for the theft, perhaps we could apply the same wacky logic here? If Jeremy Hunt, Ed Vaizey, George Osborne and David Cameron became personally liable for our works of art, perhaps they would be a little more generous with funds. Picture the scene: Hunt arrested on charges of “professional delinquency and negligence” for not providing the Tate with enough money to keep its alarms working…

The phrase “the axe has fallen” is forbidden at AP Towers in an attempt to curb its hideous ubiquity. However, in the light of this week’s news, an axe is the most appropriate metaphorical tool in the shed. These are not judicious cuts – or “efficiency savings” as the DCMS delicately calls them. This is cultural slash and burn. Criticise the bureaucracy of quangos if you will (and we will), but we must recognise that the arm’s length principle is what is supposed to keep the sector relatively free from the diktats of government. If these arm’s length bodies are further eroded – as is about to happen to the UK Film Council – then the arts might be pressured into seeking the kind of philanthropic support that the Tories favour, or becoming directly beholden to politicians’ whims for their funds. This means that existing problems become more pronounced – namely whether artistic integrity and independence can survive direct interference from funders, be they government or private donors. There are promises from the DCMS that reallocation of Lottery funds will help to plug the gaps, but as Jeremy Hunt blithely models to halve the number of DCMS staff, it becomes impossible to believe that Lottery money will be enough to paper over the cracks. Hunt categorically promised, when in opposition, that the arts would not be singled out when cuts were made. Now that he’s in power, he has abandoned his scalpel in favour of the axe – and is swinging it dangerously close to the bone.

We’ve been having an interesting debate on the @ArtsPro Twitter account today, after the lovely Katie asked a question about whether it’s OK to Tweet at the theatre. Personally, I’m all for sharing experiences and opinions, but not during the show. No offence to anyone, but your opinion is not so important that it can’t wait until the interval/end of the show. By all means tweet about plays, and by all means tweet from inside theatre buildings, but during the actual play, phones off. And that includes iPhones, iPads, blackberries etc, too.

It’s not the noise I object to (although very few phones are silent), it’s the light. Back-lit screens are incredibly distracting when you’re sitting in the dark. So, by all means tell your followers if Jamie parker was fabulous as Prince Hal at the Globe (he was) or if Alan Bennett’s ‘The Habit of Art’ left you cold (it did). But wait until a suitable break. Please.

But, lots of people disagree, including this article, which I commented on when it first appeared (I’m @EllieFace, and I’m a curmudgeon). I reckon designated ‘tweet seats’ would be OK, so long as they were at the back of the stalls, where the audience can’t see. I don’t know how distracting it would be for the actors. What do you think?

In the wake of announcements on cuts from Arts Council England (ACE), the Arts Council of Wales (ACW) and Scottish Arts Council (SAC – now Creative Scotland), it is not surprising that unlucky organisations are fighting back. For some, attack is the best form of defence. For others, a courteous email has sufficed. A number of organisations that lost out in ACW’s investment review have opted for the latter tactic, asking the public to take issue with the funding body if they disagree with the decisions made. It is a fair and measured response – one that is perhaps testament to the intelligent and transparent way in which ACW handled its review process, rather than an indication of the strength of feeling in the Welsh arts sector. In contrast, Byre Theatre in Scotland is so incensed over SAC’s “contradictory and shortsighted” decision to cut its funding that it is issuing a legal challenge. Byre might have looked south to the fight that Dedalus, a small publisher in Sawtry, has been conducting with ACE – a fight that Dedalus has now won. After having its funding axed in 2008, the organisation’s managing director enlisted the support of big guns, including Booker Prize winner Alan Hollinghurst and Nobel laureate JM Coetzee. ACE has now reinstated its funding. It would be naïve to pin our collective hopes on one success story (particularly one that involves the comparatively small sum of £26k), but at least these stories show that arts organisations are taking action. Some battles have been won, but rally the troops – the war is far from over.

Should arts organisations take money from anywhere they can get? That’s the question echoing through the arts sector this week, as BP’s sponsorship of large arts organisations (including Tate, National Portrait Gallery, Royal Opera House and the Cultural Olympiad) has become the subject of fierce debate and protests. Some commentators feel that arts organisations should occupy a moral high ground, and refuse to countenance sponsorship agreements with companies such as BP and Shell. As green and ethical concerns are increasingly the focus of talks about the arts, and art itself, this position makes sense. But the decision to cut ties to a sponsor based on their ethical credentials could also reinforce the perception that the arts occupy an ivory tower, divorced from the harsh reality of budget cuts and financial hardship. Some feel that beggars cannot be choosers, and that philanthropy is to be encouraged, full stop. One could plausibly argue, however, that the organisations in question are hardly short of a bob or two and could raise the money elsewhere – while keeping their principles in tact. The fact that unpopular companies benefit more from the association with a virtuous theatre or gallery than the organisation itself cannot be glossed over. There is no doubt that BP benefits from its sponsorship of the arts – it is a business not a philanthropic organisation, after all – but whether it benefits more than the organisations who take its money is harder to judge. Arts funding looks set to be hit hard in the autumn spending review, and with Hunt and Vaizey on the record as fans of philanthropy, smaller arts organisations cannot afford to be too picky. Does it have to be a question of morals versus money?

Amidst the gloom of budget cuts, there is some good news desperately trying to see the light of day. The Old Red Lion, a tiny fringe theatre in a London pub, has announced that it is to open a sister venue – in a currently empty bar. It is an example of an encouraging trend: as funding for capital projects becomes scarcer (last week’s AP looked at whether the Liverpool Everyman’s redevelopment can still count on its promised £15m from ACE and £2.5m from the Regional Development Agency), more and more gallery and theatre organisations are popping up in empty buildings, shops and bars (see AP220 for a more in-depth analysis). The slightly terrifying “survival of the fittest” (or possibly fattest) mode of thinking is somewhat prevalent in the arts, particularly amongst organisations used to sailing close to the wind. By re-appropriating empty spaces, though, the sector illustrates an equally Darwinian “evolve and thrive” mentality, which is essential to adapt to the current funding environment. A recent BBC report suggests that one in five shops in the UK are currently standing empty – dreadful for business, but what a goldmine for the arts ­and potentially for the local community. Although the view that the arts do best during austere times is a fashionable but simplistic one, it is easy to see that dynamic, creative organisations that are prepared to take advantage of the spaces available – rather than mourning closures and focusing on ambitious new building projects – are better placed to weather the current storm.

This post was first published in ArtsProfessional’s News from the Nationals, 1 June 2010.

The lovely people at Colman Getty have just confirmed my seat in the press room at this year’s Olivier Awards. Darling! First thought: must scrub up. There’s going to be lots of the great and the good and the incredibly beautiful swanning about, so methinks it’s time to dust off a nice frock. Must play it cool though, as I imagine most people in the press room will be, well, press, and we are a fairly jaded bunch on the whole. I don’t want to be the one in a ballgown if everyone else is in jeans. Fortunately, I have a briefing document to keep me on the straight and narrow (and far from the red carpet) that suggests somewhere in between will be about right: sounds like time for a trusty LBD.

But enough on matters sartorial. I’m excited because of the awards themselves. The Oliviers are the theatrical Oscars. As a theatre enthusiast, it’ll be nice to hear who wins live, and to have the chance to talk to the winners afterwards. Nominees include: Mackenzie Crook (Jerusalem) Rowan Atkinson (Oliver!), James Earl Jones (Cat on a Hot Tin Roof), Keira Knightley (The Misanthrope), Jude Law (Hamlet), James McAvoy (Three Days of Rain), Mark Rylance (Jerusalem), Rachel Weisz (A Streetcar Named Desire) and Samuel West (Enron). Presenters for the night include: Kim Catrall, Rosamund Pike (who is currently touring Hedda Gabler in a production high-up my Want to See list); Tamsin Greig (who is awesome in every way, and is currently in The Little Dog Laughed’ at the Garrick); Rupert Friend, Elaine Paige and James Earl Jones. We also get “divas” from ‘Priscilla, Queen of the Desert’, singing nuns, and most of the cast of Les Mis.

If Mark Rylance doesn’t win Best Actor, I shall eat my ballgown, and the smart money is probably on Rachel Weisz for Best Actress. I can’t comment on the Best Supporting Actress award as I haven’t seen any of the productions, but for Best Supporting Actor my hope is Macenzie Crook and my expectation is Eddie Redmayne.

The award ceremony is on Sunday night, so we shall see…

Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw managed to fan the political flames and reopen healing wounds when he went off-piste in November during what should have been a fairly routine speech to the Labour group ‘Progress’. He was critical of the PM on electoral reform, which would be foolish in the run-up to a general election if one valued one’s job – perhaps Bradshaw doesn’t. He seems out of touch with the people over whose lives he has such influence. Additionally, using the word “luvvies” has not endeared him to anyone in the arts, and highlights a perceived lack of empathy with a struggling sector – which is already lobbying rather hard to have its voice heard and to keep the arts firmly on the political agenda. To suggest otherwise is pejorative, and worryingly ill-informed. His rather bizarre claim that a play such as ‘Enron’ would not be funded under the Tories is daft – especially at a time when the Tories are doing so much to cosy up to the arts world. Does Bradshaw not realise that Arts Council England is not supposed to dictate the artistic programmes of the theatres it funds? Demanding that more “luvvies stamp their feet” is not the way to drum up support for Labour, as it infantilises those who work in the arts.