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.