Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bogbrush

Luvvies Descend On Downing Street

Recommended Posts

I never quite get the idea that Arts get subsidised. The arguments seems to go;

1. It's incredibly successful and brings in loads of money. In which case why does it need subsidy?

2. It's incredibly poor because there's no income for it. In which case since people obviously don't want it why should anyone be forced to pay for it?

Todays contribution seemed to be more of the same;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13010131

West said the arts industry was the "second most profitable sector in Britain" and it was important funding continued to keep the sector going.

"It ain't broke, so don't fix it, a £100 million cut to a £450 million budget is not minor," he added.

"We want a government funded Arts Council that allows us to be as successful as we are at the moment and continue to play our part in paying for hospital beds. We're profitable. We want to continue to be.

If anyone can see the logic in that statement could they let me in on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never quite get the idea that Arts get subsidised. The arguments seems to go;

1. It's incredibly successful and brings in loads of money. In which case why does it need subsidy?

2. It's incredibly poor because there's no income for it. In which case since people obviously don't want it why should anyone be forced to pay for it?

Todays contribution seemed to be more of the same;

http://www.bbc.co.uk...t-arts-13010131

If anyone can see the logic in that statement could they let me in on it?

Same argument on Question (waste of) Time last night. I agree. They kept saying how well "The Kings Speech" had done at the Box Office. I thought well plough back all the money into new productions then, so whats the problem?

They want the taxpayer to take the risk, which at one time would have been taken by British film entreprenuers like the Bolting Brothers or the Rank Organisation. And as for stuff like opera, the rich are getting richer, so are well placed to fund or sponsor their own indulgences,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone can see the logic in that statement could they let me in on it?

Quentin Crisp defined charisma as the ability to influence without using logic. Luvvies are in the charisma business so why bother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maths and logic have never been their strong point. It goes all the way down from Hollywood to the bottom of the pile at the Beeb.

...and the Labour Party UK.... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not particularly edifying when you see extraordinarily well paid people begging for subsidies.

Of course, the well paid ones could simply just put their money back in if they are so 'passionate' about it.

M own view is that it goes to the arrogance of people who think they have a better handle on what is good for people than the people themselves. Someone like Patrick Stewart seems convinced that the stuff he does is essential to our social health. I think he's just a player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never quite get the idea that Arts get subsidised. The arguments seems to go;

1. It's incredibly successful and brings in loads of money. In which case why does it need subsidy?

2. It's incredibly poor because there's no income for it. In which case since people obviously don't want it why should anyone be forced to pay for it?

Todays contribution seemed to be more of the same;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13010131

If anyone can see the logic in that statement could they let me in on it?

Pretty dismal bunch, the Luvvies.

"Paying for hospital beds".......right...and you're asking for £450 million in public money?

In my experience, the majority of people involved in "the arts" are lacking in common sense and something else I can't put my finger on, that makes them very irritating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understand Harrison Bertwhistle, the composer, lauded to the rafters with critical acclaim, subsidised heavily AFAIK, but I can't get anythign he does compared to, say, Glass, Nyman, Tavener, who, as far as I know, seem to be capable of getting by on popularity - they possibly DO get funding, but they don't need it

the great composers all found private patrons (Mozart, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Bach, Vivaldi (given his patron was the church)) or were entrepreneurial (Handel, Beethoven, Paganini)

Mozart said that the trick for composing great serious music was to appeal to officianodos who would understand the compositional ingenuity, and to ameteurs, who would still be touched by the music without understanding how it works. He was a very wealthy man due to his talents, incidentally, and current opinion is not that he died of poverty, but a hereditary disease AFAIK. Shame all the same.

I believe shakespeare achieved something similr by writing critically admirable plays that also appealed to the plebs (without the plebs quite knowing why)

serious artists should need no subsidy, I really don't get why they get it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the great composers all found private patrons (Mozart, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Bach, Vivaldi (given his patron was the church)) or were entrepreneurial (Handel, Beethoven, Paganini)

Though once you get into the late 19th and c20, instances of composers subsisting partly and then wholly on public subsidy start to pop up. AFAIK Sibelius was the first who more or less spent his entire mature career subsisting on a government grant. Brahms, Mahler and Walton did partly. In many ways I think you could argue that church commissions were the c18 and c19 equivalent of arts council grants today, given the the church was funded largely by tithes (i.e. taxes). Someone like Bruckner, therefore (who spent a lot of his career as a paid employee of the RC church and wrote symphonies as a hobby on the side, though ironically it's his symphonies rather than his church music that he's principally remembered for today), is in many ways the c19 equivalent of the BIrtwistles and the Maxwell Davieses of today.

I think you could probably construct quite a robust argument that over a period of time starting in the late c18 and finishing in the mid c20, composers gradually became less entrepreneurial and more dependent on the taxpayer. One possible reason is the growth of aggressively commercial popular music from the emergence of music hall onwards and then cemented when the recording industry came along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only hope the damage they do the arts in this country is not terminal.

Have you got a car sticker that says "the arts are not a luxury"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the arts are following the bankers model, scaled down a bit, or maybe it's the other way round.

Whatever but in the end it's the UK taxpayer paying for these "profitable" industries.

With the arts at least there's always the chance that they'll provide some entertainment now and then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though once you get into the late 19th and c20, instances of composers subsisting partly and then wholly on public subsidy start to pop up. AFAIK Sibelius was the first who more or less spent his entire mature career subsisting on a government grant. Brahms, Mahler and Walton did partly. In many ways I think you could argue that church commissions were the c18 and c19 equivalent of arts council grants today, given the the church was funded largely by tithes (i.e. taxes). Someone like Bruckner, therefore (who spent a lot of his career as a paid employee of the RC church and wrote symphonies as a hobby on the side, though ironically it's his symphonies rather than his church music that he's principally remembered for today), is in many ways the c19 equivalent of the BIrtwistles and the Maxwell Davieses of today.

I think you could probably construct quite a robust argument that over a period of time starting in the late c18 and finishing in the mid c20, composers gradually became less entrepreneurial and more dependent on the taxpayer. One possible reason is the growth of aggressively commercial popular music from the emergence of music hall onwards and then cemented when the recording industry came along.

Dunno about that. Many earlier composers than Sibelius had state-equivalent patrons. Add in the church, and every significant musician before the enlightenment was a servant to a big and powerful master. OK, Mozart bit the hand that fed music, and Beethoven began to break free properly, ushering in the 19th century of highly individualistic and sometimes utterly mad (what else could you say of Berlioz?) characters. What you say of Bruckner applies just as much to Bach a century and a half earlier.

Great music comes from adversity, but also from the state/church funded. I'm not entirely convinced by the romantic image of the bohemian in a garret. It's just a bit too self-serving, and the most famous rendition of it comes from a composer who consistently made big money! But I do think more that's truly great comes despite rather than from patronage.

As for British music, can it be an accident that the two towering figures of the last century were both outsiders who suffered as pacifists (Tippett spent the war years in prison for it), and that Britten's homosexuality was never acceptable in polite society?

Of course there may also be non-artistic reasons to support "arts". The UK is very keen on promoting "music" in prisons, presumably on the grounds that it's better to bash a drum or guitar than someone's head. That extends to a huge "music biz" which serves to occupy a lot of yobs too stupid and/or lazy to do a real job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't expect this site's regular bunch of rabid right-wing anti-state nutters to get it.

All arts need subsidy. In past times it came from the church, or rich private patrons. In America, proud home of right-wing gun-toting nut-jobs since 1776, private patronage still exists (mostly serving up unchallenging rubbish patrons can attend/exhibit without being offended).

In post-war Europe the state has stepped into the breach, and on the whole we are all far better for it. The American model fills many including me with horror.

The Tories have always been the more philistine of the two parties. They are acting true to form, with the Libspittles backing them all the way. I only hope the damage they do the arts in this country is not terminal.

I know it's bad form to feed trolls, but since you obviously think you do 'get it', perhaps you can explain OP's quite simple question?

"We want a government funded Arts Council that allows us to be as successful as we are at the moment and continue to play our part in paying for hospital beds. We're profitable. We want to continue to be."

Perhaps we can simplify for you - how can you require grants to be profitable? If it's not a loan being repaid, then surely profits one year will mean no loans needed next year? Or perhaps this is the trickle down theory of profit - where the people pissing our money away leave us with some small warm remnants trickling down towards us..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wouldn't expect this site's regular bunch of rabid right-wing anti-state nutters to get it

I'm a painter and it would never occur to me to expect the state to subsidise me in any way- if my works fails to sell that's my problem.

What does amaze me is that there seem to be an entire class of people in the arts who float free of financial gravity and seem to inhabit a world where money is a breathable atmosphere, entirely non problematic. It's a neat trick, one I wish I could learn- but I suspect I lack the pedigree or connections to gain entry.

To say the arts were subsidised in the past in not true- people like Michelangelo and da Vinci were paid professionals doing a job by the elites of their day, not supported out of charity, or a notion that their art had a cultural value that was intrinsic rather than pragmatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a painter and it would never occur to me to expect the state to subsidise me in any way- if my works fails to sell that's my problem.

What does amaze me is that there seem to be an entire class of people in the arts who float free of financial gravity and seem to inhabit a world where money is a breathable atmosphere, entirely non problematic. It's a neat trick, one I wish I could learn- but I suspect I lack the pedigree or connections to gain entry.

To say the arts were subsidised in the past in not true- people like Michelangelo and da Vinci were paid professionals doing a job by the elites of their day, not supported out of charity, or a notion that their art had a cultural value that was intrinsic rather than pragmatic.

Professionals yes .. paid how? Patronage. Not charity ... payment for symphony orchestras or art galleries or theatre ensembles is equally patronage: state patronage, the way the state pays professional artists, and the result enriches the life of the nation. (I don't expect the philistine rabid right to get this so I'm not addressing them).

I'm not qualified to talk about visual arts so I won't. My background is a musician (professionally trained and educated though I didn't make my career in it, mainly because I wanted a decent standard of living not the pittance most of my old musician mates exist on).

Musical life in this country would descend into a horror of same old same old rubbish (got knows there is enough of it already) An example is the West End, yes it's commercial, yes it's popular but musicals aren't exactly pushing the boundaries - utterly repetitive an boring but it gets bums on seats. Is this what we want in this country? I attend the Wigmore Hall regularly. Some private patronage, some state subsidy, high ticket prices (ok there are some cheap ones), world class venue. Yes some artists can pack them in but for early career people, lunchtime concerts, little known music, some external funding is required to prime the pump.

As for your own position, yes you sell your work which is great. Do you make enough to live on from your 'art' or do we subsidise you in housing benefit, jobseekers etc? Do you want your art to be seen by the public or just by rich people - what's your feelings if the Tate bought some of it? I guess you would refuse on the grounds you don't need charity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tricky subject.

Is patronage the same as state subsidy? I think it is - both are buying propaganda, so the pragmatic value is intrinsic. Appreciation of the art takes time.

How is Damien Hirst subsidised/patronised? By the banks? I see he stumped up a large portion of the purchase price for his own diamond skull For the Love of God - the money was probably borrowed (Hirst said the sale price was "a bargain!" - not really, but funny).

I suspect it will be seen as great art in time - the original teeth give it some bite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The opportunities to make a living from art without subsidy are probably greater than EVER by a million miles with YouTube probably the biggest opportunity out there. The only people that don't make money from the arts are the people that just aren't very good at it. Talent is rewarded. People do respect talent without any laws/subsidies like the "street performer model".

Checkout things like kickstarter.com "Kickstarter is an online threshold pledge system for funding creative projects."

Oh and just reiterating the insanity of the The King's Speech argument. You just shoot yourself in the foot if you say it subsidies are great because it actually made a killing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The opportunities to make a living from art without subsidy are probably greater than EVER by a million miles with YouTube probably the biggest opportunity out there. The only people that don't make money from the arts are the people that just aren't very good at it. Talent is rewarded. People do respect talent without any laws/subsidies like the "street performer model".

Checkout things like kickstarter.com "Kickstarter is an online threshold pledge system for funding creative projects."

Oh and just reiterating the insanity of the The King's Speech argument. You just shoot yourself in the foot if you say it subsidies are great because it actually made a killing.

...Labour will be organising a subsidy for Simon Cowell next..... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was going to be legal aid!

Every website i go to has a mandela lookalike saying "will you be silenced by cuts to legal aid"

I wish he was.

At least theyve lots of funds for propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The opportunities to make a living from art without subsidy are probably greater than EVER by a million miles with YouTube probably the biggest opportunity out there. The only people that don't make money from the arts are the people that just aren't very good at it. Talent is rewarded. People do respect talent without any laws/subsidies like the "street performer model".

Checkout things like kickstarter.com "Kickstarter is an online threshold pledge system for funding creative projects."

Oh and just reiterating the insanity of the The King's Speech argument. You just shoot yourself in the foot if you say it subsidies are great because it actually made a killing.

I have tickets for Gustav Leonhard in a couple of weeks, playing north German keyboard music (mainly the old masters like Kuhnau and Buxtehude that taught or influenced Bach). It's profoundly interesting music both from a musical and a musicological perspective. Leonhard is over 80 and this maybe my last chance to hear him. He's based in Holland. Lufthansa and the Arts Council are sponsoring.

It's a sellout but chargeable/accessible ticket prices alone could never cover the cost if it. It's a major event, for those interested in the fine points of Baroque music or in hearing a legendary performer who shaped the rebirth in Baroque music that accompanied the 'authentic instruments/scoring/performance ' movement in that began in the 60s and took full flower in the early 80s.

If the Philistine tendency take control, this sort of thing will be history. It has to be resisted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Professionals yes .. paid how? Patronage. Not charity ... payment for symphony orchestras or art galleries or theatre ensembles is equally patronage: state patronage, the way the state pays professional artists, and the result enriches the life of the nation. (I don't expect the philistine rabid right to get this so I'm not addressing them).

I'm not qualified to talk about visual arts so I won't. My background is a musician (professionally trained and educated though I didn't make my career in it, mainly because I wanted a decent standard of living not the pittance most of my old musician mates exist on).

Musical life in this country would descend into a horror of same old same old rubbish (got knows there is enough of it already) An example is the West End, yes it's commercial, yes it's popular but musicals aren't exactly pushing the boundaries - utterly repetitive an boring but it gets bums on seats. Is this what we want in this country?

Well as roger waters said of phantom of the opera "its not even fifth rate". but e..g Pink Floyd did push the boundaries of music and made (a lot of) money out of it. Are people who write classical music really doing pushing new boundaries or is it same old classical thats been around for a long time?

I went to a university classical concert once and they inserted a piece composed by someone in the music department - allegedly pushing the boundaries etc. Actually it was derivative crap saying nothing new I have not heard before.

Personally I think the arts are a good thing, but its a bit much to say non-popular music is the only real music - actually IMO the people who push the boundaries are more likely to be in pop because thats where the new ideas are (of course most of pop music is not doing this). And also just because I like it, why should others be taxed so I can enjoy it if they have no interest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tickets for Gustav Leonhard in a couple of weeks, playing north German keyboard music (mainly the old masters like Kuhnau and Buxtehude that taught or influenced Bach). It's profoundly interesting music both from a musical and a musicological perspective. Leonhard is over 80 and this maybe my last chance to hear him. He's based in Holland. Lufthansa and the Arts Council are sponsoring.

It's a sellout but chargeable/accessible ticket prices alone could never cover the cost if it. It's a major event, for those interested in the fine points of Baroque music or in hearing a legendary performer who shaped the rebirth in Baroque music that accompanied the 'authentic instruments/scoring/performance ' movement in that began in the 60s and took full flower in the early 80s.

If the Philistine tendency take control, this sort of thing will be history. It has to be resisted.

So you want the taxes of struggling working class white van men who listen to talksport to sponsor whatever in f*ck you are blabbering on about there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never quite get the idea that Arts get subsidised. The arguments seems to go;

1. It's incredibly successful and brings in loads of money. In which case why does it need subsidy?

2. It's incredibly poor because there's no income for it. In which case since people obviously don't want it why should anyone be forced to pay for it?

Todays contribution seemed to be more of the same;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13010131

If anyone can see the logic in that statement could they let me in on it?

I think the basic principle is that *SOME* subsidised arts go on to make a profit, but the majority don't. However, a lively arts culture pays for itself anyway via tourism... or something.

If I have any reservations about arts funding, it's that state-sponsored art seems a risky strategy to me. Even if the artists don't feel intimidated by it, they are influenced by it. That said, private patronage doesn't look much better.

BTW I don't think you can really compare painting (which gets few subsidies afaik) with music or theatre - the costs are completely different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tickets for Gustav Leonhard in a couple of weeks, playing north German keyboard music (mainly the old masters like Kuhnau and Buxtehude that taught or influenced Bach). It's profoundly interesting music both from a musical and a musicological perspective. Leonhard is over 80 and this maybe my last chance to hear him. He's based in Holland. Lufthansa and the Arts Council are sponsoring.

It's a sellout but chargeable/accessible ticket prices alone could never cover the cost if it. It's a major event, for those interested in the fine points of Baroque music or in hearing a legendary performer who shaped the rebirth in Baroque music that accompanied the 'authentic instruments/scoring/performance ' movement in that began in the 60s and took full flower in the early 80s.

If the Philistine tendency take control, this sort of thing will be history. It has to be resisted.

Thank you for making the best argument so far for NOT subsidising the 'Arts'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.