h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This may sound strange coming from someone with an Arts Management qualification and years of experience in theatre - but why do we fund the Arts so lavishly in this country?

The great artists in history were all supported by nobility and private sponsors. Why do we pay so much to a group who are largely useless, mostly unemployed, hugely elitist and totally irrelevant to the average man?

I understand the uses of the arts in social education for children, but do we really need to throw hundreds of millions of pounds at theatres, opera companies, ballet schools, art installations etc.

An argument is that public sculptures and art exhibitions enriches us. In what way?

The most successful theatre in the UK is purely commercial, (London's West End) and even there money is frittered away at a mind-boggling rate.

How can we justify spending £400 million in England alone on the Arts when people are dying for the lack of health care?

Did you ever see "It's the Arts?"

"An argument is that public sculptures and art exhibitions enriches us. In what way?"

Many people feel that it does, isn't that enough?

Another question: does *anything* 'enrich' us?

Enrich, relative to our society. It enriches some artists directly (but not me).

Wouldn't it be a dull world if you couldn't laugh/sneer at big sums changing hands for unmade beds? Or admire Old Masters, or wonder at those items where 'there's more than just paint on that'.

Partly because if you take it away, it will be irreversable.

If my bridge club folded because of lack of members, the odds on enough bridge players finding each other to start a new club is minimal. Once it's gone, it's gone forever.

Is it or was it the Royal Opera House that has received massive public funding for what can only be described as a minority art and a rich and priviliged minority at that. Without knowing the profile of where public funding goes it is hard to comment except to say that better value for money is probably to be had at the lower end e.g small theatres, garret bound artists and morris dancers.

My god, I'm in agreement with WA
I'm not sure whats meant by lavish here though. As a % of GDP we spend less than Finland, Germany, France, Sweden, Netherlands or Canada but more than Australia, Ireland or the US. Only figures I could find were for those 10 countries.

Quick post - from memory, the shoe budget for Scottish Ballet was larger than the entire touring theatres budget

Would things like the Royal Opera House go under if they weren't subsidised? They'd have to up the prices of their corporate boxes a bit no doubt.

On a tangent when we talk about public funding for the arts are we including Lottery money in the figures? When the Lottery was introduced it was promised (to the scepticism of some) that it wouldn't be used as a substitute for state-funding of the arts.

The answer as to why the "finer" arts are so lavishly funded is really quite simple. Lobbying. Opera and ballet are prime corporate entertainment venues hence much whispering in ears and pandering to the egos of politicians secures the funding.

I read a Will Self article this week in which he had been at a rehersal for a Wagner opera. He wrote that part of the enjoyment was that the audience were all opera enthusiasts and not socialites and corporate wonks.

Pull funding for the arts? That's the thin end of the wedge, the end of civilisation! It's, it's... a Bennite Solution!

Oh, I've been watching Yes Minister a lot just recently, and something I keep on saying is - nothing ever changes! They only thing that's changed between now and then is that they've finally brought in anti-smoking legislation.

It used to amuse the hell out me that for a brief period the BBC was broadcasting repeats of Yes Minister after PMQs!

<> (SWL)

Isn't that a bit of a strawman argument? Do you really think that if all funding for the arts was removed it would end up funding national health care? Or would it end up going into things like road building or the military?

It's quite true that we may not like some of the art coming out of these government funded programmes (I personally think a lot of it is crap) but is that really the issue? Do you really think that the government should only fund artists who will give the people what they think they want?

Imagine for one moment a society deprived of the opera, the ballet, public art exhibitions, the theatre, not to mention struggling writers. Sure, Dickens managed to write his novels at the end of a long day at the office. But not everyone who writes even has a proper day job to come home from afterwards, nor a wife who took care of all the basic household stuff.

I do think that some people who receive arts grants should seriously look for some other line of work - but what do I know?

And what do you know, SWL? Seriously. Would you really prefer to see a society with nothing at all artistic that *does* enrich at least some of us?

<< The great artists in history were all supported by nobility and private sponsors>>

In fact, only a few. Many died in abject poverty only to have their paintings/writings/music sold many years later for obscene amounts of money.



az

Nicely done fellow "Az".

Latterly, yes az, a lot lived in poverty. But musicians (thinking 14th cen to 17th cen) did have to have a sponsor or work for the church. But then, there were more people willing to pay for that sort of thing.

Yes, Vip, Mozart was commissioned by royalty to write his works. Look how that turned out. He ended up in a pauper's grave.

az

Oh indeed. And rarely did musicians get paid much or end up wealthy. But they were still paid and not expected to hold other jobs and write in their spare time.
The end of Mozart's life is shrouded in mystery and nobody knows quite how he managed to lose the money that he was paid - quite a reasonable wage for the time. Many theories, of course!

<>

Well quite, Vip, because writing spectacular music *was* their job.

The thing about government funding for the arts is that most people who are able to take advantage of this are *not* all that special, let alone geniuses. But every now and then you find a jewel.

Though someone else with more knowledge about this will have to tell me which musicians/writers/artists that we now feel we couldn't live without benefitted from public funding.

az

I would be tempted to lump arts in with entertainment in general, and perhaps sports (e.g. massive sums on the Olympics). I think I'm happy for some government funding for general entertainment, but I do question why its going towards the arts in particular. Unless we can find some sort of tangible reason why high culture is superior, I think it is elitist/traditionalist to invest in those over more popular activities.

The other thing that sports do is providing exercise in a time when we're being warned of soaring obesity rates, so there's an alternative rational for funding those, at least at a grass roots level.