One of the political chaps I follow on twitter posted a Blog today bemoaning the cuts about to happen in "the Arts". He's usually worth reading, but this time, I think it's nonsense. This blog is an edited run-together of my tweets to him.
If enough people think the arts are important enough to pay for, then government handouts are unnecessary. There is already a great way to collect revenue: pay to visit a gallery. Cinemas work that way, so why shouldn't theatres?
Why should the government use my money to pay for art that I have no intention of ever looking at? Let people spend their own money on the art they want to enjoy. If I have a burning desire to see a picture then I will happily pay to see it. I already pay for the films I chose to see or the show I want to see at a theatre.
Even when times were good and New Labour were throwing money at left wing causes willy-nilly, "The Arts" were always complaining that they didn't have enough of my money to spend on interpretative dance. The big problem for "The Arts" is that it's just not as important to people as it thinks it should be.
Please explain why the government should take money from me and give it to self important stars of the industry like Emin & Hirst, when it is these people who should be reinvesting in the industry that has made them millionaires.
By all means flame me. I would actually like to be wrong on this so someone come up with a better argument than "an important arty luvvie with a vested interest says so".
- Blogged from my iPad
I have moved!
12 years ago
Hmm... I can see this angle on things, but from a sociological point of view, you could argue that the Arts are part of what makes us a modern society, fulfil a top slice of the hierarchy of needs.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with funding (for instance) the opera so wealthy people can go at a tax-subsidised discount. And I also agree re: Emin, Hirst, etc. But, living in a city outside London, it is perhaps important to ensure that others have access to some of this.
What's the alternative? Live by the lowest common denominator? That surely is not acceptable either.