Should the tax payer be funding the arts?

[CliveH]

Interesting responses to a post of mine to marrowgirl - that on re-reading it comes over as harsher than I meant it to be - so sorry about that. But I am not sorry about the sentiment I offered as my view.

 

As for the view that we did not do much good by stomping into other countries - well no, I admit that because in some cases we were embroiled with an idiot US President by "Phoney Care" - we went in with no exit strategy or reasonable plan because neither idiots were reasonable people.

 

That does not stop the fact that whilst we had unreasonable idiots supposedly pulling the strings on our side that we should allow a true despot to kill people.

 

Where would we be if the Aussies, Kiwis, Canadians, Indians, Poles, Yugoslavs, French, Dutch etc and not forgetting the Yanks - had said - "No, sorry, we want to spend our money on having a spiffing time at the Opera, Theatre whatever – so sorry sort out your own problems in WW1 and 2”.

 

And if anyone wants to be amazed at the nations that stood with us on D day – please go to the Tank Museum to the east of Cherbourg in France and see the fantastic array of uniforms of the nationalities that fought to liberate Europe.

 

It is sobering – it truly staggered me when I went round one day whilst waiting for the Barfleur – so much so that I went back and spent nearly a whole day there on another occasion. I would recommend it.

 

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2011-04-05 8:31 AM ........... Where would we be if the Aussies, Kiwis, Canadians, Indians, Poles, Yugoslavs, French, Dutch etc and not forgetting the Yanks - had said - "No, sorry, we want to spend our money on having a spiffing time at the Opera, Theatre whatever – so sorry sort out your own problems in WW1 and 2”. ...............

But, that was our involvement in an international war, started by one state invading others, not our being involved in someone else's civil war, where one faction is fighting another.  I don't think the two truly equate in quite the way you suggest - but this was about arts funding, so won't elaborate.

[CliveH]

Brian Kirby - 2011-04-05 9:58 PM

CliveH - 2011-04-05 8:31 AM ........... Where would we be if the Aussies, Kiwis, Canadians, Indians, Poles, Yugoslavs, French, Dutch etc and not forgetting the Yanks - had said - "No, sorry, we want to spend our money on having a spiffing time at the Opera, Theatre whatever – so sorry sort out your own problems in WW1 and 2”. ...............

But, that was our involvement in an international war, started by one state invading others, not our being involved in someone else's civil war, where one faction is fighting another.  I don't think the two truly equate in quite the way you suggest - but this was about arts funding, so won't elaborate.

You can not be that picky when citing a moral obligation Brian. As for the "International" involvement - then Gaddaffi funding the IRA, the Libyan embassy official who killed PC Fletcher, the Lockerbie bombing - I think the world wars of the past are simply fought on a different scale now. At long last we are seeing a huge movement in the Arab world away from the despotic rule of some individuals towards the freedom and democracy we all enjoy.To say that we can have these freedoms but others can not because we want to spend the money on the "Arts" is to me despicable and decadent.We had other nations come to help us in our time of need.I am amazed that anyone can possibly think that any good will come out of our turning a blind eye to despotic rule. If we do not help those that want democracy and freedom, then we make it easier for the likes of Al Qaeda to step into the vacuum left by our inaction and lack of support for those that want to live with the same freedoms that we enjoy.The opportunity cost of doing nothing would be vast, to advocate spending money on the "arts" as a better alternative is vacuous.

[Guest pelmetman]

I know :D ............Send the luvvies into Lybia ;-) .........they could handbag Gaddafi into surrendering (lol)

[thebishbus]

When deciding whether or not to help others, remember the quote. " IF GOOD MEN DO NOTHING, EVIL PREVAILS".

Brian B.

[Brian Kirby]

Oh well, life is going to get very expensive then!  :-)  Zimbabwe, North Korea, Tibet, Kashmir, Iran, Sudan, Uzbekistan, all seem to have energetic protest movements, albeit some are too frightened to stick their heads above the parapets.  Do you have any particular order in mind, or should we have a go at all of them at once?  Several of the above are far worse places to live than Libya before the uprising.  The mere lack of a present uprising is no indicator of need.  Moralising is cheap, but deciding which wrongs to correct, where, how, and when, are far more difficult and costly than seems to be appreciated.  And there was me thinking most folk thought we should be economising and reducing debt!  Should have been paying closer attention, it seems!  :-D

[nightrider]

For all our interventions do we ever get a thank you?

[nowtelse2do]

Brian Kirby - 2011-04-06 3:19 PM Oh well, life is going to get very expensive then!  :-)  Zimbabwe, North Korea, Tibet, Kashmir, Iran, Sudan, Uzbekistan, all seem to have energetic protest movements, albeit some are too frightened to stick their heads above the parapets.  Do you have any particular order in mind, or should we have a go at all of them at once?  Several of the above are far worse places to live than Libya before the uprising.  The mere lack of a present uprising is no indicator of need.  Moralising is cheap, but deciding which wrongs to correct, where, how, and when, are far more difficult and costly than seems to be appreciated.  And there was me thinking most folk thought we should be economising and reducing debt!  Should have been paying closer attention, it seems!  :-D

Brian, you missed two. Russia and China, both pretending to be democratic, but still ruled by dictator's.

Which should we take on first?

Can anyone tell me why my post's are very faint?  8-)

Dave

[nightrider]

nowtelse2do - 2011-04-06 4:42 PM

Brian Kirby - 2011-04-06 3:19 PM Oh well, life is going to get very expensive then!  :-)  Zimbabwe, North Korea, Tibet, Kashmir, Iran, Sudan, Uzbekistan, all seem to have energetic protest movements, albeit some are too frightened to stick their heads above the parapets.  Do you have any particular order in mind, or should we have a go at all of them at once?  Several of the above are far worse places to live than Libya before the uprising.  The mere lack of a present uprising is no indicator of need.  Moralising is cheap, but deciding which wrongs to correct, where, how, and when, are far more difficult and costly than seems to be appreciated.  And there was me thinking most folk thought we should be economising and reducing debt!  Should have been paying closer attention, it seems!  :-D

Brian, you missed two. Russia and China, both pretending to be democratic, but still ruled by dictator's.

Which should we take on first?

Can anyone tell me why my post's are very faint?  8-)

Dave

Could it be that you have no lead in your pencil (?) the format of the group has been changed slightly

[CliveH]

knight of the road - 2011-04-06 4:15 PM

 

For all our interventions do we ever get a thank you?

 

Yes.

 

Every year the Christmas Trees in Trafalgar Square are provided by the people of Norway in thanks for what we did in WW2.

 

And after the liberation of Kuwait - for its liberation in 1991...Kuwait donated $500 million in oil products and other humanitarian aid to its ally the United States to ease severe shortages caused by Hurricane Katrina.

 

As for OUR saying thanks - it has taken decades for the UK to admit to the tremendous efforts Indian Regiments provided on our behalf. And other Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth nations.

 

Perhaps we should do more to thank the Yanks, as well. Without them (on two occasions) things would have been very different on this side of the Atlantic.

 

As for immediate thanks in the Libyan conflict - I have seen regular TV reports of the "rebels" holding up bits of paper saying "Thank you UK, France US" after we have sent in planes to destroy Gadaffi's hardware he was using to bomb and kill civilians.

 

As for Brian’s point (seems like a woeful wailing of "where will it all end" Brian :-S ) as to where do we stop? - well I notice the French are trying to sort out the mess in an African State.

 

Just because we cannot be all things to all men, is hardly a moral justification to sit back and enjoy the "Arts" whilst another human being is persecuted.

 

My view is - you either have a moral compass or you don't.

 

[CliveH]

nowtelse2do - 2011-04-06 4:42 PM

Brian Kirby - 2011-04-06 3:19 PM Oh well, life is going to get very expensive then! :-) Zimbabwe, North Korea, Tibet, Kashmir, Iran, Sudan, Uzbekistan, all seem to have energetic protest movements, albeit some are too frightened to stick their heads above the parapets. Do you have any particular order in mind, or should we have a go at all of them at once? Several of the above are far worse places to live than Libya before the uprising. The mere lack of a present uprising is no indicator of need. Moralising is cheap, but deciding which wrongs to correct, where, how, and when, are far more difficult and costly than seems to be appreciated. And there was me thinking most folk thought we should be economising and reducing debt! Should have been paying closer attention, it seems! :-D

Brian, you missed two. Russia and China, both pretending to be democratic, but still ruled by dictator's.

Which should we take on first?

Can anyone tell me why my post's are very faint? 8-)

Dave

Russia - certainly going through changes - but its revolution away from communism is to be welcomed even if its current form of "democracy" is not one that we feel that comfortable with.China is very different - prior to the Communists taking over China was run by a multitude of Warlords and was more than a tad barbaric. I am no expert on China but I have attended many briefings on investing in China and at every meeting the same question is asked "when will the democracy movement succeed in China?" - and the general consensus answer is that it will at some time but that China needs a strong central government rather than allowing itself to slip back into warring mini-states run by the modern equivalent of Warlords.So the current "communist" government is communist in name only in that they embraced capitalism some years ago and have a longer term view to improve the lot of its citizens such that transition to another sort of government can proceed without slipping back into anarchy.Must say I am not that comfortable with this and China's human rights record is very poor indeed. But sometimes it is better the "devil you know". And when you see how they administer Hong Kong - you must see that they are doing pretty damn well.

[nowtelse2do]

I know what you mean about Hong Kong Clive, I was expecting trouble there but the transition was excellent, but also very convenient for China.

 

Dave

 

Hey..!! I've got all my emoticons back, Thank you Warners. Let's see if the writing is better. (lol)

 

Yes, that will do nicely :-D but still a bit slow on the submit, don't worry though, I've nowtelse2do.

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2011-04-06 7:43 AM ..........You can not be that picky when citing a moral obligation Brian. As for the "International" involvement - then Gaddaffi funding the IRA, the Libyan embassy official who killed PC Fletcher, the Lockerbie bombing - I think the world wars of the past are simply fought on a different scale now. At long last we are seeing a huge movement in the Arab world away from the despotic rule of some individuals towards the freedom and democracy we all enjoy. To say that we can have these freedoms but others can not because we want to spend the money on the "Arts" is to me despicable and decadent. We had other nations come to help us in our time of need. I am amazed that anyone can possibly think that any good will come out of our turning a blind eye to despotic rule. If we do not help those that want democracy and freedom, then we make it easier for the likes of Al Qaeda to step into the vacuum left by our inaction and lack of support for those that want to live with the same freedoms that we enjoy. The opportunity cost of doing nothing would be vast, to advocate spending money on the "arts" as a better alternative is vacuous.

First, we can, and must, chose which "moral obligations" we choose to militarily support.  It would do little good to pick off more than one can chew, either to us or to those we aspire to help.  Our resources, financial, military, and not to be forgotten, personnel, are far from inexhaustible.

In an ideal world Superman would swoop down and fix all the wrongs, but he doesn't exist (at least not in a John Bull uniform), and the world is not ideal.  So, like it or lump it, circumstances dictate we must choose well our fights.

Second, I do not agree that internal squabbles should be "fixed" by external intervention.  Reasons too numerous to expound here but, in very simplified form, I think nations have to go through their "baptism of fire" before they coalesce into coherent states.  Most of the developed states have, and I do not see any indication this process is diminishing.  The interventions, to some extent, shield the participants from the true consequences of their actions, and the outcome is never definitive.  There is always the lingering doubt that has, in a number of cases, ended in a re-match.  So, I am an intervention sceptic, but not a "nay sayer".

Third, I do not accept that the simple equation between arts and wars can be portrayed as a moral issue, or that the one excludes the other.  The cost of our arts spending is minuscule beside our military spending, so I do not accept that foregoing the one would liberate us to indulge in more of the other, or vice versa.  Surely, we all see areas where public money is spent, with which we disagree.  The point, surely, is that others agree with these expenditures, which is why they are made.  We have an NHS: many Americans are presently trying like mad to avoid having one. Some even argue that the idea is not only immoral, but positively evil!  I think they are nuts, but it is their country so, as far as I am concerned, they are big, grown up, rich, and can do as they choose.  More fool them, say I.  But, ultimately, I think that exemplifies a working democracy.  Opinions differ, and a majority, of sorts, prevails.  For this, in democracies, at least we do not generally shoot each other.

So, despite the colourful hyperbole of your arguments, I remain unconvinced.  We must cut our coat according to our cloth, else, when something really serious that truly threatens out national security or interest arises, we shall find ourselves bereft of an adequate response.  To get to that point would, in my view, be a foolish treason, and highly immoral.  To quote Rumsfelt, "stuff happens".

[CliveH]

"We must cut our coat according to our cloth, else, when something really serious that truly threatens out national security or interest arises, we shall find ourselves bereft of an adequate response."

 

What?

 

By doing nothing until the wolf is at the door and we have no defence apart from a subscription to the likes of the South Bank Show?

 

Do you REALLY think that we can do nothing and then rise, phoenix like, out of the ashes to deal with the ultimate threat?

 

Sorry Brian but you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that.

 

We have to keep our skills honed and be ready for anything - and being ready for anything hardly fits the idea of sticking our heads up our Artistic Orifices and enjoying the warm dark "experience" such that when events conspire to force our extrication of head from said warm dark place we have absolutely s*d all idea of what to do about the real situation because melvyn blaggs adenoidal take of the world situation had somehow seemed so much "nicer".

 

Lord help us

 

The lunatics almost have the keys of the asylum.

 

[maryowlgirl]

I apologies, I seem to have made the Topic alter from the arts to something else.

 

To Admin & Mods - I only wanted to state my case, I don't mind helping anyone but we cannot afford to put our own Country right .. : :$

 

Back to the Arts - I agree that some of these people take liberties you hear on them taking "a year out" and before I get shouted at I know folk other that these do it too. This is something that we could not afford to do having had to work constantly for the things we want.

 

I will go before I get whipped (lol)

[CliveH]

Don't worry Mary - if you believe in what you say then you have every right to say it :-D

 

The issue is "opportunity cost" - if we did not sponsor the "Arts" with tax£'s - what could we buy instead?

 

I would much rather those tax£'s be spent on health, education, business start-ups rather than on destroying a despots weapons. But for all the reasons said before, I personally, do not feel we should stand back and do nothing when civilians are bombed.

 

As for the argument that there is conflict elsewhere so what is so special about this one - well apart from my not having an on/off switch attached to my morals - again I would say that with Gaddaffi we do have "history" (IRA, PC Fletcher, Lockerbie) so this is a regime that has killed UK citizens - hence my point of view.

 

On a personal note - on re-reading my first reply to you - I do now realise that it came over too harsh and too personal - I apologise for that - it was a result of my posting "on the hoof" - it was not intended.

 

(And I will only whip you if you ask 8-) 8-) (lol) ) (JOKE!!!!))

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Philanthropistic rich people used to fund the arts, now those clever rich people have managed to pass the cost on to Joe Public *-) ....................Frankly I think this is all part of a wider question "What should the public fund?" for me its NHS, Education, Armed Forces, and a smaller civil service :D ........The justice system is well over due for a root and branch kick up the bum :D

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2011-04-06 10:21 PM .............By doing nothing until the wolf is at the door and we have no defence apart from a subscription to the likes of the South Bank Show? ...............

Er, that might be quite a good, if rather offensively stated, argument, Clive, but I'm not at all sure who it is directed against, or what it means.  :-)  It seems to have my name against it, but not to relate to anything I actually said, or sought to imply.  Doubtless my fault, as I am sure you will point out in your inimitable way.  But wolves, phoenixes, ashes, ultimate threats, bottoms (even warn ones), and Bragg's adenoids, somehow just don't seem to gel into a coherent argument.  Nevertheless, as ever, I defer to your superior experience on all such matters!  :-D

Mary, fear not.  I thought your point perfectly sensible and reasonably stated.  As with all such arguments, there are many points of view.  I do not subscribe to the notion that the arts in general should be subsidised at public expense.  On the other hand, I think we should be infinitely poorer, intellectually and spiritually, if there were no "public" art.  Before someone tries reducing that statement to the absurd, and then advancing it as a parody of something I meant to say but didn't quite manage to get down, :-) it does not follow that I view all public art as worthwhile, any more than anyone else does.  However, since art is not capable of mere computation, being a matter of opinion, judgement, taste, and above all emotion, I am prepared to accept a level of trial and error in seeking the right mix.  Choose your artist, and they all have off days, simply because what "works" is so difficult to pre-ordain.  However, when it does work, the emotional impact takes one to an altogether different, and often unexpected, place, be-it through music, sculpture, painting, architecture, or literature.  The only reason art exists is because, at its best, it has that power.  Anyone who doubts that either has no soul, or has never encountered great art.

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2011-04-07 6:51 PM

 

The only reason art exists is because, at its best, it has that power.  Anyone who doubts that either has no soul, or has never encountered great art.

 

Very true Brian, which is one of the reasons commissioned public art does very little for me, as it is often a product of a commitee crafted by a budget *-)

 

Art is a very personal thing and what one person loves another hates for example Tracy Chapmans:..........."The unmade bed" (lol)

 

Which is a perfect example of why the tax payer should not fund the arts ;-)

[robkilby]

Yes, we should fund the arts

No, we are not on our uppers

Any of you lot ever seen any of the art paid for by the tax\payer during WW2 ?

[Guest pelmetman]

robkilby - 2011-04-07 7:31 PM

Any of you lot ever seen any of the art paid for by the tax\payer during WW2 ?

 

No, I'm to young :D

[francisgraham]

How dare people enjoy art and drama and opera and ballet? How dare the government spend a tiny, tiny percentage of our GDP in making the arts more accessible to the ordinary man? It's disgracefully elitist of people to want to ensure that the arts thrive.

 

What really makes my blood boil is these toffs who want to read books. Why should we subsidise their elitist leanings? In my town we have what's called a public library and these snobs can go in there and borrow books for nothing! All paid for by the taxpayer!

 

What is the world coming to? Why do ordinary people feel the need to read books? Why should we subsidise their pseudo-intellectual pursuits? What's wrong with watching the tele and going to bingo? Books indeed!

 

If people want to do this snobby reading lark, they should flipping well pay for it themselves. I don't care if they can't afford to buy books, or can't afford to go to concerts, that's not my problem!

 

We should close all these public libraries immediately. Closing the lot would probably enable us to buy about three Cruise missiles, but every bit helps!

 

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

francisgraham - 2011-04-07 7:43 PM

 

How dare people enjoy art and drama and opera and ballet? How dare the government spend a tiny, tiny percentage of our GDP in making the arts more accessible to the ordinary man? It's disgracefully elitist of people to want to ensure that the arts thrive.

 

What really makes my blood boil is these toffs who want to read books. Why should we subsidise their elitist leanings? In my town we have what's called a public library and these snobs can go in there and borrow books for nothing! All paid for by the taxpayer!

 

What is the world coming to? Why do ordinary people feel the need to read books? Why should we subsidise their pseudo-intellectual pursuits? What's wrong with watching the tele and going to bingo? Books indeed!

 

If people want to do this snobby reading lark, they should flipping well pay for it themselves. I don't care if they can't afford to buy books, or can't afford to go to concerts, that's not my problem!

 

We should close all these public libraries immediately. Closing the lot would probably enable us to buy about three Cruise missiles, but every bit helps!

 

 

 

 

Are libraries art (?) :D

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2011-04-07 9:14 PM .............. Are libraries art (?) :D

Some yes, in that some are great architecture.  However, the art is in the books they contain: undoubtedly not all, but many.

[Gwendolyn]

Catching up after a spell away from internet.

To answer the OP:

Of course! A society without the Arts is without soul. I don’t have a “Gradgrind” mentality.

 

But you see, I am an Arts Graduate [albeit from 1969, but in subjects unlikely to find much favour here]; worked most of my life in teaching / lecturing – in one subject many judge to be essential [Public Sector – oh dear!]; taught one subject many here might find ”unnecessary” [NOT Media Studies lol!]; now retired [Public Sector Pension - I’m ducking out of the way!]; have recently completed an MA in “Shakespeare and Theatre” [OK, pour scorn]; love Opera and Ballet [how can they be elitist if I, an ordinary working person, from a very ordinary, working class background like them???]; Guardian reader [“Numpty” according to one poster elsethread]; and I am a Tugger as well as a Motorhomer….

 

[Oh yes…. and I prefer [so far] Sites to Aires…. ]

 

SIGH>>>> so there really is no hope for me is there??

 

I’ll get my coat!