Should the tax payer be funding the arts?

[Brian Kirby]

Gwendolyn - 2011-04-11 3:30 PMCatching up after a spell away from internet.To answer the OP:Of course! A society without the Arts is without soul. ........................

Except, Gwendolyn, methinks thou doth too much protest! If the taxpayer were to provide no support whatever (leaving aside education), many spheres of art would be completely unaffected. This is not a case of public subsidy = arts: no public subsidy = no arts.

I think this question is really about two things. First, what should be included under the broad heading of "the arts"? Second, to what extent, if any, should the taxpayer meet the cost of provision?

It seems to me that the performing arts recieve the lion's share of the subsidy, and I wonder why that should be so, and whether it is reasonable.

If the visual, including architecture, literary, and much of the musical, arts can flourish without subsidy, why can not the performing arts? Are the latter merely being subsidised at the public expense because they satisy an influential minority, rather than because there is genuine widespread demand for their output. It seems an odd contradiction to me, and it still seems a worthwhile question that deserves an answer.

[Gwendolyn]

Brian Kirby - 2011-04-11 4:32 PM

Gwendolyn - 2011-04-11 3:30 PMCatching up after a spell away from internet.To answer the OP:Of course! A society without the Arts is without soul. ........................

Except, Gwendolyn, methinks thou doth too much protest!

No, I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was I meant to be... (probably mis-quoting Eliot).I do not have to hand, here on my meanderings, information regarding how the share of Arts subsidies is given out, sorry, so unable to agree or disagree with your analysis right now.Where I do agree with you is when you say it's a question worth debating. And, at a time when life can be grim,and maybe will get even grimmer, then possibly people need the cheer and inspiration that the Arts can provide for many?

[Guest Tracker]

Gwendolyn - 2011-04-11 7:40 PM

possibly people need the cheer and inspiration that the Arts can provide for many?

 

And therein lies the rub!

 

How many does 'the many' have to be to become universally acceptable as a majority I wonder?

 

I tend to follow the theory that museums and libraries - and even maybe leisure centres - are a form of art and as they do seem to appeal to a genuine majority they should be supported by taxation so that ever larger numbers of people may access them.

 

However I do find it hard to understand why we have to support so many diverse variations of 'performing' art which do seem to each have relatively small but disproportionately powerful and vociferous supporters?

 

In terms of value for taxpayers money I have to wonder how much libraries, museums, theatre, leisure centres cost us all for each of their users - and if the figures are more or less similar that, to me, is a good enough reason to go on supporting them from the public purse?

 

If a society without arts is a society without soul - what does that make a society with indequate education for it's next generation - and a society with a health service once the envy of the world that appears to be lagging behind it's contemporarys?

[jhorsf]

Ask someone refused treatment by the NHS on grounds of cost if we should be paying fat people to sing in Italian or skinny people to prance about in tights and I think I know what the answer would be

[francisgraham]

jhorsf - 2011-04-11 8:06 PM

 

Ask someone refused treatment by the NHS on grounds of cost if we should be paying fat people to sing in Italian or skinny people to prance about in tights and I think I know what the answer would be

 

Well, that's taken this debate to a whole new intellectual level! You've obviously never been to an opera or the ballet, but why am I surprised? Perhaps you can give me one example of anyone refused treatment because of the minuscule amount spent on the arts. The total spending on culture in the UK is approximately 1% of the NHS budget!

 

Art isn't just opera and ballet. It's local drama groups and a myriad of things that ordinary people enjoy. You might as well complain that people aren't getting treatment on the NHS because of the government's subsidy of the national parks or public footpaths in the countryside. Would you ban spending on these? People don't need to walk in the countryside or climb mountains or enjoy stunning scenery, so why should we spend money on their elitist pursuits! Let them stay at home and watch the tele!

 

No one would argue against the arts having to take their share of the pain and suffer cuts just as many other causes and organisations, but to totally remove spending on the arts would do more harm than good and make this country a horrible place fit only for philistines. And the arts are a major tourist attraction with London's theatres being one of the things that attracts thousands of foreign travellers.

 

And finally, opera is in Italian, German, French, English, Russian and Spanish and the average 'skinny' ballet dancer will be stronger and fitter than you've ever been, and that's just the women!

[Brian Kirby]

francisgraham - 2011-04-11 10:52 PM.....................And finally, opera is in Italian, German, French, English, Russian and Spanish and the average 'skinny' ballet dancer will be stronger and fitter than you've ever been, and that's just the women!

But as an argument for public subsidy?  :-)  Clearly, this is going to quite a difficult debate!

[jhorsf]

francisgraham - 2011-04-11 10:52 PM

 

jhorsf - 2011-04-11 8:06 PM

 

Ask someone refused treatment by the NHS on grounds of cost if we should be paying fat people to sing in Italian or skinny people to prance about in tights and I think I know what the answer would be

 

Well, that's taken this debate to a whole new intellectual level! You've obviously never been to an opera or the ballet, but why am I surprised?

 

A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS MADE i AM OF LESSER INTELLECT AND NEVER BEEN TO AN OPERA OR BALLET SO MUST BE SOME SORT OF LOW LIFE

 

 

Perhaps you can give me one example of anyone refused treatment because of the minuscule amount spent on the arts. The total spending on culture in the UK is approximately 1% of the NHS budget!

 

Art isn't just opera and ballet. It's local drama groups and a myriad of things that ordinary people enjoy. You might as well complain that people aren't getting treatment on the NHS because of the government's subsidy of the national parks or public footpaths in the countryside. Would you ban spending on these? People don't need to walk in the countryside or climb mountains or enjoy stunning scenery, so why should we spend money on their elitist pursuits! Let them stay at home and watch the tele!

 

No one would argue against the arts having to take their share of the pain and suffer cuts just as many other causes and organisations, but to totally remove spending on the arts would do more harm than good and make this country a horrible place fit only for philistines. And the arts are a major tourist attraction with London's theatres being one of the things that attracts thousands of foreign travellers.

 

And finally, opera is in Italian, German, French, English, Russian and Spanish and the average 'skinny' ballet dancer will be stronger and fitter than you've ever been, and that's just the women!

 

 

 

you are entitled to your opinion mine is I should not be subsidising these things they should be run like everything else without our money if they cannot pay there way they shut.I do not call 310 million pounds minuscule

 

http://redo.me.uk/news/www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12759987

[Guest pelmetman]

£310 milion would pay for a lot of operations 8-)

 

I thought this bit was interesting ;-)

 

Evidence suggests that subsidies do, indeed, increase costs rather than supply of the arts.

 

It seems that ticket prices at subsidised and unsubsidised venues have not tended to differ significantly. This is not surprising.

 

When the government is not the paymaster, the key relationships are between the providers of the arts, those attending performances and those giving voluntary donations. Accountability is strong.

 

If the key relationship instead is with a government bureaucracy, accountability breaks down.

 

When people are voluntarily financing the arts, the provision of culture will be intrinsically linked to the community. But when the government is financing the arts, bureaucratic attitudes will dominate.

 

Indeed, it is not surprising to see the Arts Council publish an exceptionally glossy 162-page annual report, spend nearly £50m on administration and have a gold-plated staff pension scheme.

 

This does not look like an organisation that is strapped for cash.

 

Seems like a excellent reason to disband the arts council quango :D

[francisgraham]

I would like to thank jhorsf for the interesting link in the above post, which I would urge everyone to read in its entirety. The final part simply makes the case for moderate arts subsidy and reiterates my point that money spent on the arts often comes back many times in other revenue.

 

And I repeat, it's not just the arts that makes Britain civilised. Presumably the antis would stop spending on national parks and public footpaths? We don't need them, they're not essential to life but, without them, what a miserable, grey and uncivilised country we would live in.

 

Yes, £310 million would pay for a lot of operations. But I haven't ever heard of a single person who has been refused an operation because of a lack of funds. The NHS has limits on what it will spend because that's sensible and it won't pay for heart surgery on someone who is 95 and so worn out that he or she only has three months to live anyway but I know of no one who has ever been turned away by the NHS.

 

I really cannot understand this obsession with the NHS. £310 million would pay for more teachers, for more policeman, for more prisons, but a civilised society balances its options and does not starve a country's culture.

 

Should we charge people to walk in the countryside? Why should they be allowed to wander in our national parks, which cost a lot of money to run. Just think, if we put an entrance fee on Dartmoor or the New Forest or the Lake District we could pay for a few more operations!

[Guest pelmetman]

francisgraham - 2011-04-12 7:41 AM

 

I would like to thank jhorsf for the interesting link in the above post, which I would urge everyone to read in its entirety. The final part simply makes the case for moderate arts subsidy and reiterates my point that money spent on the arts often comes back many times in other revenue.

 

And I repeat, it's not just the arts that makes Britain civilised. Presumably the antis would stop spending on national parks and public footpaths? We don't need them, they're not essential to life but, without them, what a miserable, grey and uncivilised country we would live in.

 

 

The arts will not disappear if the public purse is closed ;-) .................but the dross hopefully will :D

 

I would suggest that the purse is closed in instalments over a period of 5 years to give the arts time to learn how to stand on their own feet :D

[CliveH]

And I think that is the point Dave.

 

In times of economic growth and wealth - we can afford to sponsor all sorts. And sadly the "all sorts" that are in receipt of said sponsorship have come to expect it as a right.

 

But now, when difficult decisions have to be made over frontline emergency staff for example, then the decision to sponsor or not to sponsor the "Arts" is an easy one.

 

On a broader note - I would repeat what I have said before as someone who has worked in "Finance" for many years - the biggest mistake made of late was the bail out of the banks in my professional and personal opinion. We should have let one or two fail. We have a compensation scheme in place that could have coped. Instead Gordon Brown tried to save face in that his woeful FSA was asleep at the wheel and to hide this he used the taxpayer to bail out the banks.

 

The result is even more arrogance from the bankers who think they are so important that even Governments give them money when they get into trouble.

 

If this issue had been handled better, we would not be in the dire economic situation we are now and we could afford the luxury of Arts sponsorship.

 

Instead we have to scratch around to find the money to keep basic services going - whilst Bank bonuses for some seem to continue :-S

 

So, from my position - the decisions that need to be made are easy ones. As were those that Gordon should have made but failed to.

 

Interesting now that the latest report on the failure states clearly that a "firewall" should be between retail and investment banking ( err! durrrr! - this has been recommended for decades in the financial world) and that when an investment bank gets into trouble it should be allowed to fail.

 

Sometimes I get so bl**dy bored with watching those in the industry coming up with the right ideas and those in charge (I won't bother to remind you of what sector this is :-S ) wandering about with their heads immersed in somewhere warm and dark and running for cover when their ineptitude causes things to go pear shaped.

 

With all things, not just the "Arts" - money is not given as a right, it is a gift. and when the cupboard is bare.........................................

 

[francisgraham]

The cupboard isn't bare, it's just not quite as full as it was. I would be the last to argue that the arts shouldn't have to share the pain but to cut all present subsidies would be unfair and result in the loss of thousands of jobs and millions of pounds in income that the arts generates.

 

But where do we stop? I sense here a fixation with opera and ballet, mainly by people who think them elitist but there is nothing further from the truth. Last month I went to an opera. Tickets were from £10 to £52. If there was any subsidy it was those in the centre circle subsidising those in the stalls who were paying one fifth of the price for the same product. The cross section of people at any concert is very wide. Many of those in the audience are not wealthy but they are fortunate enough to have the kind of mind or brains, whatever it is, that enables them to appreciate art and culture.

 

But where do we stop? My home town has a superb art gallery, museum and and several libraries. All these facilities were provided by enlightened councils and governments who understood that ordinary people can and should have access to the things in life that lift us and separate us from the animals.

 

Again, I quote our parks, both national and local. We don't need them but they enhance our life. How many more operations could we pay for by closing all public libraries or making everyone pay to go into a museum or art gallery? Why should we subsidise these elitist snobs who want to read books and go for walks in the countryside? Let them stay at home and watch East Enders and read the Sun!

 

All I see here is people who only want to stop subsidising things that they don't like or understand.

 

So I ask, should we stop subsidising libraries and museums and art galleries? My God, that would save a few bob for more operations and more local government trampoline co-ordinators!

 

 

 

 

 

[CliveH]

Francis - I agree with an awful lot of what you say - but wording such as -

 

"Why should we subsidise these elitist snobs who want to read books and go for walks in the countryside? Let them stay at home and watch East Enders and read the Sun! "

 

whilst I recognise you are using inverse logic to make a point, to me demonstrates that you have have the prejudice!

 

Not sure if this is what you mean to happen, or to infer but by way of an example - one of the most bigoted individuals I ever came across was a Junior School Teacher who was not really a friend of mine but was the husband of a lady who was close friends with my wife.

 

On one occasion when his neighbour had a new car his chap blurted out "I bet they do not have a book in the house!”

 

Reading books is hardly the "Arts". I for one would keep the libraries open and cut back on the exhibitions of unmade beds, piles of bricks, dissected cows in resin and odd 'grottos' like throne I mentioned earlier. I don’t read the Sun – apart from when waiting to pick up my takeaway in the Chinese where it is the only paper. But I do for my sins watch Eastenders.

 

I have no strong feelings either way about what people read or what they watch. Frankly I see it as none of my business. What I do object to is people being labelled and I think this is what you are guilty of so doing. If I am wrong I am sorry and will happily apologise.

 

I would charge adults for entry into museums but not children.

 

There is a huge range of "Arts" that deserve support - and there is a large amount of dross that does not.

 

As for Parks and gardens - I may be wrong - but they are not arts council funded - they are funded by local and central government. And if I can quote a TV programme that I thought was the funniest for a long time – (not sure if it is ‘Art’ tho) a view of a park or countryside or other natural feature is far superior is far superior to a man made copy such a stained glass window.

Vicar of Dibley

 

[Guest pelmetman]

It could be argued that asking people who have no interest in the opera to fund the opera is selfish :D

 

I like to collect water colours and antiques, will the arts council buy some for me (?)

[francisgraham]

pelmetman - 2011-04-12 2:44 PM

 

It could be argued that asking people who have no interest in the opera to fund the opera is selfish :D

 

I like to collect water colours and antiques, will the arts council buy some for me (?)

 

Not a particularly good analogy I'm afraid! I have no interest in libraries but I have no desire to see them closed so that people who like to read but can't afford to buy books can access them.

 

My aged mother has no interest in walking in National Parks but wouldn't deny that pleasure to those who do.

 

What is really selfish is wishing to force the state to stop subsiding something just because you don't like it.

 

And of course the state won't buy you watercolours but what the state will do is subsidise and provide museums and art galleries so that you can go and enjoy your paintings at absolutely no cost to yourself.

 

Now I'm not the slightest bit interested in watercolours but for me to suggest that we shouldn't provide these art galleries just because I don't like them would be selfish in the extreme.

 

I keep asking the question but no one will answer it but I'll try again.

 

Why is it acceptable for the taxpayer to fund libraries, museums, art galleries, national parks, local parks, countryside footpaths, swimming pools and leisure centres but not music and ballet?

 

The really selfish ones are the antis on this forum who simply want to stop the subsidy of the things that they don't like and there appears to be a deep-rooted dislike of anything that is considered more highbrow than their own tastes in entertainment and leisure.

 

Comments such as 'elitist' and 'fat people singing in Italian' are very illuminating!

 

I await some answers! What else would you ban the state from subsidising?

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

francisgraham - 2011-04-12 3:14 PM

 

What else would you ban the state from subsidising?

 

 

Politicans........... :D

 

I dont think the goverment should fund anything except the essentials, as for local parks, swimming pools etc they are part of the local enviroment, so are looked after quite correctly by the local councils, as for the national trust they have enough land to be self funded :D

[francisgraham]

pelmetman - 2011-04-12 3:34 PM

 

francisgraham - 2011-04-12 3:14 PM

 

What else would you ban the state from subsidising?

 

 

Politicans........... :D

 

I dont think the goverment should fund anything except the essentials, as for local parks, swimming pools etc they are part of the local enviroment, so are looked after quite correctly by the local councils, as for the national trust they have enough land to be self funded :D

 

But whether something is funded by local government or national government it's still the taxpayer that's funding it so, I ask again, what's the difference between taxpayer-funded swimming pools, leisure centres, art galleries, museums and the theatre?

 

I never actually mention the National Trust, but where do you think the money came from to buy the land and properties that it owns? I mentioned national parks.

 

But your statement that the government should only fund essentials is pretty meaningless. What are essentials? You may think that it's food, shelter, roads, health, schools etc. etc.

 

But most people would add culture, leisure interests, music, art, history and the countryside to the list of modern life's essentials.

 

And I cannot understand the statement that parks and swimming pools are part of the local environment. They are only there because the state (taxpayer) created them with taxpayers' money. Was the state wrong to create and subsidise parks, leisure centres and swimming pools? None of these things are 'essential'.

 

We get back to the same root of this debate, which is that some people only want to remove subsidies from the things that they don't like!

 

So, would you allow libraries, parks, swimming pools and leisure centres to close? These things can not be considered absolutely essential but of course they enhance life by giving pleasure and leisure activities to ordinary people. Let's have a straight answer to this please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[francisgraham]

Double post as the site told me that there was an error so I pressed again. !!

[Guest pelmetman]

francisgraham - 2011-04-12 4:12 PM

 

So, would you allow libraries, parks, swimming pools and leisure centres to close? These things can not be considered absolutely essential but of course they enhance life by giving pleasure and leisure activities to ordinary people. Let's have a straight answer to this please.

 

 

Yes :D :D ..............If they were unable to be self funded then they're a non essential cost, and if there is insufficient tax to fund them then whats the option........................ask the private sector to pick up the tab (?) ................because thats the only place genuine tax comes from ;-)

[francisgraham]

pelmetman - 2011-04-12 4:43 PM

 

francisgraham - 2011-04-12 4:12 PM

 

So, would you allow libraries, parks, swimming pools and leisure centres to close? These things can not be considered absolutely essential but of course they enhance life by giving pleasure and leisure activities to ordinary people. Let's have a straight answer to this please.

 

 

Yes :D :D ..............If they were unable to be self funded then they're a non essential cost, and if there is insufficient tax to fund them then whats the option........................ask the private sector to pick up the tab (?) ................because thats the only place genuine tax comes from ;-)

 

So now we have it. Pelmetman would not allow leisure centres, swimming pools, public parks, national parks to have taxpayers' money. All of these things which are used by taxpayers and which are also available to poorer people who may not even pay tax.!

 

How can you self fund a library? The whole point of libraries and leisure centres is that ordinary people can have things that they couldn't normally afford to pay for and of course it's the wealthier people who pay taxes that actually provide the funds. And why on earth should the private sector have to pick up the tab for services to the general community? The private sector already pays a vast amount of tax.

 

But I don't care that part of my taxes goes to local swimming pools, or leisure centres because that's what a civilised society provides for its citizens. How selfish can you be to take away all these things from ordinary working people who would otherwise be unable to afford them?

 

What a barren, philistine, bleak and grey Britain we would have if everyone had this view. Sorry folks, no more parks, leisure centres, swimming pools, theatres, community centres. They're not essential you see so you'll just have to stay in and watch the tele!

 

I feel very saddened that we have people in society who would remove so many things that ordinary people enjoy and which enrich their lives and which they could not normally afford.

 

Finally, you seem to think that Britain is so bankrupt that we have to start decimating our services. We're not bankrupt, we just need to tighten our belts, not destroy what makes us civilised.

 

I shall leave you to it it, I'm sorry to have to say this but I'm just appalled by the callousness of your views.

 

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

francisgraham - 2011-04-12 5:09 PM

 

I shall leave you to it it, I'm sorry to have to say this but I'm just appalled by the callousness of your views.

 

 

Callous 8-) ...................me :D :D .............I prefer realistic, I doubt that many pools and libraries will close although as I understand it some are likely to.

 

As for callous I reckon someone who would rather have the tax go to the theatre than pay for the operation of a person who needs a new hip has a better claim to that title :D .................

[jhorsf]

francisgraham I think you may have missed the point that the opera and ballet funding is a recent thing they can and have managed perfectly well without this form of support and from studies prices do not change .The administration for this funding is at a vast cost ,to many groups of people think they have a right to money well the pot is empty not enough to go around the arts will survive they just have to work harder instead of holding out the hand.

[Guest pelmetman]

jhorsf - 2011-04-12 9:29 PM

 

francisgraham I think you may have missed the point that the opera and ballet funding is a recent thing they can and have managed perfectly well without this form of support and from studies prices do not change .The administration for this funding is at a vast cost ,to many groups of people think they have a right to money well the pot is empty not enough to go around the arts will survive they just have to work harder instead of holding out the hand.

 

Exactly, if the art is any good it will survive in the real world B-)

[jhorsf]

jhorsf - 2011-04-11 8:06 PM

 

 

fat people to sing in Italian or skinny people to prance about in tights

 

 

It was said tongue in cheek and it did get a reaction :D

[flicka]

francisgraham - 2011-04-12 3:14 PM

 

 

Why is it acceptable for the taxpayer to fund libraries, museums, art galleries, national parks, local parks, countryside footpaths, swimming pools and leisure centres but not music and ballet?

 

 

So I take it therefore you would support Taxpayer's subsidy for POP Music artists also (?)

Or is that not MUSIC.

We live in a commercial world & the "Prima Donna's" should only get what THEIR (minority) market will support, not subsidy from the masses (Taxpayer).

 

POP (popular) music is enjoyed by the masses, so in a democratic world, those artist's should receive the largest subsidy. BUT I don't think there will be any supporters.