Should the tax payer be funding the arts?

[CliveH]

Good point Flicka

 

And one that counters the point from Francis that we are all "callous" and simply want no funding for what we dislike

 

" 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!"

 

As I have said before - I agree a lot with Francis, but sadly the point is lost with the extremely negative descriptions of those who - as I read it - Francis tries to disparage for seeing the point of some "Art" but not others.

 

I would have to say that what is one mans "Art" is another mans junk. - What I want to see is value for my tax£.

 

I do not want it wasted on bricks beds and peculiar grottos.

 

I do not like most Pop Music and love certain classical pieces. I also love folk music. I value my libraries that I use and read for pleasure.

 

I also like the BBC - but think the TV License is a crime! - Personally I would be happier if we paid a subscription for the BBC.

 

I am not a great fan of commercials on TV - but applaud some of the excellent programmes those commercial adverts provide the capital for.

 

Then we have the likes of the Discovery and History channels who on the whole produce some excellent programming - with no adverts - no tax£'s - it pays for itself via our subscriptions.

 

This to me is the fairer and equitable option that we should move towards - for the "Arts" of all sorts.

 

That way we all pay for what we like and nobody is asked to subsidise anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gwendolyn]

flicka - 2011-04-13 10:53 PM

 

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.

 

Pop music is merely 'entertainment'. It is not Art.

[Randonneur]

I have just read, although quickly, the posts from the beginning. When we lived in the UK over 11 years ago I worked for a well known local theatre for 2 years. The Management of that theatre were overpaid and underworked (I did the books and wages), the Actors were paid a wage set by Equity, which wasn't as much as I thought before I went to work there. The annoying part for me was that the theatre was set up as a Charity so didn't pay tax and I think that a lot of the theatres do the same. When it was Press Night everyone got in free and a buffet was put on for them which was a ludicrous waste of money. Other nights there were concessions but from the audiences that I saw they could have easily have afforded to pay for their own tickets. But as a member of staff!!! I was allowed 2 tickets for each run. The other thing that struck me as odd was that at the beginning of June the theatre closed until November (it was called going into the dark - it certainly was.)

 

To go back to the subject, no I don't think Theatre, Ballet and such like should be funded by the taxpayer, if you can't afford to go then you don't.

[Gwendolyn]

Randonneur - 2011-04-17 1:19 PM

 

I have just read, although quickly, the posts from the beginning. When we lived in the UK over 11 years ago I worked for a well known local theatre for 2 years. The Management of that theatre were overpaid and underworked (I did the books and wages), the Actors were paid a wage set by Equity, which wasn't as much as I thought before I went to work there. The annoying part for me was that the theatre was set up as a Charity so didn't pay tax and I think that a lot of the theatres do the same. When it was Press Night everyone got in free and a buffet was put on for them which was a ludicrous waste of money. Other nights there were concessions but from the audiences that I saw they could have easily have afforded to pay for their own tickets. But as a member of staff!!! I was allowed 2 tickets for each run. The other thing that struck me as odd was that at the beginning of June the theatre closed until November (it was called going into the dark - it certainly was.)

 

To go back to the subject, no I don't think Theatre, Ballet and such like should be funded by the taxpayer, if you can't afford to go then you don't.

 

I am sure that many of us with experiences in the Arts could come up with anecdotal evidence to counter yours. I certainly could. But individual, anecdotal evidence, counts for not much.

 

If people, and young people in particular, are deprived of the experience of the Arts through lack of money, then they are being deprived of an education in our cultural traditions. I would hate to think that the Arts is only for the 'fat cats'. Society would be the poorer for it.

 

[flicka]

Gwendolyn - 2011-04-17 11:18 AM

 

flicka - 2011-04-13 10:53 PM

 

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.

 

Pop music is merely 'entertainment'. It is not Art.

 

So what's Opera ? = MUSIC

& Orchetra's ? = MUSIC

& Ballet ? = DANCING TO MUSIC

 

So why should they expect to be subsidised, or if you consider them to be Art performed by artists.

Pop Music = Art performed by Artists.

 

You can't have it both ways, neither can the Taxpayer continue to afford it.

[Gwendolyn]

flicka - 2011-04-17 9:52 PM

 

Gwendolyn - 2011-04-17 11:18 AM

 

flicka - 2011-04-13 10:53 PM

 

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.

 

Pop music is merely 'entertainment'. It is not Art.

 

So what's Opera ? = MUSIC

& Orchetra's ? = MUSIC

& Ballet ? = DANCING TO MUSIC

 

So why should they expect to be subsidised, or if you consider them to be Art performed by artists.

Pop Music = Art performed by Artists.

 

You can't have it both ways, neither can the Taxpayer continue to afford it.

 

I am not trying to have 'it' [whatever 'it' is] both ways at all. I said that pop music is not Art, it is merely entertainment. Opera and Ballet are Art forms and deserve subsidy.

[CliveH]

How silly that last statement is!

 

Ballet and opera were the "pop culture" of their era!

 

Music is music dance is dance literature is literature.

 

Pratchett may not be Dickens and Rowling may not be Tolkien. But each was/is "pop" in its own time frame.

 

I do not see the distinction between modern "Art" and classical "Art". If this were the case it would be very easy to say - no subsidies for modern "Art" (Hooray!!!!!!! - no more unmade beds, no more piles of bricks, no more silly grottos on the south coast) but that would mean ALL modern art would suffer.

 

No, labelling something an "Art-form" cuts no ice with me because that fatuous distinction has more holes in it than a colander. It is spin and nothing more.

 

Art is Art in the eye of the beholder. I say whatever it is - the tax payer should not fund it. It should survive by its own subscriptions or fail through the lack of them.

 

Sorry Gwendolyn - you are talking elitist nonsense.

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Gwendolyn - 2011-04-18 7:49 AM

 

I am not trying to have 'it' [whatever 'it' is] both ways at all. I said that pop music is not Art, it is merely entertainment. Opera and Ballet are Art forms and deserve subsidy.

 

I see if posh academic intellectual people like it :D ......................then its art 8-) .................If the hoi polloi like it then its entertainment B-)

 

And the oikes should dam well pay for it whether they like it or not *-)

[nightrider]

As a tax payer I dont see why I should contribute to something that I have no interest in and will never see or indulge myself in, so whatever your poison is, pay for it yourself.

If there is not enough money taken at the opera box office then the opera will close, so be it, will I be any worse off, no I dont think so, nobody helps to fund my interests so why should I fund somebody else's interests.

[robkilby]

knight of the road - 2011-04-18 6:08 PM

 

As a tax payer I dont see why I should contribute to something that I have no interest in and will never see or indulge myself in, so whatever your poison is, pay for it yourself.

If there is not enough money taken at the opera box office then the opera will close, so be it, will I be any worse off, no I dont think so, nobody helps to fund my interests so why should I fund somebody else's interests.

 

what are your interests ?

[nightrider]

robkilby - 2011-04-18 6:13 PM

 

knight of the road - 2011-04-18 6:08 PM

 

As a tax payer I dont see why I should contribute to something that I have no interest in and will never see or indulge myself in, so whatever your poison is, pay for it yourself.

If there is not enough money taken at the opera box office then the opera will close, so be it, will I be any worse off, no I dont think so, nobody helps to fund my interests so why should I fund somebody else's interests.

 

what are your interests ?

 

Many and varied, but I dont go about with a begging bowl to fund them.

[CliveH]

knight of the road - 2011-04-18 6:17 PM

 

robkilby - 2011-04-18 6:13 PM

 

knight of the road - 2011-04-18 6:08 PM

 

As a tax payer I dont see why I should contribute to something that I have no interest in and will never see or indulge myself in, so whatever your poison is, pay for it yourself.

If there is not enough money taken at the opera box office then the opera will close, so be it, will I be any worse off, no I dont think so, nobody helps to fund my interests so why should I fund somebody else's interests.

 

what are your interests ?

 

Many and varied, but I dont go about with a begging bowl to fund them.

 

Actually Malcolm - if you did come to me as a businessman saying you wanted sponsorship for a youth orchestra - a youth band - pop or otherwise - we can and have done put our hands in our pockets and sponsored these worthwhile projects. And we are not alone. Many individuals and businesses have been generous in helping what I would call "Arts" projects - but these have been local and mainly youth orientated.

 

Now I know you and I are on the wrong side of "young" - but I would put my hand in my pocket for someone who had talent and needed a step-up.

 

What I say (and I think you possibly mean the same re the "begging bowl") is that we disagree with the tax payer footing the bill for something one persons calls an "art-form" with all the arrogance of a thought process that can marginalise and dismiss other "art-forms" as not worthy of our tax payers £'s.

 

Bloody staggering that is!

 

My apologise for the language Gwendolyn - but your attitude is so so so typical of the luvvies that want it all handed to them on the taxpayers plate that you have (inadvertently - I am sure) hit my anger button.

>:-( >:-)

[robkilby]

knight of the road - 2011-04-18 6:17 PM

 

robkilby - 2011-04-18 6:13 PM

 

knight of the road - 2011-04-18 6:08 PM

 

As a tax payer I dont see why I should contribute to something that I have no interest in and will never see or indulge myself in, so whatever your poison is, pay for it yourself.

If there is not enough money taken at the opera box office then the opera will close, so be it, will I be any worse off, no I dont think so, nobody helps to fund my interests so why should I fund somebody else's interests.

 

what are your interests ?

 

Many and varied, but I dont go about with a begging bowl to fund them.

 

Yeah, but what are they ?

 

I bet some are getting subsidy

[CliveH]

OK - it is a fair question - not aimed at me - but I will put my twp penneth in

 

Walking

 

Riding (both horses and bikes)

 

Dog training

 

Dog walking

 

Caravanning (obviously)

 

Classic cars - especially Land Rovers, Triumph, MG.

 

Autojumbles

 

Fishing - both sea and freshwater.

 

Travel.

 

Reading

..............................

 

Now a lot of these require insurance and with some it is highly advisable if not a legal requirement. And anything I buy to take part in the above is subject to 20% VAT. Travel to and from events requires me to pay fuel duty tax and then VAT on top of that. Lord Help US – but if I was so evil as to fly and risk terminal Global Warming then I would have to pay “Green tax” on my planes “Carbon footprint” in a carbon jihad that is rapidly becoming a farce.

 

So I fail to see how any of those above are "subsidised" by the tax payer. In fact because of the insurance premium tax introduced by the last government and all the other taxes - my hobbies/interests are all tax generating - and I don't think one of them is subject to the joys of a taxpayers handout.

 

But that I wish they were!

 

Like I say – I have my interests and am happy to pay for them – I do not expect others to pay for me to enjoy myself and expect that EXACT SAME COURTESY from others.

 

So any “Arts” getting a subsidy – watch out – your right to a free lunch at everyone else’s expense is being questioned.

>:-( :-S

[nightrider]

Rob,

All my interests and hobbies are all work oriented, so if anyone can see their way clear to donating a few bob towards my next purchases of a Scheppac planer/thicknesser, 2, 20ltr Cooper Pegler back pack sprayers and a John Deer scarifier I would be extremely grateful.

[nightrider]

CliveH - 2011-04-18 6:52 PM

 

knight of the road - 2011-04-18 6:17 PM

 

robkilby - 2011-04-18 6:13 PM

 

knight of the road - 2011-04-18 6:08 PM

 

As a tax payer I dont see why I should contribute to something that I have no interest in and will never see or indulge myself in, so whatever your poison is, pay for it yourself.

If there is not enough money taken at the opera box office then the opera will close, so be it, will I be any worse off, no I dont think so, nobody helps to fund my interests so why should I fund somebody else's interests.

 

what are your interests ?

 

Many and varied, but I dont go about with a begging bowl to fund them.

 

Actually Malcolm - if you did come to me as a businessman saying you wanted sponsorship for a youth orchestra - a youth band - pop or otherwise - we can and have done put our hands in our pockets and sponsored these worthwhile projects. And we are not alone. Many individuals and businesses have been generous in helping what I would call "Arts" projects - but these have been local and mainly youth orientated.

 

Now I know you and I are on the wrong side of "young" - but I would put my hand in my pocket for someone who had talent and needed a step-up.

 

What I say (and I think you possibly mean the same re the "begging bowl") is that we disagree with the tax payer footing the bill for something one persons calls an "art-form" with all the arrogance of a thought process that can marginalise and dismiss other "art-forms" as not worthy of our tax payers £'s.

 

Bloody staggering that is!

 

My apologise for the language Gwendolyn - but your attitude is so so so typical of the luvvies that want it all handed to them on the taxpayers plate that you have (inadvertently - I am sure) hit my anger button.

>:-( >:-)

 

Clive,

Being asked to contribute to some worthwhile cause is ok but when you have no choice in the matter that is not ok.

[nightrider]

I have sent in two posts in answer to Clive and Rob, clicked the submit button and they have disappeared so I will try again.

Clive, if someone asked me to contribute to some art form and I liked it, I would contribute but I dont like it if I have no choice in where my tax pounds go.

Rob, my interests and hobbies are all work oriented, just some of the things that I want, a Scheppac planer/thicknesser, 2 off 20 ltr Cooper Peglar backpack sprayers, a John Deer petrol engine scarifier, about £3.000 in all.

So if anyone can see their way clear into making a donation to my worthwhile cause I would be eternally grateful.

[CliveH]

"....................but I dont like it if I have no choice in where my tax pounds go."

 

Exactly Malcolm.

 

 

[flicka]

Very good point regarding Taxpayers not having a choice, Clive & Malcolm.

 

Sorry Gwendolyn, but the Arts are only entertainment & those choosing that form of Entertainment should be prepared to pay the FULL price OR loose it.

[Gwendolyn]

Now, now chaps, no need to get so personal. [And Clive H, if a statement on an on-line Forum can prompt you to anger, then perhaps you need to lie down in a dark room and listen to some soothing music?]

 

To ask “what is Art” is a question of legitimate debate in Aesthetics. And if we are to answer the OP, then surely we first have to define what is meant by The Arts? We can discuss this without resorting to abuse!

 

And I am NOT elitist at all. I believe the Arts [however we define it] should be accessible to all, and, as I said up thread, I believe that young people should have access to the Arts as part of education in our cultural heritage. Nothing elitist in that. Quite the opposite.

 

 

And is this discussion not part of a wider whole? Recently there was a thread running about the Public Sector and how that should be funded. These two topics are both part of a wider debate about what constitutes a fair and just, happy and healthy society, and how that is to be best achieved.

 

And yes, there are things that I too would prefer my taxes were not used to fund. But that is not how it works. So I pay up willingly.

 

Setting off now from the site where we have had free WiFi access, so I may go silent. But I'd hate you all to think that you have bullied me off the boards!!!

 

 

 

 

 

[CliveH]

Gwendolyn - 2011-04-19 9:43 AM

 

Now, now chaps, no need to get so personal. [And Clive H, if a statement on an on-line Forum can prompt you to anger, then perhaps you need to lie down in a dark room and listen to some soothing music?]

 

To ask “what is Art” is a question of legitimate debate in Aesthetics. And if we are to answer the OP, then surely we first have to define what is meant by The Arts? We can discuss this without resorting to abuse!

 

And I am NOT elitist at all. I believe the Arts [however we define it] should be accessible to all, and, as I said up thread, I believe that young people should have access to the Arts as part of education in our cultural heritage. Nothing elitist in that. Quite the opposite.

 

 

And is this discussion not part of a wider whole? Recently there was a thread running about the Public Sector and how that should be funded. These two topics are both part of a wider debate about what constitutes a fair and just, happy and healthy society, and how that is to be best achieved.

 

And yes, there are things that I too would prefer my taxes were not used to fund. But that is not how it works. So I pay up willingly.

 

Setting off now from the site where we have had free WiFi access, so I may go silent. But I'd hate you all to think that you have bullied me off the boards!!!

 

 

 

 

 

Only time I need a darkened room Gwendolyn is when I have a migraine.

 

Not a very subtle "put down on your part tho'

 

Not least because I was careful to say that your comments "pushed my anger button" rather than made me angry. And I agree – the Arts should be available to all – but what is eletist is your defining one as “entertainment” and another as an “Art Form” whereby the latter is “worthy” and the former not.

 

And so, if you don't want to appear elitist - then don't make elitist statements that one for of music is an art form and another is entertainment. Don’t twist the words such as to make out you said something entirely different.

 

All music is potentially both - to dismiss one as not being the other is nonsense - elitist nonsense.

 

As for aesthetics - it is as I understand it, a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste, and with the creation and appreciation of beauty. It is more scientifically defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste.

 

More broadly, most define aesthetics as "critical reflection on art, culture and nature".

 

As such you dismissing one form of art as "entertainment" whilst elevating another to an "art form" by your definition simply underlines that you understand little of the concept of aesthetics.

 

And please do not accuse others of "bullying" just because some have the temerity to challenge your tunnel vision version of what is "Art".

 

Just because you define one is X and the other is Y does not sanctify our tax£'s to be spent on one but not the other.

:-S