"Culture" Minister demands arts make money before subsidisation
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Simon View PostAs for AH - what can a man who so reveres the "music" of Sorabji have to contribute to a discussion about artistic value? That's like the views of a concrete slab lover on Michelangelo.
Those sectors which appealed to the most people, and were valued/used by the population, remained. The wacky, the way out and the frankly spurious struggled.
Great art - and even good art - will always win through and find support, even when money is tight. Rubbish will drop into the gutter and be forgotten. And that's just how it should be.
The voice of someone who has a lot to say, loudly, about something he knows nothing about. And then sits back with a smug, self-satisfied look, suggesting that anyone else's views aren't worth considering.
Comment
-
-
amateur51
Originally posted by Simon View Post:erm:
I suggest you read the post again. If you still struggle to understand it, perhaps a friend or neighbour will help you.
Comment
-
amateur51
Given the rejection in so many parts of our fair land (and particularly in Derbyshire :winkeye:) of this Government's policies, perhaps we should look over Maria Miller's head and ponder what we want rather than how we meet her strictures, so that we can mention them to would-be coalitionists on the doorstep in 2 years time? :whistle::biggrin:
Comment
-
Richard Barrett
Originally posted by amateur51 View PostGiven the rejection in so many parts of our fair land (and particularly in Derbyshire :winkeye:) of this Government's policies, perhaps we should look over Maria Miller's head and ponder what we want rather than how we meet her strictures, so that we can mention them to would-be coalitionists on the doorstep in 2 years time? :whistle::biggrin:
I imagine that if you start talking like that to canvassers at the doorstep you'll be left in peace soon enough. :sadface:
Comment
-
Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostWhat a few people here seem to want is more of the same, which they'll probably get. One of the triumphs of the ruling ideology of the Thatcher-Major-Blair-Brown-Cameron period is the way that Miller's pronouncements (to name only these) are presented as reasonable, while arguments against them (and NHS privatisation, and victimisation of disabled people, and institutional xenophobia, etc.) are presented as impracticably radical. Only thirty years ago it was the other way around; and what has actually happened in the last thirty years? - a massive upward redistribution of wealth. That's what I would call radical. What's reasonable is people having some joy in their lives that doesn't revolve around mind-numbing pseudo-culture (like that peddled by Bazalgette) and material acquisitiveness.
I imagine that if you start talking like that to canvassers at the doorstep you'll be left in peace soon enough. :sadface:[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
-
amateur51
Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostWhat a few people here seem to want is more of the same, which they'll probably get. One of the triumphs of the ruling ideology of the Thatcher-Major-Blair-Brown-Cameron period is the way that Miller's pronouncements (to name only these) are presented as reasonable, while arguments against them (and NHS privatisation, and victimisation of disabled people, and institutional xenophobia, etc.) are presented as impracticably radical. Only thirty years ago it was the other way around; and what has actually happened in the last thirty years? - a massive upward redistribution of wealth. That's what I would call radical. What's reasonable is people having some joy in their lives that doesn't revolve around mind-numbing pseudo-culture (like that peddled by Bazalgette) and material acquisitiveness.
I imagine that if you start talking like that to canvassers at the doorstep you'll be left in peace soon enough. :sadface:
Is this sound sense or the pure snake-oil salesmanship that it appears to be to me?
Comment
-
Richard Barrett
Originally posted by amateur51 View Postthe Government was not 'investing' in the bank, it was 'rescuing' the bank and now is the time to set it free at a massive loss to the tax payer
Comment
-
amateur51
Originally posted by Richard Barrett View Post... it's that kind of thing that shows up Miller's arts policy for the ideological aggression that it is - at the end of last year the closing price on RBS shares equated to a loss of £16 billion, which is more than seven times DCMS's entire budget for 2013.
Marvellous world we live in :erm: George Orwell you should be alive at this moment to witness the new interpretations of 'Animal Farm' being formulated in the minds of a younger generation.
Comment
-
Richard Barrett
Originally posted by amateur51 View PostAnd wasn't a shedload of DCMS-destined Lottery money sucked in to pay for t'Olympics
Comment
-
An_Inspector_Calls
Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostWhat a few people here seem to want is more of the same, which they'll probably get.
As for the Olympics making a profit or not, that's actually not what Miller requires; the issue around the Olympics, for example, would be rather 'did UK PLC make a profit from the Olympics?'.
Comment
Comment