"Culture" Minister demands arts make money before subsidisation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Flosshilde
    Full Member
    • Nov 2010
    • 7988

    Originally posted by french frank View Post
    More precisely, he was speaking of one particular piece.

    Originally posted by Simon View Post
    I was put off him as a child when the ABRSM decided to include one of his piano pieces in one of their exams - I can't recall which grade. It was one of the optional ones, thank goodness, as I played it through - or tried to - and then told my music teacher that it was tuneless, unpleasing and utterly unmusical rubbish.
    Ah - a child prodigy.

    Comment

    • Flosshilde
      Full Member
      • Nov 2010
      • 7988

      Originally posted by Simon View Post
      As 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

      • Serial_Apologist
        Full Member
        • Dec 2010
        • 37561

        Originally posted by ahinton View Post
        A pedant writes: shouldn't the word "subsidisation" in the thread title be changed to "subsidence"?

        I'll get me coat...
        Sometimes I do get a sinking feeling...

        Comment

        • teamsaint
          Full Member
          • Nov 2010
          • 25190

          Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post
          Sometimes I do get a sinking feeling...
          just a bit depressed?!
          I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

          I am not a number, I am a free man.

          Comment

          • Serial_Apologist
            Full Member
            • Dec 2010
            • 37561

            Originally posted by teamsaint View Post
            just a bit depressed?!
            No teamy - only subsidised. :winkeye:

            Comment

            • Simon

              Originally posted by amateur51 View Post
              I see, so this is an entirely speculative exercise because at the outset fund are never limitless in reality.
              :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

                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.
                I have over 30 years experience in fund-seeking and grant-making that you lack. I understand the universal practicalities that you don't. Stop trying to be 'clever' and engage.

                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 Post
                    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:
                    What 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:

                    Comment

                    • ferneyhoughgeliebte
                      Gone fishin'
                      • Sep 2011
                      • 30163

                      Originally posted by Richard Barrett View Post
                      What 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:
                      Magnificent post, Richard - sums up a lot of what I've thought and despaired over. Thank you.
                      [FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]

                      Comment

                      • amateur51

                        Originally posted by Richard Barrett View Post
                        What 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:
                        There have bizarre radio interviews with 'financial experts (yes them!:yikes:) telling us and anyone who'll listen that it is both wrong-headed and madness for the government to wait for RBS' value to move to a position near enough to what taxpayers put into the bank. This is because we don't understand: the 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 :whistle:

                        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 Post
                          the 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
                          ... 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.

                          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.
                            And wasn't a shedload of DCMS-destined Lottery money sucked in to pay for t'Olympics, including money that would have been destined for good causes & the arts?

                            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 Post
                              And wasn't a shedload of DCMS-destined Lottery money sucked in to pay for t'Olympics
                              And did the Olympics make a profit? That isn't yet clear but from what I understand they'll be lucky to break even. So presumably under the current dispensation they shouldn't have received any funding. :whistle:

                              Comment

                              • An_Inspector_Calls

                                Originally posted by Richard Barrett View Post
                                What a few people here seem to want is more of the same, which they'll probably get.
                                That's your misapprehension. What I think we're happy with are works that are challenging and innovative, certainly not more of the same, but it's just that what we consider to be those things doesn't seem to overlap your niche interests.

                                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

                                Working...
                                X