I wondered how long it would be before a government spokesperson would come up with something like this:
We truly are in the age of Capitalist Realism now. :sadface::grr:
We truly are in the age of Capitalist Realism now. :sadface::grr:
-
-
... I know what you mean. But she is making an argument to be heard by the Treasury in advance of the imminent Funding decisions (the "Spending Review"). She is attuning her argument to her audience... -
Capitalist Unreality, surely?!Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostI wondered how long it would be before a government spokesperson would come up with something like this:
We truly are in the age of Capitalist Realism now. :sadface::grr:
The nearest that this piece gets to any kind of sense is
Former Arts Council England chair Dame Liz Forgan told BBC Radio 4's World at One: "The danger in what she is saying is that people actually start to believe that because art produces huge economic benefits, we should start directing our investment in culture for its commercial potential.
"That's not only philistine, it's self-defeating, because then you get accountants making artistic decisions, which is as silly as having artists making accounting ones.
"If you start to invest in art because of an identified commercial outcome, you will get worse art and therefore we will get a worse commercial outcome."
The mere fact that it is misleading to suggest that no aspect of the arts ever makes, or is capable of making, any profit is so obviously not any kind of excuse for seeking to con the public into believing that there should be no art without profit as to identify the far from jolly Miller's latest posturings as both pathetic and risible, the latter most notably in the implication of a need to generate a profit in order to earn subsidies that would not be required because the profit had been generated.
However slender her direct knowledge of the arts and their proper purpose may be, it seems clear that what she does understand - and seeks to live by - is the notion of the commodification of everything and the value of nothing. That said, I'm far from certain that people at DCMS are - or indeed are expected to be - all that much different to their colleagues elsewhere in government in terms of competence. One has only to consider Philip Hammond, whose career in the last 8 years alone has seen him migrate from Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, then Secretary of State for Transport and finally Secretary of State for Defence; how on earth is any one person credibly supposed to be capable of fulfilling a series of responsibilities such as these and expect to be taken seriously? And, for that matter, how in any case could anyone reasonably expect positive, intelligent and constructive thoughts about the future of the arts in Britain from a "Culture Secretary" whose area of government is designated the "Department for Culture, Media and Sport"?Comment
-
Without wishing to undermine your point here, I would not dignify her statements as "an argument" and, in any case, GO is doubtless adamant that HMT make whatever decisions he and his immediate henchpersons intend it to make irrespective of what the voice of culture, media and sport might say. The fact that cutting in order to achieve growth might occasionally be possible in the world of horticulture but rarely works in terms of government economic policy might suggest that matters could hardly get worse were Ms Miller to be pushed to one side to make way for Alan Titchmarsh.Originally posted by vinteuil View PostComment
-
Indeed. Who was it saying on another thread that it was too early to say what the implications were of the appointment of a gutter-TV executive to run Arts Council England?Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostComment
-
The same one who was in total denial about the pervasive philistinism in the UK over the last few years.Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostComment
-
Hello there,
Re # 3 ahinton
There are times that I wish the noticeboard had a recommend facility. As it doesn't as yet please accept the following where appropriate ;-)
:ok::ela::peacedove::smooch::bubbly::magic:
Best Wishes,
Tevot
Comment
-
Thank you kindly! You may keep the beer, though - I think that it would appeal to you more than it would to me (no churlishness intended, of course!)...Originally posted by Tevot View PostComment
-
And a somewhat wider point by Harriet Harman (my apologies in advance for swearing :winkeye:)
"But she needs to persuade her education secretary as well, that for the sake of all children and the future of arts and creativity in this country, arts must be at the heart of the curriculum," she added.
Miller the "culture" secretary said (it is alleged) that 'the arts world must make the case for public funding by focusing on its economic, not artistic, value'.
Artistic value?It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.Comment
-
Well of course....don't economists consider they add economic value....Last edited by eighthobstruction; 24-04-13, 17:38.bong chingComment
-
I make no apologies for swearing at all..........:grr: who allowed these f*ckwits to be scissor monitor ?Originally posted by french frank View Post
Price of everything, value of nothing
the great legacy of Margaret Hilda :steam:Comment
-
Isn't this a case of The Arts catching up with academic research in Universities which apparently have to be able to attract funding from the commercial sector too?
This is nothing new, surely. The Arts always experience investment under Labour and then feel the philistine pinch under Tories.
My response to vinteuil's useful insight is that surely she has at least two audiences? The Treasury, who hold everything back on the basis of their needing to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing; and the public who might just buy the notion that 'in a time of Austerity, there are no sacred cows'.
It makes me feel sick, sick, sick.:sadface::steam:
What's the state of Arts funding in Japan, I wonder? - someone ask Simon Jenkins! :winkeye:Comment
-
well we have ample evidence of how well accountants can practice medicine and social work, why not the arts?
perhaps Ams she has another audience, the Tory back benches, packed with the usual behinds eh?
what depresses me more and more is the lack of any credible Government that would not be just as awful if somewhat less EtonianAccording to the best estimates of astronomers there are at least one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe.Comment
-
Later: apols for repeating part of MrGG's argument :erm::blush:Originally posted by amateur51 View PostComment
-
Comment