"Culture" Minister demands arts make money before subsidisation

[MrGongGong]

Do the trades unions support the arts?

Yes

[Richard Barrett]

George Benjamin

I think that rather proves my point.

[teamsaint]

Do the trades unions support the arts?

seems so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1999861.stm

http://www.eis.org.uk/About/trade_union.htm

and of course the WEA supports learning in the arts, to which unions like Unison contribute.

[MrGongGong]

seems so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1999861.stm

http://www.eis.org.uk/About/trade_union.htm

and of course the WEA supports learning in the arts, to which unions like Unison contribute.

oh dear
I think that's scuppered the inspectors assumptions a bit then.........

[An_Inspector_Calls]

And what assumptions might they be GG? My reason for asking about the Trades Unions subsidising was that if they do then that's excellent: those with an aversion to subsidy by private companies (RB, GG?) can take their begging caps to their brothers in the unions. In fact, the ideal model might be commissioning by a transition town in their own currency.

And I'm completely baffled by Barrett's reply.

[MrGongGong]

And what assumptions might they be GG? My reason for asking about the Trades Unions subsidising was that if they do then that's excellent: those with an aversion to subsidy by private companies (RB, GG?) can take their begging caps to their brothers in the unions. In fact, the ideal model might be commissioning by a transition town in their own currency.

And I'm completely baffled by Barrett's reply.

Who said I had an "aversion" to private subsidy ?
Just maybe a more realistic understanding of how some things works maybe ?
The assumption you made (which is confirmed by your language in the post above) is that somehow those who's politics might be slightly "left" of Genghis Khan somehow are only interested in taking money from the capitalists :yikes:

Also your use of the phrase "begging caps" implies that somehow anyone involved in creating music is automatically trying to get something for nothing etc etc
you might think that music is just a bit of "entertainment" to pass away an idle moment or a great way to meet new clients
but that view is NOT shared by millions of people all over the world........

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Note the question mark in "those with an aversion to subsidy by private companies (RB, GG?) "

I've certainly got the impression from many here (slightly "left of Genghis Khan") that they view the activities of private companies with suspicion and that their motives for arts sponsorship might be everything to do with their profits and little to do with valuing the arts, therefore their money is somehow tainted and should be avoided (the opposite to your assumption in your para. 3). For those people the trades unions should be their first port of call.

I'll ignore the bluster of your last para.

What's George Benjamin done wrong?

[rauschwerk]

Ms Miller seems to be nothing more than a Tory apparatchik. There's no sign that she has any interest whatsoever in the arts, and the evidence from here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1002...ary-Beard.html is deeply dispiriting.

If I were reducing my personal budget, I would ignore an item accounting for 0.1% of the total unless I were on the breadline. Why can't the government do the same with the arts budget, and summon up the courage to weather any political disturbance?

[MrGongGong]

Note the question mark in "those with an aversion to subsidy by private companies (RB, GG?) "

I've certainly got the impression from many here (slightly "left of Genghis Khan") that they view the activities of private companies with suspicion and that their motives for arts sponsorship might be everything to do with their profits and little to do with valuing the arts, therefore their money is somehow tainted and should be avoided (the opposite to your assumption in your para. 3). For those people the trades unions should be their first port of call.

I'll ignore the bluster of your last para.

What's George Benjamin done wrong?

Businesses are about "business"
have you not noticed how they switch from supporting one thing to another in order to "position" themselves ?
It's not a problem, but I can't see (with a few exceptions) how a business can "value the arts" anyway ?
"Tainted' is your word , but we do have a moral duty NOT to support things we believe to be wrong...... so even if the gig was great I wouldn't take money from an arms manufacturer etc

It's very simplistic to think that (again !) there are somehow only two ways of doing things, Business OR Trade Unions ...... where do people get the idea that this is so when it flies in the face of lived experience ?

and it's not "bluster" just reading what you imply by the words you choose

[amateur51]

Ms Miller seems to be nothing more than a Tory apparatchik. There's no sign that she has any interest whatsoever in the arts, and the evidence from here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1002...ary-Beard.html is deeply dispiriting.

If I were reducing my personal budget, I would ignore an item accounting for 0.1% of the total unless I were on the breadline. Why can't the government do the same with the arts budget, and summon up the courage to weather any political disturbance?

Beautifully put, rauschwerk :ela::ok:

[An_Inspector_Calls]

As I said "For those people the trades unions should be their first port of call." Of course there's public funding from a variety of institutions on top of that source. But you have the ideal method of avoiding tainted money (the arms manufacturer, as you put it).

What's George Benjamin done wrong?

[MrGongGong]

"Tainted" is your word
and don't ask me about GB

[Richard Barrett]

What's George Benjamin done wrong?

As I said before, "I don't see any corporate sponsorship making much of a contribution to artistic activity that's really innovative [and] challenging." George Benjamin has done nothing "wrong" but his work is neither of those things. He is exactly the kind of artist who would be seen as a safe case for corporate support.

[MrGongGong]

As I said before, "I don't see any corporate sponsorship making much of a contribution to artistic activity that's really innovative [and] challenging." George Benjamin has done nothing "wrong" but his work is neither of those things. He is exactly the kind of artist who would be seen as a safe case for corporate support.

Indeed :ok:

[Simon]

"Innovative and challenging" says Barratt. I think we all know what that means! Unmade beds. Piles of rubbish that get thrown out of galleries by cleaners. Stockhausen. Berio. Aphex Twin. etc. etc.

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.

That apart, and leaving aside the usual hysteria from those who blame everything on Lady T and those who make their living through "the arts", there's a serious point. No government is going to squash all spending on Arts - there is a value other than the economic one as everyone with half a brain knows. But in tough times, there is a perceived need to make cuts, and there is no reason that "the arts" should be immune. Why should an artist or composer be treated differently from a soldier, a civil servant, a steelworker, all of whom have borne job cuts?

But there is a silver lining, just as there was in Holland when the Dutch cut arts funding. 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. Let's hope that this will also be the pattern here.

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.