"Culture" Minister demands arts make money before subsidisation

[amateur51]

"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.

Ah leave it to the market then, that's a philosophy that's seen us through this last thirty years :erm:

Good to see that complacency is alive and thriving in Amber Valley :ok::biggrin:

[ahinton]

"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.

Barrett. And "we" - whoever that is - do not all know what it means, quite obviously.

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.

I wonder if anyone will bother to answer your question here, or whether they'll simply question your used of " ". I note, however, that, true to form, you've not answered that question yourself - only posed it - so I'll ask you one; since you mention Sorabji, what do you know of his music?

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"

No one here blames "everything" on Lady T but, perhaps more importantly (to paraphrase your own question), "what can a man (or woman) who makes a living through the arts have to contribute to a discussion about artistic value?

there's a serious point.

There is indeed and it would be useful if you sought to address it instead of waffling about hysteria from people about Lady T, offering a personal definition of "innovative and challenging" in an artistic context, questioning the music of Sorabji and those who listen to it and asserting, by implication, that those who derive a living from the arts have nothing useful to contribute to this discussion.

No government is going to squash all spending on Arts

I certainly hope not!

there is a value other than the economic one as everyone with half a brain knows

Mon Dieu! You lapse into sense!

[Richard Barrett]

What is a "concrete slab lover"? :blush: (I generally prefer something a bit softer for such activities.)

[Simon]

What is a "concrete slab lover"? :blush:

Ah, you must be an innocent abroad, RB. :smiley:

But as to your earlier post, I'm quite sure you know exactly what points I'm making, as I've made them on these and other boards for nearly ten years. You may not agree with them, but if I might offer some genuinely well-meant advice, you'd be advised to at least register them.

Getting money for "the Arts" has never been easy, at least in recent years. In the days when single individuals were powerful and wealthy, of course, they could afford to be patrons - and we know how many of the great musicians benefitted, perhaps Haydn's story being a perticularly good example of both advantages and disadvantages of such a system.

In more recent times, it has been "the Government" that has taken over much of the funding, (though of course there have been some individuals, often eccentric, who have, for varied motives, supported particular true artists or been conned by particular pseudo-artists. That's up to them, of course.)

Most of the population in general has, I think, probably been satisfied that some of our taxes have been used in this way though there have naturally been those who haven't, believing that artists should pay their own way and stand or fall in the same way that, for example, tailors and painter s and decorators do. That is, if they do a good job they succeed and if they are nefficient or incompetent they don't.

It is difficult to fault this latter argument on grounds of logic, but it ignores the fact that there is a case to be made that there is an area of human endeavour where a commercial model is unfair, or if not unfair, at least counter-productive. That area is the Arts, for several reasons, the most important being, perhaps, that it is not easy to make a living, at least in the early stages, from a creative career, and that it can take time for an artwork to come to fruition. Talent needs nurturing, and the marketplace may not be able to do that for long enough for it to flower, either to its full extent or even at all.

But, especially in times when money is tight, it behoves the Arts world to look closely at itself, and keep public opinion on its side. And that means making sure that what it produces, and what it does with public money, is something that is generally appreciated by the public. Now, the best way to do this is - and always has been - to produce something that is beautiful, whether visually or to the hearing. Even in tough times, music or art has the capacity to uplift the spirit, and history has given us numerous examples of people being prepared to forego important things in impoverished times in order to see or hear something that they value for its artistic merit.

Sadly, certain sections of society, with an inflated opinion of their own taste, have seen fit to denigrate much that has been enjoyed by the majority, preferring to champion the way out, the ugly, the unpleasant, the incompetent, the lack of craftsmanship and the frankly insane. One is reminded of some weird idea of playing a note every year for a century or some such malarkey. (I'm sure I've got the details wrong but the principle is clear enough.)

These are the people who seem to think they have a right to public subsidy with no obligation to consider what the public want to gain from that subsidy. I think that this attitude is both unfair and doomed. And that is the situation that needs to be addressed now. For if it is not, any sort of public funding for the Arts will become increasingly threatened, and I believe that that's what few want to see, whether we are performers, creators or the man on the Clapham omnibus.

Create real beauty - that's the way to keep the Arts alive.

[teamsaint]

So stuff like Bartok wouldn't fit your model, Simes?

(sorry to answer your long considered post with a 1 liner).

[Richard Barrett]

Create real beauty - that's the way to keep the Arts alive.

The point where I'd need advice from the likes of you would be some time after I'd have topped myself. :smiley:

[Simon]

So stuff like Bartok wouldn't fit your model, Simes?

(sorry to answer your long considered post with a 1 liner).

No need to apologise ts.

I'm afraid I don't know much about Bartok, apart from the usual about him being an enthusiastic collector of folk music. 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. She agreed and I chose the more tuneful and musical alternative option - I can't remember what that was.

Over the years I've heard little to convince me that he was a particularly great composer, though I confess I did enjoy bits of Bluebeard's Castle once when it was on the radio. I gather that his earlier works are perhaps more traditional and pleasant, but I haven't as yet made any effort to search them out. So I'm afraid I can't really give a definitive answer to your question.

A propos the thtread subject, I don't know how he lived and how he made his money. I don't know if he lived from his work or received any subsidy.

[MrGongGong]

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.

absolutely
Long live Einaudi and death to the Arnold Bax society

Your "analysis" is (predictably ) so so wrong

"If Boulez was so good , why isn't he on X factor ?"

Try writing about something you might know a little bit about Prof

Create real beauty - that's the way to keep the Arts alive.

I went to an electroacoustic music festival today
some wonderful works of great beauty indeed

and i didn't know you were that keen on Alvin Lucier, Ellen Fullman, Xenakis, Ligeti and Feldman Simon ? all of whom have created some of the most beautiful music i've heard .........

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

What is a "concrete slab lover"? :blush:

Similar to an "abstract slab lover" but more practically-minded?

Or a reference to:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2035996/Woman-married-to-Berlin-Wall-for-29-years.html

[MrGongGong]

Similar to an "abstract slab lover" but more practically-minded?

Or a reference to:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-29-years.html

You can stop now
as your mate Brian is toast in the SimonKipper future :sadface:

http://eveningharold.com/2013/04/26/culture-story/

[Serial_Apologist]

Ah, you must be an innocent abroad, RB. :smiley:

But as to your earlier post, I'm quite sure you know exactly what points I'm making, as I've made them on these and other boards for nearly ten years. You may not agree with them, but if I might offer some genuinely well-meant advice, you'd be advised to at least register them.

Getting money for "the Arts" has never been easy, at least in recent years. In the days when single individuals were powerful and wealthy, of course, they could afford to be patrons - and we know how many of the great musicians benefitted, perhaps Haydn's story being a perticularly good example of both advantages and disadvantages of such a system.

In more recent times, it has been "the Government" that has taken over much of the funding, (though of course there have been some individuals, often eccentric, who have, for varied motives, supported particular true artists or been conned by particular pseudo-artists. That's up to them, of course.)

Most of the population in general has, I think, probably been satisfied that some of our taxes have been used in this way though there have naturally been those who haven't, believing that artists should pay their own way and stand or fall in the same way that, for example, tailors and painter s and decorators do. That is, if they do a good job they succeed and if they are nefficient or incompetent they don't.

It is difficult to fault this latter argument on grounds of logic, but it ignores the fact that there is a case to be made that there is an area of human endeavour where a commercial model is unfair, or if not unfair, at least counter-productive. That area is the Arts, for several reasons, the most important being, perhaps, that it is not easy to make a living, at least in the early stages, from a creative career, and that it can take time for an artwork to come to fruition. Talent needs nurturing, and the marketplace may not be able to do that for long enough for it to flower, either to its full extent or even at all.

But, especially in times when money is tight, it behoves the Arts world to look closely at itself, and keep public opinion on its side. And that means making sure that what it produces, and what it does with public money, is something that is generally appreciated by the public. Now, the best way to do this is - and always has been - to produce something that is beautiful, whether visually or to the hearing. Even in tough times, music or art has the capacity to uplift the spirit, and history has given us numerous examples of people being prepared to forego important things in impoverished times in order to see or hear something that they value for its artistic merit.

Sadly, certain sections of society, with an inflated opinion of their own taste, have seen fit to denigrate much that has been enjoyed by the majority, preferring to champion the way out, the ugly, the unpleasant, the incompetent, the lack of craftsmanship and the frankly insane. One is reminded of some weird idea of playing a note every year for a century or some such malarkey. (I'm sure I've got the details wrong but the principle is clear enough.)

These are the people who seem to think they have a right to public subsidy with no obligation to consider what the public want to gain from that subsidy. I think that this attitude is both unfair and doomed. And that is the situation that needs to be addressed now. For if it is not, any sort of public funding for the Arts will become increasingly threatened, and I believe that that's what few want to see, whether we are performers, creators or the man on the Clapham omnibus.

Create real beauty - that's the way to keep the Arts alive.

Most of which could have been written by Zhdanov in 1948 :whistle:

[Simon]

Most of which could have been written by Zhdanov in 1948 :whistle:

Obviously, one doesn't expect rational debate or common sense from such as GG, or, heaven forbid, his usual cronies, but surely someone has the brains to proffer a cogent argument against at least a couple of the points I made? Instead of part-argued comments, one-liners and smileys.

Or maybe not. :sadface:

[MrGongGong]

Most of which could have been written by Zhdanov in 1948 :whistle:

What would you know anyway ?
as "we all know" that the music you named your self after is a "dead end" :yikes:

[ahinton]

What is a "concrete slab lover"? :blush: (I generally prefer something a bit softer for such activities.)

As indeed would most of us, I imagine - but perhaps it's obliquely self-referential and Simon has thus unwittingly revealed one part of his problem here...

[ahinton]

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.

But not, presumably, that person's views on Sorabji's Michelangelo Sonnets settings..

But in tough times, there is a perceived need to make cuts

"Perceived", yes - but a misperception to the extent that the more jobs get cut, the less the tax take and the greater the benefits liability.

there is no reason that "the arts" should be immune

From such a misperception, no.

Why should an artist or composer be treated differently from a soldier, a civil servant, a steelworker, all of whom have borne job cuts?

Did anyone suggest that they should, in broad terms? Has anyone ever sought to persuade you that two wrongs don't make a right?

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.

That's a very rose-tinted (from your perspective) take on what happened there - and an inaccurate and misleading one.

Great art - and even good art - will always win through and find support, even when money is tight.

Oh, so that WILL be immune from cuts that everyone else has to suffer, then?

Rubbish will drop into the gutter and be forgotten. And that's just how it should be.

Provided that there are not too many cuts in the garbage collecting profession.