"Culture" Minister demands arts make money before subsidisation

[ahinton]

You think it's absurd; Simon doesn't. Maybe Simon's thoughts are absurd, maybe yours are. No one seems to care apart from you.

What's absurd is the prospect of one individual whose prejudices are founded on insufficient knowledge and listening experience claiming that, because he doesn't like certain music, it's no good and should therefore be denied financial support; were no one but me to care about that, I would not have expected anyone to comment on it here as they have done. As RB has noted, this is in any case a diversion and a distraction from the thread topic, which indeed it is except to the extent that, as he has noted, every age has its Simons and anyone who cares about arts funding will have always to hope that they don't get to be the ones holding the purse strings.

[ahinton]

I really don't understand the problem. This is one guy's opinion. Mine and your will be different. What bothers me is this tendency to see opinion regarding artistic value as 'right' or 'wrong'.

It is indeed just one person's opinion and, as such, it isn't a problem and can be accepted or rejected for what it is; the problem here is the assumption on the part of the holder of such an opinion that the majority share not only that opinion but also a belief that its should impact upon which artistic endeavours are deemed to be deserving of - and accordingly receive - funding support and which don't.

[Simon]

As regards the fact or opinion idea, it's an interesting philosophical question.

THis is clearly a melody:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QAAZ29cvfU

This, equally as clearly, isn't:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf8GGfWZw5Q

Therefore it certainly can be considered a matter of fact, if one accepts the usual definition of the word "melody".

QED, really. :smiley:

[An_Inspector_Calls]

It is indeed just one person's opinion and, as such, it isn't a problem and can be accepted or rejected for what it is; the problem here is the assumption on the part of the holder of such an opinion that the majority share not only that opinion but also a belief that its should impact upon which artistic endeavours are deemed to be deserving of - and accordingly receive - funding support and which don't.

Nope, still don't see what you're on about.

[Simon]

... the problem here ... a belief that it [opinion] should impact upon which artistic endeavours are deemed to be deserving of - and accordingly receive - funding support and which don't.

So, given the reasonable assumption that you don't believe that all requested arts funding should automatically always be granted to any and everyone that applies for it for any project and that there is a limitless anmount of money available, what criteria woudl YOU use, AH, to decide what gets funded and what doesn't?

Same question to Mr GG and RB.

[Simon]

... one individual whose prejudices are founded on insufficient knowledge and listening experience .

How much, and perhaps as importantly, what sort of, knowledge and "listening experience" would one need to have, AH, in order to be able to provide an opinion that in your view was suitable to make a decision on the value of a work?

[ahinton]

Nope, still don't see what you're on about.

Evidently. One last try, then. Many of hold "opinions" on all sorts of things. Many of us do not, however, suggest that those opinions are all and always correct, logical, sensible and shared by most other people, nor do they seek to assert that they should be or become arbiters of arts funding decisions.

[EnemyoftheStoat]

Right, that does it. As I seem to be able to stop a thread stone-dead by posting, here goes.

[Ian]

It is indeed just one person's opinion and, as such, it isn't a problem and can be accepted or rejected for what it is; the problem here is the assumption on the part of the holder of such an opinion that the majority share not only that opinion but also a belief that its should impact upon which artistic endeavours are deemed to be deserving of - and accordingly receive - funding support and which don't.

I don't see that it is unreasonable to want your vote to count.

[ahinton]

I don't see that it is unreasonable to want your vote to count.

Nor do I - but one person's vote is just that - one person's vote, made in accordance with personal opinions, devoid of any sense of "well, this is what all sensible people think as well".

[Ian]

Evidently. Many of us do not, however, suggest that those opinions are all and always correct...

Opinions about the value of art have nothing to do with being correct or incorrect (right or wrong) The (non-economic) value of art can only be gauged by individuals. As we see all the time the same piece of music can be valued as exquisite or rubbish. However, it is not the case that one assessment must be wrong and the other correct, because it is not the music that is being valued but rather the relationship between the listener and the music, which, of course, is different in every case.

[ahinton]

How much, and perhaps as importantly, what sort of, knowledge and "listening experience" would one need to have, AH, in order to be able to provide an opinion that in your view was suitable to make a decision on the value of a work?

It would be important to have listened to any work at lest once and, depending upon how well or otherwise it got absorbed on first hearing, perhaps several times. There are those, however, who appear to have listened to a far smaller amount of some people's music than their blanket dismissals of it might be thought to suggest and, when such opinions get to be presented as though widely shared by others and expressed for the purpose of supporting clams that music of which their holders disapprove personally is all "rubbish" and therefore undeserving of financial support, they risk becoming too big for their boots (the opinions, that is).

[Ian]

Surely the point of subsidy is to create opportunities for things to exist that couldn't exist without it ?

That’s one reason to subsidize, but given that there is an infinitely long list of things that can’t exist without funding how would you choose - and to what extent would it matter?

It makes little sense for the Arts Council to fund the Rolling Stones or Raymond Gubbay's latest "Classical Spectacular" as they will get along fine without...

Another reason for funding is to make art ‘accessible’ (i.e. affordable) to all. Why should ticket prices for Puccini be subsidized but not the Rolling Stones?

Also there are a lot of things that ‘get along’ but not necessarily ‘fine’. The production values in a lot of unsubsidized music theatre are no way near as good as subsidized opera. So why not subsidize musicals rather opera? Opera will still 'get along' even if it won’t be able to pay 4-5 figure performance fees.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Evidently. One last try, then. Many of hold "opinions" on all sorts of things. Many of us do not, however, suggest that those opinions are all and always correct, logical, sensible and shared by most other people, nor do they seek to assert that they should be or become arbiters of arts funding decisions.

But many of us do, and it matters not either way.

[MrGongGong]

That’s one reason to subsidize, but given that there is an infinitely long list of things that can’t exist without funding how would you choose - and to what extent would it matter?

Well that IS the choice that folk have to make
it's not always easy (and I have been involved in those kinds of decisions in the past for the Arts Council)

Another reason for funding is to make art ‘accessible’ (i.e. affordable) to all. Why should ticket prices for Puccini be subsidized but not the Rolling Stones?

Also there are a lot of things that ‘get along’ but not necessarily ‘fine’. The production values in a lot of unsubsidized music theatre are no way near as good as subsidized opera. So why not subsidize musicals rather opera? Opera will still 'get along' even if it won’t be able to pay 4-5 figure performance fees.

Accessibility and affordability are not the same thing IMV

The Stones are ubiquitous , easy to find , maybe expensive to buy tickets but finance isn't necessarily the main barrier to attendance (the oft cited comparison with the price of football springs to mind)

"Big" Opera won't exist without funding, even the private sector organisations rely (as Gubbay himself has said many times ) on the subsidised infrastructure , orchestras , singers etc to exist

It is a question of "what do we want ?" , which isn't always articulated very well (the Arts Council being notoriously bad, historically speaking, at asking these kind of questions ) .......

Do we want to have the ROH or Not ?
Do we want to have so many orchestras or not ?
Do we want to have the thriving small festivals or not ?