"Culture" Minister demands arts make money before subsidisation

[Flosshilde]

More precisely, he was speaking of one particular piece.

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.

[Flosshilde]

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.

[Serial_Apologist]

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...

[teamsaint]

Sometimes I do get a sinking feeling...

just a bit depressed?!

[Serial_Apologist]

just a bit depressed?!

No teamy - only subsidised. :winkeye:

[Simon]

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.

[amateur51]

: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.

[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:

[Richard Barrett]

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:

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

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.

[amateur51]

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?

[Richard Barrett]

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.

[amateur51]

... 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.

[Richard Barrett]

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:

[An_Inspector_Calls]

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?'.