They're all coming out of the woodwork now: from The Evening Standard:
Arts and cultural leaders (1) today issued a warning that Britain's economic strength could be “shattered” if funding to the sector is cut....
Samuel West, currently starring in the West End hit Enron... said maintaining arts funding was a “no-brainer”. Speaking at the launch of a joint manifesto for the future of culture, he said: “The arguments are so clear, economically, socially, aesthetically, that the only possible reason to reduce the total amount of money available for the arts in this country is censorship.”(2)
The arts generate £2 from philanthropy, sponsorship and their own business ventures and box office for every £1 of public subsidy (3). Sir Nicholas Hytner stressed that the subsidy was what created successes like the National Theatre hit War Horse. “Public investment means we can take risks we would otherwise be unable to take,” he said (4).
The manifesto says investment has created a huge appetite for culture and generated billions for the economy....(5)
Right.
1) Here's their manifesto. Here's the list of members:
Arts Council England
Association of Independent Museums
Cultural Learning Alliance
English Heritage
The Heritage Alliance
Heritage Lottery Fund
Local Government Association
Museums Association
Museums, Libraries and Archives Council
National Campaign for the Arts
National Heritage Memorial Fund
National Museum Directors’ Conference
Society of Archivists
Society of Chief Librarians
The Art Fund
The National Archives
Visit England
I'd guess that most of those organisations are either state-backed or state-funded, or if not, are lobby groups for businesses which are partly state-funded.
2) No, my friend. It's when the government gets involved in arts funding that we end up with censorship. Withdrawing funding and leaving people to their own devices is the opposite of censorship. it's called 'freedom of speech' or 'freedom of expression' or something.
I'd like to add that there are three "creative industries" in the UK that are completely beyond the pale and infra dig as far as these luvvies or the government are concerned and which receive neither subsidies nor tax breaks nor interference, but which despite that - or more probably, because of that - generate a lot of income for the UK and in which we punch above our weight. They are: pop music; West End musicals; and computer games.
UPDATE: As AC points out, a tax break-sum-subsidy for the video game creators was proposed in The Budget. Ah well, that's another UK industry doomed to wither and fade, unless the next lot reverse it.
3) False comparison. If funding were halved, then all things being equal, they'd generate £4 for every £1 of public subsidy. So?
4) You'd like to 'take risks' with other people's money? Hmmm. A bit like banks?
5) If the 'investment' shows such a positive return, why wouldn't private investors be prepared to step in?
OTOH, it is quite possible that subsidies to certain things, like free museums or galleries are a net boost to London's tourist industry and show a positive return (I love those free museums myself, excellent value) but if anybody should be subsidising them, it's land and property owners in central London, who ought to be allowed to vote, democratically, on how much subsidy there should be, and to whom, and then pay for it themselves via a precept on their Business Rates or Council Tax. This is not an issue for central government or the taxpayer generally.
Thursday, 25 March 2010
Please sir, may we have some more?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
If there's an argument for state-funded art, it is that it does difficult things which enrich the culture.
The problem is that it fails to do that. Nearly all state-funded theatre is based in London, shows some bit of political cliche to Guardian readers and then disappears after a run, never to be seen again.
When you look at cinema, there are very few significant works that have come from state funding. The Godfather, Raging Bull, Psycho, There Will be Blood, Fargo and Dog Day Afternoon were all made by the private sector. If the private sector can deliver those then you don't need a public sector.
(even opera doesn't need subsidy - two opera companies in Britain run on tickets and patronage).
Surely Mark you must realise these are the 'Third Sector' which both labour and the tories say are underestimated in their importance.
Fake charities they are.
JT, indeed. We discussed this before - you'll note that the heavily subsidised UK film industry is missing from that short list of 'creative stuff which earns the UK money'.
S, The Third Sector. The Third Way. The Third Reich.
"(I love those free museums myself, excellent value)"
But did you ever go when you had to pay? We know what the museums are "worth" to the GBP, because somewhere there are records of the ticket receipts from when Maggie made us pay to see them.
"you'll note that the heavily subsidised UK film industry is missing from that short list of 'creative stuff which earns the UK money'"
If an amateur director can make a film for £20K that is better than most of the tosh produced today, it makes you suspect that the subsidies simply allow inflated fees and salaries in the film world and do nothing for the quality of the product. To make good cinema takes talent, not money.
B, yes of course I'd go if they charged. But if they are free, you go more often, so you spend more money in Central London (or the museum itself) on coffee and snacks, it all evens out (and ends up as rents to the landlord, whoever he may be).
It's the same break-even dilemma as theme-parks - should they charge £30 entry but the rides are 'free', or should they have 'free' entry but charge £5 per ride?
"it makes you suspect that the subsidies simply allow inflated fees and salaries in the film world"
I don't just 'suspect' it, I know it. Proving it is another matter.
Cut the taxes, abolish the subsidies, and the Guardianistas can happily donate all that extra DISCRETIONARY income to the luvvies.
Simples.
C: "Cut the taxes, abolish the subsidies"
That is about half of the MW manifesto, the same logic applies to absolutely everything.
Furthermore ALL human endeavour is 'creative'. I have created a business. I was a mates workshop yesterday and he creates racing cars. It is the central delusion of 'creative' people that creativity is limited to their particular view of what is creative. Personally, I reckon entrepreneurialism is the sole definition of creativity, since all artists should be entrepreneurial, in the sence that they originate ideas. However most of those who hold themselves out to be 'artists' (in whatever discipline) are just skilled craftsmen, journeymen if you like.
L, fair point, I have added quote marks to 'creative industries'.
"If an amateur director can make a film for £20K that is better than most of the tosh produced today, it makes you suspect that the subsidies simply allow inflated fees and salaries in the film world and do nothing for the quality of the product. To make good cinema takes talent, not money."
There's a whole load of stuff in Robert Rodriguez's book about El Mariachi which basically says that lots of the money goes on inflated costs.
He managed to make Spy Kids for about $35 million and Sin City for $40 million. He does this because he's frequently had a go at editing, scoring, visual effects and whatever else, so he knows what it takes to do those jobs.
Unfortunately Alistair introduced a subsidy for the video games industry in his budget, so that cuts it down to two creative industries that do not receive State subsidy.
"The arts generate £2 from philanthropy, sponsorship and their own business ventures and box office for every £1 of public subsidy"
Really an astonishing argument. Is he really boasting that they only cover two thirds of their costs and want the taxpayer to pay the other third? Note the attitude here - the arts "generate" money because somebody pays. I suppose they think paying taxes is "generating money" too. Absolutely pathetic.
What really is / are needed are informed interviewers who screem 'What! Are you saying that spending money on you saves us money?" But, no. They just 'erm' and 'yah' and off we go again with more bleedin' heart bollocks.
Post a Comment