What do you think about the cuts in arts funding?

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I think that there are other things which are more deserving of the money.
Like support for the parents of handicapped children......they must save the government millions of pounds in the long term.

You will abuse me for asking this but why do they save millions?

[steeljack]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

It just might be that we are choosy as to what we determine ART to be.

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany

Incidentally just what is Art/Arts in this instance ? .

think the best answer to this is akin to the one given by Judge Potter Stewart when he was asked to decide a case on pornography

"shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. "

[garinda]

Originally Posted by keetah_992000

people are ignorant about the impact of these cuts and have a pretty narrowed opinion.

Speak for yourself.

Arts council cuts listed: get the data | News | guardian.co.uk

[garinda]

Originally Posted by keetah_992000

Designers, architects, textile manufacturers, art therapists, product designers (including wheelchair and special support furniture designers) will all be affected and many more.

So it will affect disability provisions.

Er...no it won't.

If there's a market for what they produce, in the real world of commerce, people will be prepared to but it.

As stated earlier, there was no publicly funded arts in Renaissance Italy.

Or indeed in nineteenth Britain. When this country produced some of are most creative art and design. All funded because what they produced, people were prepared to fund by actually purchasing it.

Throwing tax payers' money at things some numpty has decided is 'art', doesn't mean it has any artistic merit, or worth.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Neil

You will abuse me for asking this but why do they save millions?

Oh Neil, you do me a great disservice.........why would I abuse you for asking that question?
Do I really abuse people?????? I might have strong opinions, but try hard to steer clear of abuse.
Anyway this question of yours will have to wait, but I will enlighten you later.

[magpie]

Originally Posted by Neil

You will abuse me for asking this but why do they save millions?

To simplify : it saves the government millions by parents providing the bulk of care for the disabled children../adults …. Many give up work… and care 24/7 for the person they are looking after… totally unpaid ( yes they do it out of love ) but if they were to turn round and say NO …. Where would the disabled people be.. at the mercy of this so called caring state we live in….(this costing the state money) all the carers ask for is a little bit of respite from time to time … and this is being cut back… day centres and the like are closing down… the list is endless…
There is little enough support be it financial or emotional … cut backs should be made in other areas so these caring people have what they need… and sorry to say this but apart from love… the only area which will help disabled people is money: ( to provide much needed resources )
　
Back to the original topic …. YES funds should be cut for art and services of the like: in my opinion

[Margaret Pilkington]

Magpie, you beat me to it.
Yes, for these parents there are no days off, no Holidays, no pensions schemes.
And before you ask about the benefits these parents may be entitled to collect.....if it was worked out, then it would still be cheaper than putting these children into intstitutionalised care(which is what used to happen)...after all this kind of care needs buildings to be bought and paid for, staff to run them(on a 2 or 3 shift system, so that the carers get some time off)Utilities to be paid for, maintenance of buildings, training for staff to keep up their competences......do I need to elaborate more?

When I was training, I worked on the Childrens Ward at QPH.....we took disabled children for respite care.So that their parents could take a two week holiday. Looking after them was very hard work.....they needed to be fed, toileted(nappies changed bottoms washed....and these were 10 years and 12 years old) dressed and kept safe.
Could you do this for 27/7....50 weeks of the year? even for someone you loved?

Their parents obviously loved them but they never ever got a full nights sleep, or a meal in peace while the children were home. For two weeks we gave them that luxury...two weeks per year.....is that too much to ask?

I know this is a major thread wander, but it is relevant to the topic...unless you deem it otherwise of course.

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by keetah_992000

many childrens' facilities/hospices/respite centres use creative therapy to help those children, this will be affected as well with funding for arts being cut where do you think they will get their funding for the resources from?

Many are allocated a certain amount of funding for creative resources, this has been cut down to minimal amounts. The funding cuts affect many people including children. I didn't specify this at first because I wanted to see whether people would just assume I meant art- as in painting. I have got a very clear impression that people are ignorant about the impact of these cuts and have a pretty narrowed opinion.

1. Donations & fund raising carried out by these establishments themselves, many other organisations are also sustaining cuts to their funding but seem to manage. There are many folk of my age & those of a more senior generation who managed well enough on their own efforts & merits, money from government was unheard of & unexpected, self sufficiency being their mantra.

2. Since you've now seen the depth of feeling to Art "as in painting" & you've now confirmed your interest as to why you posed such a question phrased as it was, you've concluded people are ignorant & narrow minded ! If you'd been more honest & open from the outset, you'd have found probably a more amenable & receptive response. As it is your funding is being reduced, not removed so destitution isn't imminent is it ? As I've stated previously self reliance & better distribution of assets will have to be more pertinent in your daily dealings.

Unfortunately that is UK's lot & it's going to be a damn site worse in the near future until the Country is turned around & brought back to a semblance of normality with things being all rosy in the garden again. So until then there's going to be quite a lot of hurt, which folk'll have to suck up & say "Thank you" for !

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by keetah_992000

many childrens' facilities/hospices/respite centres use creative therapy to help those children, this will be affected as well with funding for arts being cut where do you think they will get their funding for the resources from?

Many are allocated a certain amount of funding for creative resources, this has been cut down to minimal amounts. The funding cuts affect many people including children. I didn't specify this at first because I wanted to see whether people would just assume I meant art- as in painting. I have got a very clear impression that people are ignorant about the impact of these cuts and have a pretty narrowed opinion.

I know and understand about such facilities for children in facilities/hospices/respite centres......but if these facilities were themselves to go, due to cuts in funding then where does that leave the Art Projects......? Nowhwere!
I also understand that children who are compromised by disability do get pleasure from artistic pursuits, but I also know that money can be found by re-naming these pursuits'educational/recreational' which would mean they are catered for in a different budget.
We have to get used to the fact that we are short of money, and be realistic about what essentials need funding.......we cannot fund some of the things that are essentails.

I am not ignorant and do not appreciate this slur being directed at me, or for that matter other contributors.
I think I(and others) have presented a reasoned, articulate argument as to why the cuts in Art funding are right and proper.......that the argument doesn't please you or support your cause is of no concern to me.

As for your comment that Architecture(and other Arts based professions) will suffer....that is a risible suggestion.......these are marketable skills. The market will determine which of these are profitable and which aren't....and will purchase, according to their tastes and desires.

[keetah_992000]

Originally Posted by garinda

Er...no it won't.

If there's a market for what they produce, in the real world of commerce, people will be prepared to but it.

As stated earlier, there was no publicly funded arts in Renaissance Italy.

Or indeed in nineteenth Britain. When this country produced some of are most creative art and design. All funded because what they produced, people were prepared to fund by actually purchasing it.

Throwing tax payers' money at things some numpty has decided is 'art', doesn't mean it has any artistic merit, or worth.

er yes they will- combined and visual arts funding has been cut across the board in many universities, causing the future of the courses to be in question. These are all as I mentioned before.

I am open to changing my opinion, it isn't set in stone, so was wondering what specific art and design you are refferring to.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Sorry Gary, hadn't seen your comments in post 64......anyway I agree with what you have so eloquently said.......much more succinctly than my comment!

[garinda]

Originally Posted by keetah_992000

er yes they will- combined and visual arts funding has been cut across the board in many universities, causing the future of the courses to be in question. These are all as I mentioned before.

I am open to changing my opinion, it isn't set in stone, so was wondering what specific art and design you are refferring to.

Er...everything from Turner, and William Morris, to Christopher Dresser.

Just a few of our great nineteenth century artists/designers, whose work sold itself...without the need for state subsidy.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Ah funding in Uni courses....well pretty soon there won't be enough students to fund courses of any description...does that mean that all artistic pusuits will cease?

According to the news today 75% of universities are talking of making staff redundant.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by keetah_992000

er yes they will- combined and visual arts funding has been cut across the board in many universities, causing the future of the courses to be in question. These are all as I mentioned before.

I am open to changing my opinion, it isn't set in stone, so was wondering what specific art and design you are refferring to.

Since you seem so keen on art education, are you involved with that field, and if so, in what way?

[Less]

Originally Posted by keetah_992000

Well to be honest I think it is quite sad.

So do I.

You asked a question, people answered, just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean they are wrong or that the people are ignorant.