What do you think about the cuts in arts funding?

[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.

As with commerce, those who do so, after an education in art/design, will flourish...if they're any good.

Personally I think there's too much emphasis on higher education.

There are already too many Micky Mouse degree courses. With most not having a cat in Hell's chance of working in the field in which they've been trained.

If you're that good, and people want what you produce, you don't even need any formal arts training.

[garinda]

One of the most successful artists I personally knew, if you discount Hockney, and Gilbert and George, was apprenticed to a painter, straight out of school, and had people queueing up to buy his work at fifty grand a pop, in the late eighties.

No formal art education. No state funding.

People purely appreciated what he did, and were prepared to pay handsomely for it.

[keetah_992000]

Originally Posted by garinda

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.

All of whom were educated.

[keetah_992000]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

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.

I didn't say you were ignorant. I said people were ignorant of the the effects of the cuts. That is a different thing. I certainly wasn't calling you ignorant.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by keetah_992000

All of whom were educated.

Of those three only Dresser received what could be passably compared to today's formal art education.

Turner was a pupil at the R.A., and Morris was privately educated.

As working artists they were self-financing. None of them relied on handouts from the tax payer.

As stated earlier, those who do have genuine talent will find a place in art education, if they so wish.

Those whose ambition outweighs their talent, will have to think of some other way to make a living.

Sink or swim.

Just like the rest of the working world.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by keetah_992000

I didn't say you were ignorant. I said people were ignorant of the the effects of the cuts. That is a different thing. I certainly wasn't calling you ignorant.

...and what qualifies you, and your opinion, of not being ignorant?

As you presume everyone else is.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by keetah_992000

I didn't say you were ignorant. I said people were ignorant of the the effects of the cuts. That is a different thing. I certainly wasn't calling you ignorant.

If you say people are ignorant, then by implication I am included......and to be honest I don't think you clarified it as you have done here by adding the phrase 'of the effects of the cuts'....or certainly that isn't how I read it.

I have said before, the internet is very unforgiving, in that, it doesn't allow for the nuances of face to face speech....and as such it is remarkably easy to give offence.
You could have avoided this in a very simple way by adding the word 'some'. As in, some people are ignorant of the effects of the cuts....better still would have been some people are uaware of how the cuts in art funding will affect their lives.
Then you could have strenghthened your case by educating those whom you deemed ignorant.
You could have outlined why you think Art is an important aspect of daily life...it is obviously important in your life......perhaps less so in the lives of others.

[keetah_992000]

I find peoples response interesting thats all, I was simply curious as to how people thought it would affect them.

Yes things do come across in a very blunt way sometimes on the net, but in truth don't think I could have avoided it because this is how some threads seem to run on here.

I am certainly not expecting everybody to have an opinion that agrees with mine, not at all, but feel that because my opinion doesn't match that of others I am in the firing line. No matter though.

I have said why I think that creativity is important, especially in the younger end of education.

However I still stand by what I said when I said
'people are unaware of how the cuts in art funding will affect their lives'
being unaware of something or being ignorant to something is the same thing. I wasn't using ignorant as a derogatory term. So apologies if it caused offense.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Keetah, it is good that you stand by what you said......you have to have the courage of your convictions.

Artistic pursuits still happen in primay schools......you can clearly see that by standing by the gates of any school around Easter time...seeing the children bringing home t heir home made hats, depictions of eggs and other such stuff.
This week at the school my daughters two children attend, they are making decorated crowns to wear at their street party on Thursday, to celebrate the Royal Wedding...they were sent home with templates and the children were asked to make the crowns as colourful as possible using whatever material they liked.......but putting coins on to represent the 'sparkle'...this money will go into the schools coffers and the children as a whole will benefit from it in a variety of ways(theatre visits...travelling art exhibitions aimed purely at children, science workshops etc etc)So with some imagination and work artistic pursuits can still be enjoyed.......and children will still be bringing home those smudgie pictures to grace the fridge door.

Now whether these children will be fired with enthusiasm to continue their artistic pursuits or even the appreciation of art(in all its forms)when they go to secondary school, well I guess that is down to the child and the school.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by keetah_992000

I find peoples response interesting thats all, I was simply curious as to how people thought it would affect them.

Yes things do come across in a very blunt way sometimes on the net, but in truth don't think I could have avoided it because this is how some threads seem to run on here.

I am certainly not expecting everybody to have an opinion that agrees with mine, not at all, but feel that because my opinion doesn't match that of others I am in the firing line. No matter though.

I have said why I think that creativity is important, especially in the younger end of education.

However I still stand by what I said when I said
'people are unaware of how the cuts in art funding will affect their lives'
being unaware of something or being ignorant to something is the same thing. I wasn't using ignorant as a derogatory term. So apologies if it caused offense.

You didn't reply to my earlier question. (Posts 74 and 81.)

As you have such an indepth insight into how the cuts will affect the arts, particularly in education, making you not 'ignorant', unlike the rest of us, how have you gained this knowledge? Were you professionally involved?

[Gordon Booth]

Originally Posted by keetah_992000

I have also recently worked in a school in Blackburn who have little money for creative activities as it is - the children are missing out, because like it or not learning through the creative process is one of the most beneficial ways to learn. I am not just talking about painting, but building 3D models/dens/tactile experiences.

How many of you have experienced the joy of your child/grandchild bringing home their first painting - would you take that away from someone else?

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.

keetah, arguments which try to be heartstring pulling but don't have much logic or fact in them don't go down well with people from 'northern impoverished old mill towns'.
If the children aren't building dens and enjoying 'tactile experiences' they might have more time to learn to read,write and do maths. Going off what employers and universities say they certainly need it.
A childs first painting at school will be impossible without arts grant support? Don't be foolish.
Designers, architects, wheelchair designers? Now you're really bringing tears to my eyes. Not one of those you list needs or gets arts grant support. I HOPE! I wouldn't like to live in a house designed by an architect who couldn't survive without an arts grant.
Times are bad. People who come from 'northern impoverished old mill towns' need a lot of convincing that the taxes they pay should, at the moment, be spent on art, or even Art.
Forget the emotion and give us just one thing from the art world you think needs and deserves some of the money we're currently borrowing from the rest of the world!

[yerself]

Originally Posted by keetah_992000

I am sure the Mooneys will agree with this.

What has some bagwash, barmpot religious sect got to do with arts funding?

[Margaret Pilkington]

I think she might mean the Mooney family, rather than the religious sect.

[walkinman221]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I think she might mean the Mooney family, rather than the religious sect.

Or maybe not,she may mean the bagwash barmpot, religious nutters.They are probably big supporters of the arts

[Royboy39]

Originally Posted by garinda

Personally I think there's too much emphasis on higher education.

There are already too many Micky Mouse degree courses. With most not having a cat in Hell's chance of working in the field in which they've been trained.

Garinda for the first time in a long time I agree.

I, at 15 was given the opportunity to train as a butcher and took that job at £3 a week and happy to do it.
It was about my level at that time and was accepted.
I do not know anyone at my school who went on to university in 1954?
I have never in my life been without a job and if I could not find one I have found a way legally to make money for myself and my family and pay my tax.
I am now 72 years old and still think of ways of making money,I think there must be a lesson in there somewhere?