What do you think about the cuts in arts funding?

[keetah_992000]

Just wondering what your opinions are on the cuts and how you think it will affect those around you ?

[flashy]

Theres more important crap going on in this country right now for anyone to be bothered about a cut in piggin arts funding, get a grip, no one gives a toss

[garinda]

Bring it on.

The good stuff will flourish, the crud will be lost for ever.

Shame.

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by garinda

Bring it on.

The good stuff will flourish, the crud will be lost for ever.

Shame.

The same way that it has been with all art for centuries. The fact is that many artworks are only truly appreciated after the artist's death but we live in a world where there can be no losers and that's the real problem. By cutting arts funding we risk leaving modern artists penniless and depressed when they pass on.

A bit like Van Gogh, one of the finest painters the world has ever produced.

[Boeing Guy]

If this means less 'Flash Mobs' etc then bring it on

[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.

And if Art is good then it will still find people who will spend money on it.....if it isn't good, then it will not find a market and it will be no loss to the public.

I somehow suspect these are not the answers you were looking for.

[gynn]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I somehow suspect these are not the answers you were looking for.

The flip answer is something along the lines of "A civilized society must always find funding for artistic expression".

I see that as balderdash. A civilized society would not put spending on luxuries like painting, music and dance above spending on life or death issues like health care.

If the "artists" want to express themselves, let them do it without spending scarce public money.

[jaysay]

Let those who are interested in the arts pay for it, why should we pay out millions to ballet and opera etc when the majority of ordinary people will never go near it

[Margaret Pilkington]

The Arts would come a long way down my list of priorities.
I will say again what I have said before.......you don't go to the pictures when the rent is due and you have no food in your pantry.

[DaveinGermany]

Being the Philistine & cultural pygmy that I am, I don't see it being a problem ! After all, far more important things in life that affect everybody from the highest to the lowliest are taking a beating, so why not the Arts ?

Incidentally just what is Art/Arts in this instance ? Just who exactly is going to suffer & be affected by these cuts ? For most people on the street you mention Arts & thoughts go automatically to Galleries, National Ballet, Opera & such like, things that have as much bearing on Joe & Josephina Public as the average temperature of an Eskimos navel ! (Eskimos excluded, as I assume it's pretty important on their scale of things, in fact ask them their views why not ? And await the Eskimo equivalent of ...... Eh ?)

Art is seen as the preserve of the rich & monied. That being the case perhaps they should put their hands in their pockets & support this much vaunted institute if it's held in such high esteem ! Merely the comments of one of the plebs.

[Ken Moss]

Art can also be something of a snobby domain, which to me flies in the face of appreciating something on a subjective level. As an example, there are racks of works by Lowry which the Tate are apparently refusing to release to an exhibition in Lancashire, despite the fact that they have not been displayed for some time and are unlikely to be in the near future. I fail to see how spending money on preserving our culture by propping up exhibitions and performances is entirely worthwhile when vast tracts of previous art lie unregarded in locked store rooms.

Perhaps I'm missing the point but no other group of people who are trying to make a living purely out of their own talents get public subsidies when they fail to cover costs.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

Art can also be something of a snobby domain, which to me flies in the face of appreciating something on a subjective level. As an example, there are racks of works by Lowry which the Tate are apparently refusing to release to an exhibition in Lancashire, despite the fact that they have not been displayed for some time and are unlikely to be in the near future. I fail to see how spending money on preserving our culture by propping up exhibitions and performances is entirely worthwhile when vast tracts of previous art lie unregarded in locked store rooms.

Perhaps I'm missing the point but no other group of people who are trying to make a living purely out of their own talents get public subsidies when they fail to cover costs.

Absolutely bob on Ken

[garinda]

Originally Posted by gynn

The flip answer is something along the lines of "A civilized society must always find funding for artistic expression".

Yes, some of the greatest art ever produced, was created on a commercial basis, in Renaissance Italy.

No crocheted gonks hanging in their market places, funded by the tax payer.

[SamF]

Methinks that this question on a messageboard where the majority of users were brought up in a northern impoverished old mill town is pretty pointless, the answer is a resounding couldn't care less

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by SamF

Methinks that this question on a messageboard where the majority of users were brought up in a northern impoverished old mill town is pretty pointless, the answer is a resounding couldn't care less

Or who gives a flying