FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Art? essential or an indulgence?

Jump to newest
 

By *he tactile technician OP   Man
over a year ago

the good lands, the bad lands, the any where you may want me lands

The topical debate currently. Should the public purse be used to support Art during the austerity programme where spending on many other essential services is being cut? What are your thoughts, would you rather whatever amount of funding that the Arts councils receive and that local authorities spend on supporting art projects is for the immediate future re-directed to help fund the National health service and the cost of social care for example?

As a former chair of a Arts forum that received Arts council funding I have my own opinion; which may surprise you

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire

Essential or indulgence?

Depends who's paying.

Art certainly has the power to enrich society, and our children would have experienced less had places like the National Gallery not been subsidised through public money. But I do think a lot of public-art is over-priced tat.

Makes for good photo ops though

Mr ddc

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The topical debate currently. Should the public purse be used to support Art during the austerity programme where spending on many other essential services is being cut? What are your thoughts, would you rather whatever amount of funding that the Arts councils receive and that local authorities spend on supporting art projects is for the immediate future re-directed to help fund the National health service and the cost of social care for example?

As a former chair of a Arts forum that received Arts council funding I have my own opinion; which may surprise you

"

Art doesn't just provide nice things to look at, it helps people to learn skills that are required for the future. We live in an increasingly visual world where being able to communicate this way is a vital skill for almost everybody - without good examples of art and design, we fall behind in the skills marketplace and will eventually fall behind other countries that do spend that money to educate people. If we fall behind in essential skills we have less to export and thus less money coming in, meaning that we exponentially spiral in our GDP.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *-4pleasureCouple
over a year ago

Belfast


"The topical debate currently. Should the public purse be used to support Art during the austerity programme where spending on many other essential services is being cut? What are your thoughts, would you rather whatever amount of funding that the Arts councils receive and that local authorities spend on supporting art projects is for the immediate future re-directed to help fund the National health service and the cost of social care for example?

As a former chair of a Arts forum that received Arts council funding I have my own opinion; which may surprise you

"

Arts funding invariably goes to the usual suspects and thus the status quo is maintained.

It's an incestuous world where new artists are frozen out whilst established artists ( be that in the medium of music literature or visual) continue to get grants even though they earn a reasonable living through selling their wares.

The waters get muddied in relation to orchestras etc that cannot maintain themselves without public subsidy. In my opinion, these need assistance.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol


"The topical debate currently. Should the public purse be used to support Art during the austerity programme where spending on many other essential services is being cut? What are your thoughts, would you rather whatever amount of funding that the Arts councils receive and that local authorities spend on supporting art projects is for the immediate future re-directed to help fund the National health service and the cost of social care for example?

As a former chair of a Arts forum that received Arts council funding I have my own opinion; which may surprise you

Art doesn't just provide nice things to look at, it helps people to learn skills that are required for the future. We live in an increasingly visual world where being able to communicate this way is a vital skill for almost everybody - without good examples of art and design, we fall behind in the skills marketplace and will eventually fall behind other countries that do spend that money to educate people. If we fall behind in essential skills we have less to export and thus less money coming in, meaning that we exponentially spiral in our GDP."

Great post! Far too considered for Fab though, please delete it. You are making everyone else look bad.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he tactile technician OP   Man
over a year ago

the good lands, the bad lands, the any where you may want me lands

not stop all funding to the arts infinitem, just stop it for the feasible future and wisely spend on essential services.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol

See, that's more like it!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Not sure I agree with funding the arts, seems a waste of funding.

Surely it should be like other areas within society. If it is good it will fund itself, if not then it will wither and die.

Artists surely don't start out in their field thinking they will make loads of money, they just do it for the enjoyment of it.

Can't see why it is a special case and deserves funding.

It's an indulgence then.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 25/02/15 09:05:05]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think cutting all arts funding would be a mistake. It has a role to play in economic development, building more attractive places to live and even in public health. However, the focus could perhaps be redirected somewhat - as was said above, the usual suspects receive the lions share of the funding and there is little room for experimentation or for anything innovative that might produce different results.

The council in Newcastle was heavily criticised by a lot of big names in the arts a couple of years back for putting forward proposals to cut its arts and culture budget by 100%. The likes of Sting and Lee Hall were forecasting Armageddon for the city if its cultural institutions had to close. The council's response was a loans fund where they'd match fund contributions, and other initiatives for people to get more involved themselves if they valued the services and wanted to help keep them going (not just through monetary contributions).

Guess how much Sting and all of those others have contributed? Absolutely nothing.

Art shouldn't just be important when its being provided by someone else. The "top down" model of funding everything from the government doesn't even necessarily work that well. I don't need free entry to galleries, I can afford to pay. Should I be getting that free when actually it doesn't make a difference to my life, while other initiatives working with more deprived groups can no longer get funding?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm a lover of art which makes me biased in this situation.

Art (after we've pleasured ourselves to the afterlife) will remain. It tells a story of humanity from Rembrandt to Dega, Constable and Turner - art is essential to existence of Man. Check the cave paintings - we are still understanding about evolution by looking at the art of our ancestors.

With that said I believe it should be funded. Art gives hope. Hope teaches our kids and their kids that they can be better, that they can create and be recognised got their creativity.

When I have a bad day I come home and paint. I'm currently staring at a 3 ft canvas covered in what looks like black oil paint but it's not. After the rods in your eyes adjust you'll see the actual colours emerge - the magenta, red, blue, grey etc. Art gives hope. That's my opinion anyway. Thanks for lettinge share

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm a lover of art which makes me biased in this situation.

Art (after we've pleasured ourselves to the afterlife) will remain. It tells a story of humanity from Rembrandt to Dega, Constable and Turner - art is essential to existence of Man. Check the cave paintings - we are still understanding about evolution by looking at the art of our ancestors.

With that said I believe it should be funded. Art gives hope. Hope teaches our kids and their kids that they can be better, that they can create and be recognised got their creativity.

When I have a bad day I come home and paint. I'm currently staring at a 3 ft canvas covered in what looks like black oil paint but it's not. After the rods in your eyes adjust you'll see the actual colours emerge - the magenta, red, blue, grey etc. Art gives hope. That's my opinion anyway. Thanks for lettinge share "

It will give hope whether it is funded or not.

The arts will not cease if it is not funded, people will still express themselves, whether they receive remuneration is debatable, but why should that be any different from another endeavour anyone chooses to do.

The arts are an indulgence and as such should be funded by those who can afford to pay individually.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Well it's a kinda loaded question as you could transpose any public funding against nhs spending or social care and it needs an exceptional case to stand up to sacred cows like that. Having said that art isn't just for today or the next year or parliament, rather than spending I consider it an investment, art can't be quantified purely for financial return, a quick saving now costs more in the long run.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

plenty money ploughed into sport why not art

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"plenty money ploughed into sport why not art"

Art enriches our lives and feeds the soul. Sports suck.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"plenty money ploughed into sport why not art"

There is but sport, being active has benefits for both the participant and society as a whole.

Look at the obesity dilemma for example.

I am not saying that art shouldn't be funded at grassroots levels, giving access to equipment, facilities etc. I am just saying to fund art for the enrichment of the artists is an indulgence.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It will give hope whether it is funded or not.

The arts will not cease if it is not funded, people will still express themselves, whether they receive remuneration is debatable, but why should that be any different from another endeavour anyone chooses to do.

The arts are an indulgence and as such should be funded by those who can afford to pay individually."

I see your point but the government still needs to use funding to support the development of it. Art has always been used by nations throughout history to spread their political agendas (see political campaigns)

The only way for all arts - theatre, fine art, dance etc to grow is for funding. That funding needs to come from us / the tax payer. Why? If will benefit is as a whole in the long run and bring us returns from financial to psychological.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"plenty money ploughed into sport why not art

Art enriches our lives and feeds the soul. Sports suck."

yea but this country seems happy ploughing vast amounts of money into sport yet mention art and theres an outcry,,,,why? it pisses me off.

I wish people would remember the arts employ a lot of people in this country and it creates a lot of income

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"plenty money ploughed into sport why not art

Art enriches our lives and feeds the soul. Sports suck.

yea but this country seems happy ploughing vast amounts of money into sport yet mention art and theres an outcry,,,,why? it pisses me off.

I wish people would remember the arts employ a lot of people in this country and it creates a lot of income "

I have to agree on this .... Art employs. I'm a serving soldier (which means I have to be fit to fight so I support sports funding) however I'm also a published erotic writer and abstract expressionist. So my opinions will support and funding of all art. I see it as a necessity to the survival of society.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"plenty money ploughed into sport why not art

There is but sport, being active has benefits for both the participant and society as a whole.

Look at the obesity dilemma for example.

I am not saying that art shouldn't be funded at grassroots levels, giving access to equipment, facilities etc. I am just saying to fund art for the enrichment of the artists is an indulgence."

But it's not just for the artists enrichment, just as the London Olympics were touted as an inspiration to the next generation and it's legacy so too art provide inspiration.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Consider art as sport for the mind and soul.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"plenty money ploughed into sport why not art

Art enriches our lives and feeds the soul. Sports suck.

yea but this country seems happy ploughing vast amounts of money into sport yet mention art and theres an outcry,,,,why? it pisses me off.

I wish people would remember the arts employ a lot of people in this country and it creates a lot of income

I have to agree on this .... Art employs. I'm a serving soldier (which means I have to be fit to fight so I support sports funding) however I'm also a published erotic writer and abstract expressionist. So my opinions will support and funding of all art. I see it as a necessity to the survival of society."

the creative industries are vital to the uk's income,it employs almost 2 million people.

6.2% of the UK’s local income comes from the arts.

an indulgence ,,I don't think so

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"the creative industries are vital to the uk's income,it employs almost 2 million people.

6.2% of the UK’s local income comes from the arts.

an indulgence ,,I don't think so

"

Again I agree.

The Chinese billionaires spending over £150 mil on a Renoir or the Russian oligarchs spending £250 mil on a Rothko are few and very far inbetween. Even Jeff Koons and Tracy Emin and Damien Hirst make money like that as a one off though they are well established. The majority of artist (not just painters) struggle daily and they NEED the support of the council/MPs/Downing Street to survive. Art is an indulgence yes but money will follow art. And that money will make you a return if you support it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"plenty money ploughed into sport why not art

Art enriches our lives and feeds the soul. Sports suck.

yea but this country seems happy ploughing vast amounts of money into sport yet mention art and theres an outcry,,,,why? it pisses me off.

I wish people would remember the arts employ a lot of people in this country and it creates a lot of income "

So if it creates a lot of income why does it need funding?

Cinema is an art form yet in terms of its overall income, receives very little funding, so why should more obscure, less profitable forms of art receive public funding.

it's the same with West End productions, in the main if the cannot support themselves then they die.

It just seems that 'High Art' gets loads of funds, why should opera and ballet and the like receive public funds when the vast majority of the public neither goes or wants to go to see it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Art does not need public funding to survive in any form, fact.

I can recall famous names from the past that have created fantastic art, with absolutely no public funding.... nothing, zilch!!!

The same can be said of sports persons, no funding, amateur status and still world class performers.

The difference is that professional sports pays for itself in the main. I do not disagree that some of the money paid out is absolutely ridiculous and obscene but it funds itself.

Professional arts should do the same.

I agree grass roots should receive public money but not professionals.

It should purely boil down to if you are good enough to earn money and if the market can support it you will be paid, if not either do it for the love of it or give it up.

I love and appreciate art, I just don't agree with funding something that I would not see myself, just like those on here who would disagree with subsidising sports that they would never watch.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *layfull pairingCouple
over a year ago

Bristol

Pure indulgence..... If art were a business it wouldnt survive. Why should the majority pay for something that only a small minority enjoy ? when u see some of the grants awarded to such obscure art groups , be it visual art, dance, music, etc... It does make you think the cash could be better spent on youth or elderly centres/projects

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Consider art as sport for the mind and soul."

Isn't that chess?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Pure indulgence..... If art were a business it wouldnt survive. Why should the majority pay for something that only a small minority enjoy ? when u see some of the grants awarded to such obscure art groups , be it visual art, dance, music, etc... It does make you think the cash could be better spent on youth or elderly centres/projects "

pure waffle,you know nothing.

it does flourish and contributes greatly to the uk income.

Its vital to the uk economy it employs millions.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Pure indulgence..... If art were a business it wouldnt survive. Why should the majority pay for something that only a small minority enjoy ? when u see some of the grants awarded to such obscure art groups , be it visual art, dance, music, etc... It does make you think the cash could be better spent on youth or elderly centres/projects

pure waffle,you know nothing.

it does flourish and contributes greatly to the uk income.

Its vital to the uk economy it employs millions."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Pure indulgence..... If art were a business it wouldnt survive. Why should the majority pay for something that only a small minority enjoy ? when u see some of the grants awarded to such obscure art groups , be it visual art, dance, music, etc... It does make you think the cash could be better spent on youth or elderly centres/projects

pure waffle,you know nothing.

it does flourish and contributes greatly to the uk income.

Its vital to the uk economy it employs millions."

That's great, if it employs millions and is vital to the economy then I am all for it.

It's just those forms of art that wouldn't survive without public funding that I believe is an indulgence.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"plenty money ploughed into sport why not art

Art enriches our lives and feeds the soul. Sports suck.

yea but this country seems happy ploughing vast amounts of money into sport yet mention art and theres an outcry,,,,why? it pisses me off.

I wish people would remember the arts employ a lot of people in this country and it creates a lot of income "

Don't forget...sports are healthy and make a man of you...no I in team blah blah blah! If people want health, go out running, you don't need money for that.

The way were going, we will all be forced to do an hours PE in front of our telescreens in the next few years. Its our responsibility as "Hard working families and taxpayers*(*copyright HM Govt)" to ensure we are all fit to work and not be a burden on our " big" society.

I'm getting my brushes out tonight. I feel a painting coming on. I must buy more black paint.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Pure indulgence..... If art were a business it wouldnt survive. Why should the majority pay for something that only a small minority enjoy ? when u see some of the grants awarded to such obscure art groups , be it visual art, dance, music, etc... It does make you think the cash could be better spent on youth or elderly centres/projects

pure waffle,you know nothing.

it does flourish and contributes greatly to the uk income.

Its vital to the uk economy it employs millions.

That's great, if it employs millions and is vital to the economy then I am all for it.

It's just those forms of art that wouldn't survive without public funding that I believe is an indulgence."

is it although I never had a penny to help me climb the ladder as an artist many artists need this to kick start their career.

if your talking bout buisnesses that would go under without public funding think of farmers

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"plenty money ploughed into sport why not art

Art enriches our lives and feeds the soul. Sports suck.

yea but this country seems happy ploughing vast amounts of money into sport yet mention art and theres an outcry,,,,why? it pisses me off.

I wish people would remember the arts employ a lot of people in this country and it creates a lot of income

Don't forget...sports are healthy and make a man of you...no I in team blah blah blah! If people want health, go out running, you don't need money for that.

The way were going, we will all be forced to do an hours PE in front of our telescreens in the next few years. Its our responsibility as "Hard working families and taxpayers*(*copyright HM Govt)" to ensure we are all fit to work and not be a burden on our " big" society.

I'm getting my brushes out tonight. I feel a painting coming on. I must buy more black paint."

The running comment is a little crass, not everyone can run and may need additional facilities to partake in sport.

Not suggesting funding should be cut at grass roots level for anything, everyone should have an opportunity to express themselves in whatever they choose.

However once public money is involved then it shouldn't fund anything of a professional nature.

If it cannot fund itself then it deserves to wither, whatever it is be it sport, art or full contact knitting.

In regards to the OP original statement, nothing should be cut from essential services before the elimination of public funding for non essential areas of society.

For sports like football, they are lucky to be able to sustain themselves whereas areas of the arts cannot.

Society shouldn't have to worry about obtaining access to basic human rights because there is not enough money in the public purse, yet someone can buy a subsidised ticket to watch an obscure, foreign language opera, that would only appeal to a tiny fraction of our population... that cannot be right!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

stop spending public money on stupid wars.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Pure indulgence..... If art were a business it wouldnt survive. Why should the majority pay for something that only a small minority enjoy ? when u see some of the grants awarded to such obscure art groups , be it visual art, dance, music, etc... It does make you think the cash could be better spent on youth or elderly centres/projects

pure waffle,you know nothing.

it does flourish and contributes greatly to the uk income.

Its vital to the uk economy it employs millions.

That's great, if it employs millions and is vital to the economy then I am all for it.

It's just those forms of art that wouldn't survive without public funding that I believe is an indulgence.

is it although I never had a penny to help me climb the ladder as an artist many artists need this to kick start their career.

if your talking bout buisnesses that would go under without public funding think of farmers"

I don't disagree with you on the farmers issue but cannot comment as I have no knowledge here.

But art does flourish without funds, it is a fact and in that regard is just the same as sport.

So why is it essential to have public funding for someone to pursue a talent. Surely if you are good enough then you can fund yourself, if not do something else or do it purely for the love of it.

It is very emotive but doesn't seem to happen in any other field.

Both art and sport are an indulgence, not just now but anytime. However one difference is that if you watch sport you are choosing to indulge yourself whereas certain forms of art are publically funded and as such are not enjoyed by the vast majority of people who are actually paying for it. It is an indulgence for the few paid for by the many.

(ps please don't think that I am having a go at you, you are a work of art in yourself, love your look and wish I could look as good, V xxx, but Samuel Beckett is still a knob lol x)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"stop spending public money on stupid wars."

Totally agree with that x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"plenty money ploughed into sport why not art

Art enriches our lives and feeds the soul. Sports suck.

yea but this country seems happy ploughing vast amounts of money into sport yet mention art and theres an outcry,,,,why? it pisses me off.

I wish people would remember the arts employ a lot of people in this country and it creates a lot of income

Don't forget...sports are healthy and make a man of you...no I in team blah blah blah! If people want health, go out running, you don't need money for that.

The way were going, we will all be forced to do an hours PE in front of our telescreens in the next few years. Its our responsibility as "Hard working families and taxpayers*(*copyright HM Govt)" to ensure we are all fit to work and not be a burden on our " big" society.

I'm getting my brushes out tonight. I feel a painting coming on. I must buy more black paint.

The running comment is a little crass, not everyone can run and may need additional facilities to partake in sport.

Not suggesting funding should be cut at grass roots level for anything, everyone should have an opportunity to express themselves in whatever they choose.

However once public money is involved then it shouldn't fund anything of a professional nature.

If it cannot fund itself then it deserves to wither, whatever it is be it sport, art or full contact knitting.

In regards to the OP original statement, nothing should be cut from essential services before the elimination of public funding for non essential areas of society.

For sports like football, they are lucky to be able to sustain themselves whereas areas of the arts cannot.

Society shouldn't have to worry about obtaining access to basic human rights because there is not enough money in the public purse, yet someone can buy a subsidised ticket to watch an obscure, foreign language opera, that would only appeal to a tiny fraction of our population... that cannot be right!

"

Full contact knitting? Is that legal now? I thought it was still underground.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"stop spending public money on stupid wars."

Mikki this is a quote I can't agree with you on. The government doesn't spend money on "stupid" wars. They fund our soldiers and even that is debatable.

We as a society only enjoy freedom because our ancestors and present soldiers fought and died for it.

You may not agree on the war itself but it's wrong to say it was "stupid."

Art and war funding are two separate topics.

Now the ppl we war against now would kill us for what we do here on this site as they say it's wrong yet I've seen them rape kids and have sex with dogs with my own eyes.

We enjoy all freedom because years ago ppl died for it. If wars are stupid what does that make us ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"plenty money ploughed into sport why not art

Art enriches our lives and feeds the soul. Sports suck.

yea but this country seems happy ploughing vast amounts of money into sport yet mention art and theres an outcry,,,,why? it pisses me off.

I wish people would remember the arts employ a lot of people in this country and it creates a lot of income

Don't forget...sports are healthy and make a man of you...no I in team blah blah blah! If people want health, go out running, you don't need money for that.

The way were going, we will all be forced to do an hours PE in front of our telescreens in the next few years. Its our responsibility as "Hard working families and taxpayers*(*copyright HM Govt)" to ensure we are all fit to work and not be a burden on our " big" society.

I'm getting my brushes out tonight. I feel a painting coming on. I must buy more black paint.

The running comment is a little crass, not everyone can run and may need additional facilities to partake in sport.

Not suggesting funding should be cut at grass roots level for anything, everyone should have an opportunity to express themselves in whatever they choose.

However once public money is involved then it shouldn't fund anything of a professional nature.

If it cannot fund itself then it deserves to wither, whatever it is be it sport, art or full contact knitting.

In regards to the OP original statement, nothing should be cut from essential services before the elimination of public funding for non essential areas of society.

For sports like football, they are lucky to be able to sustain themselves whereas areas of the arts cannot.

Society shouldn't have to worry about obtaining access to basic human rights because there is not enough money in the public purse, yet someone can buy a subsidised ticket to watch an obscure, foreign language opera, that would only appeal to a tiny fraction of our population... that cannot be right!

Full contact knitting? Is that legal now? I thought it was still underground."

What were you told was the first rule about Full Contact Knitting Club?

Some people.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he tactile technician OP   Man
over a year ago

the good lands, the bad lands, the any where you may want me lands


"stop spending public money on stupid wars."
That has to be a seperete debate; otherwise you'll have contrary arguments from people opposed to the amount of public money being spent on international development and aid etc

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"plenty money ploughed into sport why not art

Art enriches our lives and feeds the soul. Sports suck.

yea but this country seems happy ploughing vast amounts of money into sport yet mention art and theres an outcry,,,,why? it pisses me off.

I wish people would remember the arts employ a lot of people in this country and it creates a lot of income

Don't forget...sports are healthy and make a man of you...no I in team blah blah blah! If people want health, go out running, you don't need money for that.

The way were going, we will all be forced to do an hours PE in front of our telescreens in the next few years. Its our responsibility as "Hard working families and taxpayers*(*copyright HM Govt)" to ensure we are all fit to work and not be a burden on our " big" society.

I'm getting my brushes out tonight. I feel a painting coming on. I must buy more black paint.

The running comment is a little crass, not everyone can run and may need additional facilities to partake in sport.

Not suggesting funding should be cut at grass roots level for anything, everyone should have an opportunity to express themselves in whatever they choose.

However once public money is involved then it shouldn't fund anything of a professional nature.

If it cannot fund itself then it deserves to wither, whatever it is be it sport, art or full contact knitting.

In regards to the OP original statement, nothing should be cut from essential services before the elimination of public funding for non essential areas of society.

For sports like football, they are lucky to be able to sustain themselves whereas areas of the arts cannot.

Society shouldn't have to worry about obtaining access to basic human rights because there is not enough money in the public purse, yet someone can buy a subsidised ticket to watch an obscure, foreign language opera, that would only appeal to a tiny fraction of our population... that cannot be right!

Full contact knitting? Is that legal now? I thought it was still underground.

What were you told was the first rule about Full Contact Knitting Club?

Some people....."

I don't know the rules. I spent my time wearing a balaclava that was do tight I couldn't hear.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"stop spending public money on stupid wars.

Mikki this is a quote I can't agree with you on. The government doesn't spend money on "stupid" wars. They fund our soldiers and even that is debatable.

We as a society only enjoy freedom because our ancestors and present soldiers fought and died for it.

You may not agree on the war itself but it's wrong to say it was "stupid."

Art and war funding are two separate topics.

Now the ppl we war against now would kill us for what we do here on this site as they say it's wrong yet I've seen them rape kids and have sex with dogs with my own eyes.

We enjoy all freedom because years ago ppl died for it. If wars are stupid what does that make us ?"

War historically has nothing to do with the protection of people, it was one person raising an army to gain more influence, power and money from someone else.

History is written by the victor so one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

They conflict in the middle east today is not a new phenomenon. The muslims are quoting atrocities that date back to the crusaders.

The crusades themselves were fought for individual glory not for the protection of the people back home. Indeed the main reason most went was to do with a papal declaration absolving them of all their sins.

So maybe if the crusaders thought for themselves and didn't believe in this papal order then today's conflict may not have happened.

Think war can be stupid sometimes, and before you think I am having a go at the military I have several family members in the infantry, including my brother. Not suggesting they are stupid but agree that war itself at times can be stupid.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes Nortyair war is a business and is profitable however to say it's atupid IMO is still wrong. WW2 was to protect. No matter how it started the outcome was the protection of ppl. Current war - same thing. War yes is a business but it also protects countries. I'm not attacking you just sharing my _iew point as you have.

We are on a site which promotes sex, pleasure , multiple partners etc. The current "enemy" would certainly burn each of us and behead us for it. So war protects us. It's protecting us as we debate here.

Peace (as the old usa president stated) is won by him who carries the bigger weapon.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ere-for-my-convenienceWoman
over a year ago

West Midlands

It is a very fine line isn't it.

Art is all around us most is free to _iew. Being a socialist then I suppose I agree that the money could be spent on something more important

Ultimately the cash must come from somewhere or these items are never purchased

I do agree that for example a piece of sculpture in an NHS foyer is a waste of public health resources

But then having been a long stay patient I had found it aided my long term recovery and inspired me to make a career change

So maybe public money shouldn't be used and these items have more corporate finance and sponsorship.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Yes Nortyair war is a business and is profitable however to say it's atupid IMO is still wrong. WW2 was to protect. No matter how it started the outcome was the protection of ppl. Current war - same thing. War yes is a business but it also protects countries. I'm not attacking you just sharing my _iew point as you have.

We are on a site which promotes sex, pleasure , multiple partners etc. The current "enemy" would certainly burn each of us and behead us for it. So war protects us. It's protecting us as we debate here.

Peace (as the old usa president stated) is won by him who carries the bigger weapon. "

I never said all war I said some can be stupid.

I am going to ask you a question?

What would you do if your mate's wife, not even your mate just some bloke you knew, ran off with another man, would you go after that man for the other bloke and threaten him? Maybe even rough the guy up a little, give him a little slap?

What about using a weapon on him, would you stab him for the bloke, shoot him?

So what would you do?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple
over a year ago

near cardiff


"plenty money ploughed into sport why not art"

Yes yes yes!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It is a very fine line isn't it.

Art is all around us most is free to _iew. Being a socialist then I suppose I agree that the money could be spent on something more important

Ultimately the cash must come from somewhere or these items are never purchased

I do agree that for example a piece of sculpture in an NHS foyer is a waste of public health resources

But then having been a long stay patient I had found it aided my long term recovery and inspired me to make a career change

So maybe public money shouldn't be used and these items have more corporate finance and sponsorship.

"

Exactly x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Great post! Far too considered for Fab though, please delete it. You are making everyone else look bad."

Can't help it. I'm an art history student.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Not sure I agree with funding the arts, seems a waste of funding.

Surely it should be like other areas within society. If it is good it will fund itself, if not then it will wither and die.

Artists surely don't start out in their field thinking they will make loads of money, they just do it for the enjoyment of it.

"

1. The V&A was one of the first publicly funded museums in Britain. It was started in order to improve our design capability so that we could compete on a global stage and improve our GDP. It worked. We, for a long time, were one of the more productive and effective industrial nations with arguably the best commercial design capability.

2. Lets also stop funding sports too. And business, they get lots of grants. Stop funding farmers. Small business tax relief should go too. And universities. Because, as you say, if they are good enough then they will survive. Who needs help?

3. Artists sure do start out in their filed thinking they'd like to make a living from something they love. I did, and I'm a photographer and a writer. I see it as no different to my father who wanted to be an environmental health inspector from the age of ten. Or my friend who wanted to be a doctor as a child. All these things are done because they're subjects that someone enjoys.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I never said all war I said some can be stupid.

I am going to ask you a question?

What would you do if your mate's wife, not even your mate just some bloke you knew, ran off with another man, would you go after that man for the other bloke and threaten him? Maybe even rough the guy up a little, give him a little slap?

What about using a weapon on him, would you stab him for the bloke, shoot him?

So what would you do?

"

The analogy doesn't quite compare. The woman is free to choose who she sleeps with or loves.

If you're comparing this woman to a country then it's different. I'm sure you have kids or nieces etc... Would you let you kid be raped for fun? I've seen that over there,

Would you let your 5 year old son be buggered and recorded on DVDs to sell? I've seen that over there.

How about your pet dog ? Yes I've seen that as well. Excuse when asked why? They said it's hard to have a girlfriend so it's easier to take a dog/child.

Yes war may be profitable and a business but yes it also protects those who are weak

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple
over a year ago

near cardiff


"It is a very fine line isn't it.

Art is all around us most is free to _iew. Being a socialist then I suppose I agree that the money could be spent on something more important

Ultimately the cash must come from somewhere or these items are never purchased

I do agree that for example a piece of sculpture in an NHS foyer is a waste of public health resources

But then having been a long stay patient I had found it aided my long term recovery and inspired me to make a career change

So maybe public money shouldn't be used and these items have more corporate finance and sponsorship.

"

This touched a nerve, been spending some time visiting relatives in hospital and the artwork in the hospital was an incredibly welcome distraction in one of the most miserable places you can spend time in the UK. So art isn't an exclusive of modern galleries and has a serious contribution to our mental health and wellbeing. It isn't all about monetary wealth either. People underestimate the vastness of what art is and what it contributes to the everyday.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You make great points.

However the OP asked whether in these times is public funding art an indulgence.

It has to be. Unlike some of the things in point 2, public funding of art does not necessarily create employment opportunities which the funding of small businesses does.

Sport I agree should not receive any public funding at a professional level but universities are there to provided the next generation with the ability to develop knowledge which may, not always, be essential, or at least useful to our society.

So sticking to the original post, the public funding of art is indeed an indulgence.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It is a very fine line isn't it.

Art is all around us most is free to _iew. Being a socialist then I suppose I agree that the money could be spent on something more important

Ultimately the cash must come from somewhere or these items are never purchased

I do agree that for example a piece of sculpture in an NHS foyer is a waste of public health resources

But then having been a long stay patient I had found it aided my long term recovery and inspired me to make a career change

So maybe public money shouldn't be used and these items have more corporate finance and sponsorship.

This touched a nerve, been spending some time visiting relatives in hospital and the artwork in the hospital was an incredibly welcome distraction in one of the most miserable places you can spend time in the UK. So art isn't an exclusive of modern galleries and has a serious contribution to our mental health and wellbeing. It isn't all about monetary wealth either. People underestimate the vastness of what art is and what it contributes to the everyday."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I never said all war I said some can be stupid.

I am going to ask you a question?

What would you do if your mate's wife, not even your mate just some bloke you knew, ran off with another man, would you go after that man for the other bloke and threaten him? Maybe even rough the guy up a little, give him a little slap?

What about using a weapon on him, would you stab him for the bloke, shoot him?

So what would you do?

The analogy doesn't quite compare. The woman is free to choose who she sleeps with or loves.

If you're comparing this woman to a country then it's different. I'm sure you have kids or nieces etc... Would you let you kid be raped for fun? I've seen that over there,

Would you let your 5 year old son be buggered and recorded on DVDs to sell? I've seen that over there.

How about your pet dog ? Yes I've seen that as well. Excuse when asked why? They said it's hard to have a girlfriend so it's easier to take a dog/child.

Yes war may be profitable and a business but yes it also protects those who are weak "

I am not asking you to compare this analogy. I am not saying that this is a woman or child.

I am just asking you to answer this very specific scenario, what would you do in this exact situation?

A mate's wife runs off with another bloke, no hint of rape or coercion, she wanted to go, so what would you do about it?

Would you give your mate a shoulder to cry on, would you track her down and slag her off or would you track him down and bet the shit out of him or would you kill him?

So just based on this specific question, what would you do?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

HOLD ON,,,,,,,,,,,I feel a wiggle coming on,,,,,,,,,,

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Art is essential...it is part of the Country's culture. It helps so many people in so many different ways.

From just putting a smile on your face to saving lives...and prolonging lives.

Do not think for a moment that the funding has not already been cut.

Leave our Arts alone George Osborne...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

WIGGLE,WIGGLE

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I never said all war I said some can be stupid.

I am going to ask you a question?

What would you do if your mate's wife, not even your mate just some bloke you knew, ran off with another man, would you go after that man for the other bloke and threaten him? Maybe even rough the guy up a little, give him a little slap?

What about using a weapon on him, would you stab him for the bloke, shoot him?

So what would you do?

The analogy doesn't quite compare. The woman is free to choose who she sleeps with or loves.

If you're comparing this woman to a country then it's different. I'm sure you have kids or nieces etc... Would you let you kid be raped for fun? I've seen that over there,

Would you let your 5 year old son be buggered and recorded on DVDs to sell? I've seen that over there.

How about your pet dog ? Yes I've seen that as well. Excuse when asked why? They said it's hard to have a girlfriend so it's easier to take a dog/child.

Yes war may be profitable and a business but yes it also protects those who are weak

I am not asking you to compare this analogy. I am not saying that this is a woman or child.

I am just asking you to answer this very specific scenario, what would you do in this exact situation?

A mate's wife runs off with another bloke, no hint of rape or coercion, she wanted to go, so what would you do about it?

Would you give your mate a shoulder to cry on, would you track her down and slag her off or would you track him down and bet the shit out of him or would you kill him?

So just based on this specific question, what would you do?"

I already answered ... I'd do nothing. If she was happy to go then so be it. I personally don't get jealous or attached so I wouldn't be bothered if she went. It's her choice when all is said and done and good or bad she'll live with the consequences.

I know what you're hinting at so will wait on your reply

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Art is essential...it is part of the Country's culture. It helps so many people in so many different ways.

From just putting a smile on your face to saving lives...and prolonging lives.

Do not think for a moment that the funding has not already been cut.

Leave our Arts alone George Osborne... "

ART may be essential just not the public funding of it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ere-for-my-convenienceWoman
over a year ago

West Midlands


"It is a very fine line isn't it.

Art is all around us most is free to _iew. Being a socialist then I suppose I agree that the money could be spent on something more important

Ultimately the cash must come from somewhere or these items are never purchased

I do agree that for example a piece of sculpture in an NHS foyer is a waste of public health resources

But then having been a long stay patient I had found it aided my long term recovery and inspired me to make a career change

So maybe public money shouldn't be used and these items have more corporate finance and sponsorship.

This touched a nerve, been spending some time visiting relatives in hospital and the artwork in the hospital was an incredibly welcome distraction in one of the most miserable places you can spend time in the UK. So art isn't an exclusive of modern galleries and has a serious contribution to our mental health and wellbeing. It isn't all about monetary wealth either. People underestimate the vastness of what art is and what it contributes to the everyday."

You're absolutely right

Art isn't just for galleries or the super rich and their vast private collections

Art helped my healing process and others also And it does help to distract anxious family and friends during difficult times

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I never said all war I said some can be stupid.

I am going to ask you a question?

What would you do if your mate's wife, not even your mate just some bloke you knew, ran off with another man, would you go after that man for the other bloke and threaten him? Maybe even rough the guy up a little, give him a little slap?

What about using a weapon on him, would you stab him for the bloke, shoot him?

So what would you do?

The analogy doesn't quite compare. The woman is free to choose who she sleeps with or loves.

If you're comparing this woman to a country then it's different. I'm sure you have kids or nieces etc... Would you let you kid be raped for fun? I've seen that over there,

Would you let your 5 year old son be buggered and recorded on DVDs to sell? I've seen that over there.

How about your pet dog ? Yes I've seen that as well. Excuse when asked why? They said it's hard to have a girlfriend so it's easier to take a dog/child.

Yes war may be profitable and a business but yes it also protects those who are weak

I am not asking you to compare this analogy. I am not saying that this is a woman or child.

I am just asking you to answer this very specific scenario, what would you do in this exact situation?

A mate's wife runs off with another bloke, no hint of rape or coercion, she wanted to go, so what would you do about it?

Would you give your mate a shoulder to cry on, would you track her down and slag her off or would you track him down and bet the shit out of him or would you kill him?

So just based on this specific question, what would you do?

I already answered ... I'd do nothing. If she was happy to go then so be it. I personally don't get jealous or attached so I wouldn't be bothered if she went. It's her choice when all is said and done and good or bad she'll live with the consequences.

I know what you're hinting at so will wait on your reply "

Good, thank you for that.

So you think it would be stupid to do otherwise. Well then you agree that the most famous war in history is stupid then.

A ten year conflict between two great states over some dudes wife who ran away to be with another.

The whole premise of the Trojan War and you agreed with me that it was stupid.

The greatest warrior the world has ever seen, Achilles, fought and died in a stupid war.

Thanks for agreeing with me that war can at times be stupid xxx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

ART may be essential just not the public funding of it "

thankfully no one in power will listen to you,btw millions support the public funding of the arts

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

ART may be essential just not the public funding of it

thankfully no one in power will listen to you,btw millions support the public funding of the arts

"

I know they do, but you must admit that millions more don't.

I am not an art hater, I love it but the argument that it needs public funding is not something I believe.

You only need to look at classical art and it's beauty to know this.

If an artist wants paying for their work then they should find a client or patron and be subject to market forces just the same as anyone xxx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

ART may be essential just not the public funding of it

thankfully no one in power will listen to you,btw millions support the public funding of the arts

I know they do, but you must admit that millions more don't.

"

no,,i don't

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

ART may be essential just not the public funding of it

thankfully no one in power will listen to you,btw millions support the public funding of the arts

I know they do, but you must admit that millions more don't.

no,,i don't"

Ok... don't know what to say now.

Oh yes... your sailor pic is wonderful xxx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Good, thank you for that.

So you think it would be stupid to do otherwise. Well then you agree that the most famous war in history is stupid then.

A ten year conflict between two great states over some dudes wife who ran away to be with another.

The whole premise of the Trojan War and you agreed with me that it was stupid.

The greatest warrior the world has ever seen, Achilles, fought and died in a stupid war.

Thanks for agreeing with me that war can at times be stupid xxx"

Ah yes the Trojan war with Helen of Troy....

The war wasn't stupid.. We all know that vagina and the promise of it makes men stupid.... Very stupid in fact. The war was a consequence of the unfaithfulness of a woman's love lol lol so blame the woman in this instance.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i love art and sometimes art is a way of expressing themselves and its been proven with people suffering from trauma this can help them talk about it and start to rebuild them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Good, thank you for that.

So you think it would be stupid to do otherwise. Well then you agree that the most famous war in history is stupid then.

A ten year conflict between two great states over some dudes wife who ran away to be with another.

The whole premise of the Trojan War and you agreed with me that it was stupid.

The greatest warrior the world has ever seen, Achilles, fought and died in a stupid war.

Thanks for agreeing with me that war can at times be stupid xxx

Ah yes the Trojan war with Helen of Troy....

The war wasn't stupid.. We all know that vagina and the promise of it makes men stupid.... Very stupid in fact. The war was a consequence of the unfaithfulness of a woman's love lol lol so blame the woman in this instance. "

But you just said you wouldn't do anything to the bloke your mate's wife ran off with.

Now you are saying that it's all her fault and that the war is not stupid.

Bloody hell make your mind up, the one inside your big head and not the one from the little head x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

ART may be essential just not the public funding of it

thankfully no one in power will listen to you,btw millions support the public funding of the arts

I know they do, but you must admit that millions more don't.

no,,i don't

Ok... don't know what to say now.

Oh yes... your sailor pic is wonderful xxx"

lol,,oh shucks ty,x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"You make great points.

However the OP asked whether in these times is public funding art an indulgence.

It has to be. Unlike some of the things in point 2, public funding of art does not necessarily create employment opportunities which the funding of small businesses does.

Sport I agree should not receive any public funding at a professional level but universities are there to provided the next generation with the ability to develop knowledge which may, not always, be essential, or at least useful to our society.

So sticking to the original post, the public funding of art is indeed an indulgence. "

But funding art helps to develop other areas of business. For example, I am studying videogames as part of my arts degree, and looking at other peoples art is essential to understanding what I do. I go to conferences which are partially state funding and the state pays for my education and funds my university. If I didn't have access to examples of art in the Tate, the NPG, the V&A, the IWM, etc, I would not be as good as I am now.

I will likely use this knowledge - gained primarily from public funding of art institutions - to go into a British design house and help them to produce better games. Videogames and other tech are a large export for our country, I will possibly use my knowledge to make quite a bit of money in that sector for the country. None of this would happen if I didn't have the arts sponsored grounding that I have now. That money that I will make for business will go back into our economy and help to pay for essential public services - and of course the arts.

There are seventy of us on my course, at just one university in just one year. We all use publicly funded arts institutions to learn and study. Without that money, we wouldn't be able to study our course. And without our course, you wouldn't have us going into industry at a time of great change, when we need more visual communicators and interpretors than ever. The world is built on visual communications. To remove funding from the places that visual communicators learn would be economic suicide.

Not to mention that if we stop funding then we would have to sell everything off - and we would never be able to rebuy the pieces that we sell, meaning that we could never again have that knowledge within our country.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol


"

ART may be essential just not the public funding of it

thankfully no one in power will listen to you,btw millions support the public funding of the arts

I know they do, but you must admit that millions more don't.

I am not an art hater, I love it but the argument that it needs public funding is not something I believe.

You only need to look at classical art and it's beauty to know this.

If an artist wants paying for their work then they should find a client or patron and be subject to market forces just the same as anyone xxx"

So only the rich should have access to art, or influence its creation.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Lol lol lol I wouldn't have done anything but she is still to blame. Her unfaithfulness made a man send good young men to die. Blame her!!

Napoleon and Josephine - it's always a woman to blame

Monica and Bill Clinton ...

Sex and war starts and ends with women!you know I'm right

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Sex and war starts and ends with women!you know I'm right "

Shut the fuck up. You're a complete ignoramus.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ere-for-my-convenienceWoman
over a year ago

West Midlands


"Lol lol lol I wouldn't have done anything but she is still to blame. Her unfaithfulness made a man send good young men to die. Blame her!!

Napoleon and Josephine - it's always a woman to blame

Monica and Bill Clinton ...

Sex and war starts and ends with women!you know I'm right "

Um they were being unfaithful with men

Doh

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eliciouslyNastyMan
over a year ago

London

Hmmmmmm I'm not so sure on the whole war being stupid sub thread....

Without choosing to wage war, you determine to just roll over and die.

People like Achilles actively sought out wars to fight and die in, it was a right of passage. Even Winstone Churchill wrote in one of his diaries, he went to fight in cube expecting to die there.

It's all well and good to sit in front of your nice comfy TV saying war is bad.

And in the mean time let courageous souls plunge their hands into the filth and do your dirty work for you.

You will probably never know the terrible things done in your name, so you can live.

Wars not stupid, it's just another tool in our arsenal, it just has to be used wisely.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eliciouslyNastyMan
over a year ago

London

Helens unfaithfulness was just an excuse for a power grab.

No one in history went to war over sex, love or a woman.

Power is what human beings want most.

Power is what we lust for.

Power is the most intoxicating and ultimate aphrodisiac.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"You make great points.

However the OP asked whether in these times is public funding art an indulgence.

It has to be. Unlike some of the things in point 2, public funding of art does not necessarily create employment opportunities which the funding of small businesses does.

Sport I agree should not receive any public funding at a professional level but universities are there to provided the next generation with the ability to develop knowledge which may, not always, be essential, or at least useful to our society.

So sticking to the original post, the public funding of art is indeed an indulgence.

But funding art helps to develop other areas of business. For example, I am studying videogames as part of my arts degree, and looking at other peoples art is essential to understanding what I do. I go to conferences which are partially state funding and the state pays for my education and funds my university. If I didn't have access to examples of art in the Tate, the NPG, the V&A, the IWM, etc, I would not be as good as I am now.

I will likely use this knowledge - gained primarily from public funding of art institutions - to go into a British design house and help them to produce better games. Videogames and other tech are a large export for our country, I will possibly use my knowledge to make quite a bit of money in that sector for the country. None of this would happen if I didn't have the arts sponsored grounding that I have now. That money that I will make for business will go back into our economy and help to pay for essential public services - and of course the arts.

There are seventy of us on my course, at just one university in just one year. We all use publicly funded arts institutions to learn and study. Without that money, we wouldn't be able to study our course. And without our course, you wouldn't have us going into industry at a time of great change, when we need more visual communicators and interpretors than ever. The world is built on visual communications. To remove funding from the places that visual communicators learn would be economic suicide.

Not to mention that if we stop funding then we would have to sell everything off - and we would never be able to rebuy the pieces that we sell, meaning that we could never again have that knowledge within our country."

These institutions could charge for entrance and pay for themselves. Also all these establishments are only available to those who live near or could travel to them and that is not everyone.

I can understand how access to great art can indeed help you with your studies and career but surely such access can be gained via the internet and not from standing six feet away from an exhibit.

I am chuffed that you are studying videogames and their history. My hubby made games in the eighties and was quite successful at it. However to suggest that games companies today will benefit society from their products is a little bit of a stretch of the imagination and will not benefit it anymore than any other industry and only then through taxation.

So what period of videogame history are you studying? xxx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think part of this question stems from the issue that we have in this modern world that everything has to have a quantifiable value. If you do a job it has to have a reason, if you make something it has a value. You can't put a value on an emotion, how a piece of theatre makes you feel, how a piece of art inspired you.

On my old university library wall there was a quote

"If thou of earthly wares are bereft

And if your stores have left

Two loaves

Sell one and with the dole

Buy hyacinths to feed the soul.

That's how I've always seen the arts, they're essential nourishment for that part of us that cant live off just food and water

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Sex and war starts and ends with women!you know I'm right

Shut the fuck up. You're a complete ignoramus."

you tell em

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Sex and war starts and ends with women!you know I'm right

Shut the fuck up. You're a complete ignoramus."

Let me inject - I was having or attempting to have a bit of light hearted banter with Nortyair as I knew what she was asking by the question.

I am In no way ignorant or juvenile in my thinking.

Even in debates like this you need a bit of innocent humour. It's part of the debating process

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think part of this question stems from the issue that we have in this modern world that everything has to have a quantifiable value. If you do a job it has to have a reason, if you make something it has a value. You can't put a value on an emotion, how a piece of theatre makes you feel, how a piece of art inspired you.

On my old university library wall there was a quote

"If thou of earthly wares are bereft

And if your stores have left

Two loaves

Sell one and with the dole

Buy hyacinths to feed the soul.

That's how I've always seen the arts, they're essential nourishment for that part of us that cant live off just food and water"

Love that. Life would be very dull indeed without art (and the arts). Art is everywhere, from the billboard posters we see, to album covers, to Tracy Emin's untidy bed. You might not like all of it, but it certainly helps broaden the mind and provide a bit of light relief from the hum drum of life. I actually bought a piece of art yesterday as a Christening present, and had a great time looking at loads of things and choosing something nice.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Sex and war starts and ends with women!you know I'm right

Shut the fuck up. You're a complete ignoramus.

Let me inject - I was having or attempting to have a bit of light hearted banter with Nortyair as I knew what she was asking by the question.

I am In no way ignorant or juvenile in my thinking.

Even in debates like this you need a bit of innocent humour. It's part of the debating process"

That's why I WIGGLED earlier

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think part of this question stems from the issue that we have in this modern world that everything has to have a quantifiable value. If you do a job it has to have a reason, if you make something it has a value. You can't put a value on an emotion, how a piece of theatre makes you feel, how a piece of art inspired you.

On my old university library wall there was a quote

"If thou of earthly wares are bereft

And if your stores have left

Two loaves

Sell one and with the dole

Buy hyacinths to feed the soul.

That's how I've always seen the arts, they're essential nourishment for that part of us that cant live off just food and water

Love that. Life would be very dull indeed without art (and the arts). Art is everywhere, from the billboard posters we see, to album covers, to Tracy Emin's untidy bed. You might not like all of it, but it certainly helps broaden the mind and provide a bit of light relief from the hum drum of life. I actually bought a piece of art yesterday as a Christening present, and had a great time looking at loads of things and choosing something nice. "

You are right but why should it receive public funding?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Every one has _iews and being called an ignoramus and to STFU is frankly downright rude. As a man I would be heavily ridiculed if I said that to her on the streets...

But as I said it was banter with rules directed at NortyAir based on her analogy. I'm a history major so I know about the Trojan War etc. And NortyAir knows about the war(s) as well.

Anyhow no love lost or gained so back to the debate at hand -Art funding...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think part of this question stems from the issue that we have in this modern world that everything has to have a quantifiable value. If you do a job it has to have a reason, if you make something it has a value. You can't put a value on an emotion, how a piece of theatre makes you feel, how a piece of art inspired you.

On my old university library wall there was a quote

"If thou of earthly wares are bereft

And if your stores have left

Two loaves

Sell one and with the dole

Buy hyacinths to feed the soul.

That's how I've always seen the arts, they're essential nourishment for that part of us that cant live off just food and water

Love that. Life would be very dull indeed without art (and the arts). Art is everywhere, from the billboard posters we see, to album covers, to Tracy Emin's untidy bed. You might not like all of it, but it certainly helps broaden the mind and provide a bit of light relief from the hum drum of life. I actually bought a piece of art yesterday as a Christening present, and had a great time looking at loads of things and choosing something nice. "

That's great, and a nice approach to a christening present too.

Art is there to stir the soul and elicit reaction whether it be good or bad, Tracy Emins bed is a very good example of that. A strong negative reaction is just as valid.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I listened to her explanation of this and Tracy suffered abuse as a child and neglect. Her bed was her soul cleansing so to speak. It was her regaining something which was taken from her. It was moving to listen too and empowering as well

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think part of this question stems from the issue that we have in this modern world that everything has to have a quantifiable value. If you do a job it has to have a reason, if you make something it has a value. You can't put a value on an emotion, how a piece of theatre makes you feel, how a piece of art inspired you.

On my old university library wall there was a quote

"If thou of earthly wares are bereft

And if your stores have left

Two loaves

Sell one and with the dole

Buy hyacinths to feed the soul.

That's how I've always seen the arts, they're essential nourishment for that part of us that cant live off just food and water

Love that. Life would be very dull indeed without art (and the arts). Art is everywhere, from the billboard posters we see, to album covers, to Tracy Emin's untidy bed. You might not like all of it, but it certainly helps broaden the mind and provide a bit of light relief from the hum drum of life. I actually bought a piece of art yesterday as a Christening present, and had a great time looking at loads of things and choosing something nice.

You are right but why should it receive public funding?"

I kind of answered that, the public funds essential services that go towards our basic quality of life; sanitation, roads, infrastructure, etc. Isn't that part of ourselves that yearns for something more worth the pence that comes from our tax pounds? Aren't the arts an essential part of our quality of life?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple
over a year ago

near cardiff


"

Sex and war starts and ends with women!you know I'm right

Shut the fuck up. You're a complete ignoramus.

Let me inject - I was having or attempting to have a bit of light hearted banter with Nortyair as I knew what she was asking by the question.

I am In no way ignorant or juvenile in my thinking.

Even in debates like this you need a bit of innocent humour. It's part of the debating process"

This I like

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

These institutions could charge for entrance and pay for themselves. Also all these establishments are only available to those who live near or could travel to them and that is not everyone.

I can understand how access to great art can indeed help you with your studies and career but surely such access can be gained via the internet and not from standing six feet away from an exhibit.

I am chuffed that you are studying videogames and their history. My hubby made games in the eighties and was quite successful at it. However to suggest that games companies today will benefit society from their products is a little bit of a stretch of the imagination and will not benefit it anymore than any other industry and only then through taxation.

So what period of videogame history are you studying? xxx"

Studying art on a screen or in a book is absolutely nothing like studying it in person. It's simply not comparable in any way, shape or form. When something is on a computer screen how can you experience it's textural qualities? How can you experience how it makes you feel when you're alone in a room with it? How can you experience the size of it - big or small? How can you feel what the artist was trying to say? How can you see how it interacts in a gallery with other works that compare and contrast it?

Charging more is not the answer. I recently went to New York and went to all of the major art galleries. I had to pay around £20 entry for each one, even as a student. That makes it the preserve of the rich. It stops people having access to the works who could really benefit from spending time with them. It would stop all but the richest students studying art. Certainly I wouldn't be able to afford to study art if I had to pay £20 or so to see a work. Galleries in the UK also allow you to call works up from the collection into study rooms so that you can examine them first hand. I recently went to a study room to _iew a set of Leonardo and Raphael sketches as part of my work - privately funded galleries don't generally do that kind of thing so readily.

I'm not saying that companies will benefit society because of their games, I'm saying that their taxes will benefit the country. Last year Rockstar Games - based in the UK - shipped Grand Theft Auto in Feb. GTA made sales of almost 160 million. That's a lot of tax potentially. If we didn't have a history and culture of government supported design in this country I doubt that they would be based here. They'd have developed as a company elsewhere.

My dissertation is on the critical reception and analysis of videogames and the reaction by industry and consumers.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Every one has _iews and being called an ignoramus and to STFU is frankly downright rude. As a man I would be heavily ridiculed if I said that to her on the streets...

But as I said it was banter with rules directed at NortyAir based on her analogy. I'm a history major so I know about the Trojan War etc. And NortyAir knows about the war(s) as well.

Anyhow no love lost or gained so back to the debate at hand -Art funding..."

Yeah sorry. It was just a joke. Hahahaha. Sexist jokes. Great. Funny. I get it now. Hilarious to make sexist jokes.

Why would you be ridiculed for telling me to shut the fuck up because you have a penis? If I was saying something sexist (even if it's just a joke) I'd expect people to say it to me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Every one has _iews and being called an ignoramus and to STFU is frankly downright rude. As a man I would be heavily ridiculed if I said that to her on the streets...

But as I said it was banter with rules directed at NortyAir based on her analogy. I'm a history major so I know about the Trojan War etc. And NortyAir knows about the war(s) as well.

Anyhow no love lost or gained so back to the debate at hand -Art funding...

Yeah sorry. It was just a joke. Hahahaha. Sexist jokes. Great. Funny. I get it now. Hilarious to make sexist jokes.

Why would you be ridiculed for telling me to shut the fuck up because you have a penis? If I was saying something sexist (even if it's just a joke) I'd expect people to say it to me."

"Chill out liv its just a joke!" Its like 1970 in here

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think part of this question stems from the issue that we have in this modern world that everything has to have a quantifiable value. If you do a job it has to have a reason, if you make something it has a value. You can't put a value on an emotion, how a piece of theatre makes you feel, how a piece of art inspired you.

On my old university library wall there was a quote

"If thou of earthly wares are bereft

And if your stores have left

Two loaves

Sell one and with the dole

Buy hyacinths to feed the soul.

That's how I've always seen the arts, they're essential nourishment for that part of us that cant live off just food and water

Love that. Life would be very dull indeed without art (and the arts). Art is everywhere, from the billboard posters we see, to album covers, to Tracy Emin's untidy bed. You might not like all of it, but it certainly helps broaden the mind and provide a bit of light relief from the hum drum of life. I actually bought a piece of art yesterday as a Christening present, and had a great time looking at loads of things and choosing something nice.

You are right but why should it receive public funding?

I kind of answered that, the public funds essential services that go towards our basic quality of life; sanitation, roads, infrastructure, etc. Isn't that part of ourselves that yearns for something more worth the pence that comes from our tax pounds? Aren't the arts an essential part of our quality of life?"

You could argue that loads of things should not be paid for publicly, like cutting grass in parks, or doing the Lord Mayors show in London, or the Royal family, but life is a bit richer for all of these things.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We shouldnt fund the Royals, omg my head is going to explode

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"We shouldnt fund the Royals, omg my head is going to explode "

Thought that might get a response!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he tactile technician OP   Man
over a year ago

the good lands, the bad lands, the any where you may want me lands


"We shouldnt fund the Royals, omg my head is going to explode "
quantifiable values? and a reason for doing the job? I'm many will disagree, but statistics will no doubt be able to evidence the millions and millions of revenue brought into the country each year by tourism created by having a monarchy. I also suspect that the job that the queen does safeguards us from many many republican and federalism evils

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

In times of austerity, art in its many forms provides relief from everyday life...essential

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iewMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Angus & Findhorn

Essential...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *igeiaWoman
over a year ago

Bristol

When you break down all of the government funding from the last decade at local and national levels, music (the area of the arts I know most about) gets roughly 9% of the budget and that tends to go to opera and the more 'highbrow' end of the spectrum. In terms of economic output, homegrown music and musicians is right up there in the top five of growing industries but may not be in ten years time when the recent cuts to funding start applying to the next generation of musicians and singers. It's short-sighted and will only save money in the short term.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he tactile technician OP   Man
over a year ago

the good lands, the bad lands, the any where you may want me lands


"When you break down all of the government funding from the last decade at local and national levels, music (the area of the arts I know most about) gets roughly 9% of the budget and that tends to go to opera and the more 'highbrow' end of the spectrum. In terms of economic output, homegrown music and musicians is right up there in the top five of growing industries but may not be in ten years time when the recent cuts to funding start applying to the next generation of musicians and singers. It's short-sighted and will only save money in the short term."

but isn't that what we have to do? we have to save money and reduce the deficit today...we can reinstate spending at a latter date when we no longer have a deficit and are once again a nation with a surplus. Then we can loosen our trouser belts and start taking foreign holidays again!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

OP, I am not sure if art is necessary or not. But I do know that the oldest cave painting found so far are some 40,000 years old and this shows that the urge to leave a mark to show we exist is very deeply ingrained in our phyche, and with all things that important to us the best art will be valuable.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he tactile technician OP   Man
over a year ago

the good lands, the bad lands, the any where you may want me lands


"OP, I am not sure if art is necessary or not. But I do know that the oldest cave painting found so far are some 40,000 years old and this shows that the urge to leave a mark to show we exist is very deeply ingrained in our phyche, and with all things that important to us the best art will be valuable."
but won't an urge be strong no matter, and even with a temporary withdrawl of funding artists no matter their art will find a way to express themselves

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *igeiaWoman
over a year ago

Bristol


"

When you break down all of the government funding from the last decade at local and national levels, music (the area of the arts I know most about) gets roughly 9% of the budget and that tends to go to opera and the more 'highbrow' end of the spectrum. In terms of economic output, homegrown music and musicians is right up there in the top five of growing industries but may not be in ten years time when the recent cuts to funding start applying to the next generation of musicians and singers. It's short-sighted and will only save money in the short term.

but isn't that what we have to do? we have to save money and reduce the deficit today...we can reinstate spending at a latter date when we no longer have a deficit and are once again a nation with a surplus. Then we can loosen our trouser belts and start taking foreign holidays again!"

The issue is that you'll have a while generation of kids who missed out on music lessons other than once a week in a crowded class unless they have parents rich enough to fund instrument lessons so the economy will lose more in future years as a result than it's saving now - and create an even bigger gulf between those who have money and therefore opportunities and those who don't.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

but isn't that what we have to do? we have to save money and reduce the deficit today...we can reinstate spending at a latter date when we no longer have a deficit and are once again a nation with a surplus. Then we can loosen our trouser belts and start taking foreign holidays again!"

This is not going to happen unless economic growth goes absolutely through the roof. Remember that we got used to running a budget deficit even in the "good times". If/when we're restored to a period of budget surplus, annual growth will probably barely keep up with the cost pressures arising from an ageing population and other demographic factors.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he tactile technician OP   Man
over a year ago

the good lands, the bad lands, the any where you may want me lands


"

When you break down all of the government funding from the last decade at local and national levels, music (the area of the arts I know most about) gets roughly 9% of the budget and that tends to go to opera and the more 'highbrow' end of the spectrum. In terms of economic output, homegrown music and musicians is right up there in the top five of growing industries but may not be in ten years time when the recent cuts to funding start applying to the next generation of musicians and singers. It's short-sighted and will only save money in the short term.

but isn't that what we have to do? we have to save money and reduce the deficit today...we can reinstate spending at a latter date when we no longer have a deficit and are once again a nation with a surplus. Then we can loosen our trouser belts and start taking foreign holidays again!

The issue is that you'll have a while generation of kids who missed out on music lessons other than once a week in a crowded class unless they have parents rich enough to fund instrument lessons so the economy will lose more in future years as a result than it's saving now - and create an even bigger gulf between those who have money and therefore opportunities and those who don't."
I agree with your argument, but playing devils advocate for a moment, on the flip side couldn't we all recognise that future generations may also lose out if we're not able to as a nation fund the National Health sufficiently to be able to deliver pre cradle to grave health care for our ever increasing population? I don't know the solution either, the facts may well soon come down to a free recorder for a primary school child who's parents can't afford the cost, or to a national ambulance service able to respond to medical emergencies within the set tolerences that can continue to save lives and keep us all safe as it continues to be stretched through increasing population growth. Again just more food for thought

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *eliciouslyNastyMan
over a year ago

London


"We shouldnt fund the Royals, omg my head is going to explode quantifiable values? and a reason for doing the job? I'm many will disagree, but statistics will no doubt be able to evidence the millions and millions of revenue brought into the country each year by tourism created by having a monarchy. I also suspect that the job that the queen does safeguards us from many many republican and federalism evils "

You can still be federal with a monarch, just not a republic.

We're a republic in all but name anyways.

And we would benifit greatly by going federal.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top