Si la page ne s'affiche pas, cliquez ici !!!

The fat lady must learn to be a little thinner

UK

Source : Culture Europe International (http://www.culture-europe-international.org)
01 49 40 72 46 - contact@culture-europe-international.org
2, rue de la Liberté, 93526 Saint-Denis cedex 02

Rubrique : Revue de presse

du 03/04/2010 00:00 au 03/09/2010 00:00
Paris France



Texte : By Antonia SENIOR
The Times
Ireland
April 2nd, 2010
(extracts)

(...)We are deep in an era of big public works of art and expensive subsidies. The four arts councils for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland receive £521 million of taxpayers’ cash and £168 million from the lottery.(...)

Those in favour of taxpayer-funded art base their argument on two pillars — the notion that a life without art is a dull, spiritually undernourished one, and the more topical argument that the creative economy is a thriving one that will help to pull the country out of its fiscal doldrums.

The problem with arts subsidies, however, is that it’s difficult to escape the notion that the poor are subsidising the leisure pursuits of the rich. (...) The Royal Opera House is one of nine organisations receiving £5 million or more a year from the Arts Council — the others include the National Theatre, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the English National Ballet.

A survey by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport found that only 40 per cent of those in the lowest employment bracket attended an arts event in the past year compared with 84 per cent of those in the highest. As a report by the Adam Smith Institute points out, the DCMS has a pretty loose definition of art, including street arts and any “live music performance”.

The Arts Council is quick to respond to accusations of elitism by insisting that it works hard to bring art to the people. But if the people really want art, they can find it and they can pay for it. Voluntarily.(...)

The argument that the creative industries require subsidies because they contribute to the economy is a circular one. Taxpayers fund art that generates profit that pays tax to fund art. Eh? Besides, out of every £1 given by taxpayers to fund the arts 10p goes on administration. How many of the much cited economic powerhouses in the sector are subsidised and how many the product of unaided cultural entrepreneurs?

American art and culture thrive despite the lack of subsidy. The US is also the birthplace of crowdsourcing creatives — where those who are passionate about art meet on the internet and contribute to projects. One dollar makes you a shareholder on trustart.org. The difference is that the dollar is voluntary, not creamed off by the taxman.

Charities, private philanthropists and new forms of crowdsourced funding could fill the gap left by the taxpayer. Great art is no stranger to patronage — Leonardo da Vinci happily pocketed Medici gold, Shakespeare relied on the patronage of the court. The relationship is symbiotic — the artist is fed and the provider of capital gets reflected glory and status. It is only in the postwar era that arts patronage has been monopolised by the State. (...)

I can understand why people are passionate about this, and why special interest groups are so vocal. I would like to argue the case for some cash to be thrown at really important art — ie, the stuff I like. But that would mean funding opera, young writers and free museums but allowing ballet and most installation art to face the wolves of unfettered market forces — and that makes no sense at all. In the arts debate, head must rule heart and fiscal ruthlessness must prevail.

Full version

Date de publication : 02/04/2010


Période traitée : 2010-04-02
Mots-clés : taxpayer-funded art, cultural policies, arts policy, British lottery fund, Department for Culture Media and Sport, Culture24, DCMS, creative industries,
Inséré le : 03/04/2010 20:55