Should the State fund the arts?

[Rum]

The annual cost of British arts subsidisation is £0.47bn, almost half a billion quid. Is it right that in a time of economic strain this should be spent on the 'arts'?

Consider this: - this is the equivalent of half a pint of milk per person per week. Consider also that it is spent mostly on small projects designed to disseminate the 'arts' so it doesn't all end up in London. It also subsidises opera which charges £180 a ticket in the West End of London.

America works differently, as ever...

[Feck]

The government should only subsidise the sort of art I like

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

It depends on how much money we get back from the projects and companies subsidised. If it outweighs the cost, if it doesn't then no, I don't believe it should. Art is a non-vital 'industry' and if artists are making losses at the cost of the taxpayer, it would be outrageous.

[sandinista]

better than military spending.

[Clinton Huxley]

Does all spending have to be strictly utilitarian?

[Warren Dew]

America works differently, as ever...

We do?

[Rum]

America works differently, as ever...

We do?

A great deal more is subsidised through charitable routes, trusts and so on. Van't be arsed to look it up, but I read it somewhere.

[beige]

Does all spending have to be strictly utilitarian?

This. We have a local art gallery here that is state funded, and has some fantastic rotating exhibits all with free entry. I love it.

Also of note, is that although it may not generate any income by itself, it does indirectly provide a somewhat unmeasurable economic benefit to the surrounding area, which judging by how many people are always milling around there, surely outweighs the costs.

[Warren Dew]

A great deal more is subsidised through charitable routes, trusts and so on. Van't be arsed to look it up, but I read it somewhere.

There's certainly more private funding than direct government funding, but there is direct government funding as well. Of course, even the private funding gets tax breaks that make it essentially taxpayer subsidized.

There's little or no private funding in the UK?

[Rum]

Does all spending have to be strictly utilitarian?

This. We have a local art gallery here that is state funded, and has some fantastic rotating exhibits all with free entry. I love it.

Also of note, is that although it may not generate any income by itself, it does indirectly provide a somewhat unmeasurable economic benefit to the surrounding area, which judging by how many people are always milling around there, surely outweighs the costs.

You won't convince the present government with arguments like that..unfortunately.

[Rum]

A great deal more is subsidised through charitable routes, trusts and so on. Van't be arsed to look it up, but I read it somewhere.

There's certainly more private funding than direct government funding, but there is direct government funding as well. Of course, even the private funding gets tax breaks that make it essentially taxpayer subsidized.

There's little or no private funding in the UK?

I don't have the figures to hand, and frankly I am not sure they even exist. There are a few major players like the Saatchi brothers, very high profile and associated with high profile 'artists' such as Tracy Emmin, but not as far as I am aware with overall day to day funding. We have traditionally relied on the state, as has most of Europe.

[beige]

You won't convince the present government with arguments like that..unfortunately.

Too right, it's a totally anecdotal account! I suppose the only way to truly see if we can save money here is to do an expensive time consuming inquiry.

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

Does all spending have to be strictly utilitarian?

This. We have a local art gallery here that is state funded, and has some fantastic rotating exhibits all with free entry. I love it.

Also of note, is that although it may not generate any income by itself, it does indirectly provide a somewhat unmeasurable economic benefit to the surrounding area, which judging by how many people are always milling around there, surely outweighs the costs.

That's the problem, it's unmeasurable. I am sure we could look at individual communities and ask what is given by a museum, or a cinema, or a jewellers and attempt, somewhat, to measure how many people are in that area, spending their money, because of the existence of art-based institutions.

Having said that, in the grand scheme of things we still need to ensure we are getting the most money back from our investments, until we are economically secure enough to spend more on industries that perhaps could be considered a drain.


Just to clarify, I don't support the draconian cuts the Coalition are making - I very much believe the better solution would be to invest now and pay off the deficit with a mix of lighter cuts and economic growth in a few years.

[Trolldor]

The annual cost of British arts subsidisation is £0.47bn, almost half a billion quid. Is it right that in a time of economic strain this should be spent on the 'arts'?

Consider this: - this is the equivalent of half a pint of milk per person per week. Consider also that it is spent mostly on small projects designed to disseminate the 'arts' so it doesn't all end up in London. It also subsidises opera which charges £180 a ticket in the West End of London.

America works differently, as ever...

The arts are important, necessarily vital to a place. It's about expression, even if it often takes the form of psuedo-intellectual, metaphysical skid marks.

..damnit, gotta go to work.

[Robert_S]

Yes, especially arts education.

We can have a strong economy and military might, but you have to have something for it to all be for. There has to be an answer to the question of "Why fucking bother".