dave lackey
Veteran
Good examples, Blake...I find that there is a large range of opera styles and I do actually like a bit of it but could not afford to go the opera in Atlanta even in good times.
So, yes, I agree with Roger...the finer things in life should not be only for the "rich", especially not if subsidized by the "poor".
So, yes, I agree with Roger...the finer things in life should not be only for the "rich", especially not if subsidized by the "poor".
x-ray
Veteran
I think a more accurate analogy would be "if people want beer, why should the government subsidize milk?"
Did you ever put beer on your oatmeal?
Jamie123,
You and I come from different worlds and times. There's a big difference in money to farmers and art grants. Food is essential to survival and art is a not. I do agree that money should not be paid for not raising crops to artificially keep prices higher but I do believe in farm price supports to aid farmers in tough crop years.
charjohncarter
Veteran
What a great idea, also to include possibly all movie directors in the country.
Jamie123
Veteran
Did you ever put beer on your oatmeal?
Jamie123,
You and I come from different worlds and times. There's a big difference in money to farmers and art grants. Food is essential to survival and art is a not. I do agree that money should not be paid for not raising crops to artificially keep prices higher but I do believe in farm price supports to aid farmers in tough crop years.
I don't know how it is in the US but farmers here in Switzerland aren't getting paid because they have bad crop years. They get direct payments from the government because basically there business is not viable. The farms are mostly rather small so they cannot produce efficiently enough to be profitable. Every farm gets paid a minimum of $60'000 a year directly from the government (and that's not counting subsidies). The primary justification for this is not that they provide the country with food (which is not needed as we could get it cheaper by eliminating tariffs on imports) but that they provide "other" services like taking care of the landscape.
So basically the justification is not much different than that for supporting art programs and giving out grants. It's a service the provide to our society that is not crucial but is useful none the less. And just like you can tell an artist to "get a real job" you could tell that to most farmers.
My main gripe with the direct payments and subsidies for farmers is that most of them are just too bullheaded to be inventive and pursue new business tactics. There are a few farmers that have managed to be profitable by finding niche markets and producing high end products but most of them just think they can keep producing overloads of milk and get money from the government. When any other business branch becomes redundant people lose their job but when farmers become redundant they get money from the government.
barefoot
talented, but lazy
Art should be able to stand on it's own, so I'm against public patronage in principle. As Bob mentioned, I don't appreciate money being taken from me involuntarily (via taxes) to fund, well any artist, but especially some hack (like me) that couldn't make it in the private sector.
I hold down a full time job so I can make music nobody wants to hear and photos that nobody wants to see. If I get good enough at either one, I'll find the patronage to support myself without the day job.
EDIT: ... and then again, there's some cool stuff that we wouldn't have if it weren't subsidized. Having read this thread in more depth now, my local Museum comes to mind ... I'm sure it's given some federal/state funding to continue (though I'm not sure) - Also, more specifically, the architecture and sculpture of Brasilia, where someday I'll go on a photo safari.
So I'm a bit conflicted, as you can see, but I'll keep my vote the same.
Kinkade was mentioned - now I'm no fan of his, but as far as I know, he hasn't taken any public funds, so more power to 'im.
I hold down a full time job so I can make music nobody wants to hear and photos that nobody wants to see. If I get good enough at either one, I'll find the patronage to support myself without the day job.
EDIT: ... and then again, there's some cool stuff that we wouldn't have if it weren't subsidized. Having read this thread in more depth now, my local Museum comes to mind ... I'm sure it's given some federal/state funding to continue (though I'm not sure) - Also, more specifically, the architecture and sculpture of Brasilia, where someday I'll go on a photo safari.
So I'm a bit conflicted, as you can see, but I'll keep my vote the same.
Kinkade was mentioned - now I'm no fan of his, but as far as I know, he hasn't taken any public funds, so more power to 'im.
Last edited:
charjohncarter
Veteran
How about Barbara Streisand (I'm older)? Well, anyway Memphis, it is very hard for me to think of a director (and I know one of these idiots) that would be missed. Maybe the guy that did 'Best of Show' and possibly Woody Allen could be exempt for the Farm Subsidy.
bob338
Well-known
i am really disgusted by the negativity toward the arts in this thread. i was going to stay out of this one, but some of the recent comments alluding to violence are just sickening.
if you don't like opera, don't go to the opera.
if you don't like the 'prostitots,' don't watch nick jr.
if you don't like public art, get appointed to your local arts commission and do something about it.
i was the co-chair of our arts commission for a year and the budget we got from your precious tax dollars was less than the cost of a used Saturn. we begged and borrowed to accomplish any little project and none of them pleased everyone. there is no piece of art in the world that everyone agrees on. and just because you may not like or understand someone else's art does not make it any less important than what you happen to favor.
my .02
bob
if you don't like opera, don't go to the opera.
if you don't like the 'prostitots,' don't watch nick jr.
if you don't like public art, get appointed to your local arts commission and do something about it.
i was the co-chair of our arts commission for a year and the budget we got from your precious tax dollars was less than the cost of a used Saturn. we begged and borrowed to accomplish any little project and none of them pleased everyone. there is no piece of art in the world that everyone agrees on. and just because you may not like or understand someone else's art does not make it any less important than what you happen to favor.
my .02
bob
Last edited:
charjohncarter
Veteran
Whoa, I'll speak for myself, I have been negative toward, the supposed art form of pro sports (way to much public funding, in my opinion), and for the supposed art form of cinematography in the USA (I can't wait for the next 'Terminator' movie). We all have things we like and things we think are stupid. But when it comes to public money then we can express our opinions, at least for now in this country. I know movies get very little public funding, but they are politically connected.
I think you misspelled 'disgusted.'
Last edited:
bob338
Well-known
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bob,
You may be missing the point.
How many operas did your regional arts commission put on?
I'll bet it was none, because they are too expensive: disproportionately expensive, compared with any other art form. They are a form of conspicuous consumption. To turn your argument around, if you do like opera, and can afford $100 a ticket don't ask someone to subsidize you.
My argument is that opera is not 'public art' because the price excludes too many of the public.
Anything else, as I said in my first post, is a legitimate form of art to fund. I'll now modify that: except perhaps very expensive paintings by widely lauded and now dead artists: I'd rather see £5,000,000 spent on 100 contemporary artists' work, direct from the artist or gallery, at £50,000 a throw, than on one Van Gogh or Old Master 'trophy' painting. (And yes, I know about prices: I just chose those numbers to make the sums easy.)
Likewise, I'd rather see 100 organizations like yours receive meaningful grants than one opera house in one city swallow the same amount of money.
Cheers,
Roger
antiquark
Derek Ross
$100 isn't really that much money. Lower income people can afford an event like that, once in a while.
Sparrow
Veteran
ya, cheap enough, they’re better off eating cake anyway …
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3148/2853776280_24251a2fed_b.jpg
… and anyway they would only spend the money on the lottery .... who would give it to the Arts Council ... who would …. ah
George9
-
It's not even that bad.
Seats at the Royal Opera, Covent Garden, London, can be bought for as little as £7.
Opera de Paris from as little as 5 euros.
Sparrow
Veteran
Wow, how can they do them for that price?
The ballet (at covent gardens) last spring was £55 a head and we got a good discount
George9
-
That's what I found with a little "googling". (opera, not ballet).
Sure, that's not sitting up front.
Sparrow
Veteran
Decent seats, I’m not going all that way then sitting behind a pillar with the plebs.
Both the opera and the royal ballet are at covent garden
Both the opera and the royal ballet are at covent garden
Jamie123
Veteran
I went to see a ballet at the Royal Opera last winter and while I don't exactly remember how much it was, it definitely was less than £55. Maybe around £20.
Sparrow
Veteran
iirc the tickets went from just under £20 to almost £200. We were down there because my daughter was lucky enough to be doing a workshop there, at the RBS, in a studio created in during the £200+ million modernisation in the 1990s
That £200+ million didn’t come from ticket sales, it came from the Arts Council England, I think, in turn they got from the national lottery. It is mostly the poor who buy lottery tickets, Roger has a point even if I’m unsure about its validity
charjohncarter
Veteran
What it really comes down to: should the public sector be picking winners and losers. I'm against someone (government) deciding what art I see on my tax dollar. It's like 'cash for clunkers' all they are doing is giving money to the people the government thinks should have it and excluding others.
JohnL
Very confused
Well if anyone wants to see some shots of the Gourmley statues along the river Mersey there are several on my site, in the UK gallery.