charjohncarter
Veteran
Thanks John, I found them.
bob338
Well-known
too simplistic. your government doesn't just randomly pick pieces of art to drop in the middle of a park. potential art is considered by a lot of people before it is purchased or acquired for public display and there is often a public comment period. it is sometimes donated too, not purchased.
where i live, there is a public arts advisory board and an arts commission who answer to the city council who are elected by us. if you disagree with what they are considering, you can go to a council or commission meeting and voice your concerns. if you still don't like it you can vote them out of office.
on another note, i've done a lot of work for the state of california in san francisco(public art in court houses, etc.) and you would be surprised by the number of hurdles you have to jump to do any kind of work for the state. i think getting through the red tape of government scares off a lot of artists or contractors(i'm a picture framer who installs art programs.) and while the state is difficult, the federal government is nearly impossible to get contracts with, you almost need a lawyer to get through the process. so the pool of who is considered for a job may be smaller because of this.
bob
bob
Sparrow
Veteran
I like the way Channel 4 (UK TV station) is funded, if only everything would fit that radical public service model it wouldn’t be a problem.
The difficulties start when the government gives state moneys to a QANGO and that it already staffed with the great the good, vested interests and luvvies. They then do what vested interests do
The difficulties start when the government gives state moneys to a QANGO and that it already staffed with the great the good, vested interests and luvvies. They then do what vested interests do
charjohncarter
Veteran
Maybe so, but I bet if you applied for a grant to do representational painting you would get turned down. Who are they to decide? By the way, I heard a guy on, believe it, NPR that said he was a representational painter and he had been turned down many times (never got a commission). And I do believe you have to jump though hurdles, especially if you don't play to the choir.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I am sorry if I have failed to make myself clear. No, I am NOT discussing absolute sums, but how ANY sum (large or small) should be allocated. Opera delivers very little 'bang for the buck' compared with most arts subsidies because it is damnably expensive and it is not really public art: it is seen only by those who can afford expensive opera tickets.
Hence my aversion to public funding for opera, because the money could almost invariably be spent on something that will introduce something new to more people, and make more people think. This is not the same as populism. In many ways, in fact, it's the exact opposite. Instead of subsidizing a tired art form for the rich, I'm suggesting spending the same money -- little be it or much -- on a much wider variety of arts.
Cheers,
Roger
bob338
Well-known
i'll bet that 90% of grant applications get turned down by the government. that's just the way it works, there are too many hands outstretched for precious little money. i don't see it any differently than selling a painting in a gallery; you put it on the wall and lobby people to buy it. in the end what it really comes down to isn't the painting, it's the presentation, personality of the artist and how well you connect to the buyers emotions. not a lot different from applying for a grant.
as for roger's opera bashing, it sounds a little too personal to me to be taken seriously. you seem to have a very personal stake in it and are lumping all things opera into your experience with it. where i live if the People didn't want opera to be subsidized, it would not be subsidized.
bob
charjohncarter
Veteran
You are probably right about the turn down rate. I still am not sure that I agree with taxpayer money being spent on any social engineering project whether it is a stadium, or a mural or cash for clunkers. But where do you stop, I suppose a road could be considered social engineering, especially if it leads to a political donors shopping center.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Hold on: what do you mean by 'no money is lost'? They give the money back to the government?
But that is, to some extent, nit-picking. The thing is, it is surprisingly difficult to discover where the English National Opera 'budget' (£30-40m) comes from: the Arts Council (about £400-450m for the whole country), ticket sales, commercial sponsorship, bequests...
The few figures I have seen -- and this is not in a good few years -- indicated that the percentage of the Arts Council budget for London is quite disproportionately weighted towards the ENO. If anyone can find any recent figures and prove me wrong, I will cheerfully withdraw my objections to the sponsorship of opera (well, fairly cheerfully).
Cheers,
R.
George9
-
I think you have. Your hatred for opera is oozing from every pore.
Not true.
Don't believe me. Just google it and stop whining.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear George,
Not whining. Just pointing out that until someone comes up with some actual numbers, I can only go by the numbers I saw some years ago, and that as a result, opera looks to me like a waste of money. As I say, if someone can prove me wrong, and that it receives subsidies comparable with two or three other aspects of the arts (separately, not together) I'll cheerfully withdraw my objections.
Seats at ENO can allegedly be bought on weekdays for under £10. To me, this looks like the reservation of a few seats to make it look as if everyone is benefiting fom the subsidy. And for this, I do have some numbers.
Instead of swallowing the propaganda, check how many seats really are available at under £10. Click onto ENO reservations. I chose Lucia de Lammermoor at random, Tuesday 23rd February. There were no £20 seats available (these were cheapest they showed -- and £20 is not under £10) but there were some at £31. Full price seats are £81.
Try being polite, and consider the possibility that not everyone with whom you disagree is a complete ignoramus. Oh: and I realize that the phrase 'oozing from every pore' has caught your imagination, but do try to be original.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
indeed Roger, (tourism dollars i beleive they call it to some extent or a profit!) isnt it obvious, in one way or another, the profits that various business make and the money spent by visitors over the counters by visiting people ends up in both private and goverment coffers...you no doubt know a dollar spent is a dollar the goverment gets a peice offi beleive that is what basically myself and Alan were trying to convey, that the figures add up to a profit, whether you happen to like opera or not it is there to see, in our case at least... perhaps we aussies just look at these things differently from a profit perspective, although i dont see how, money is money...these numbers are usually out there for all to see...if we make a loss, we whinge about it too
well thats almost as much as we spend on pies and sauce here , nah really that is a huge sum to contemplate from our perspective, but the poms always have big numbers, we leave it to them, to stuff up (often) or come out in front (when was that!), we hand them a stiff drink either way. what we do is smaller but if it is a model i hope it shows it is working here at least...which it is!
cheers
Andrew
Dear Andrew,
Well, I said the first one was nit-picking, and I'd still suspect that there's as much faith as works in the statement that 'no money is lost', but as I say, I'm not that fussed.
The second argument, about the share of the pie, is more important. Thirty million quid a year, every year, and a recent £41,000,000 overhaul to the opera house, would, I think you must agree, fund a hell of a lot of other art. But they are not held to the same standards of accountability as a small regional arts centre, and have more opportunity to squander money. If they were reasonably financially competent, they'd probably not have had a £4,000,000 shortfall on a £28,000,000 budget in 2003. As you say, these are huge numbers.
I've just found a verification in the Indie in 2003 that 500 seats/day will be under £10 on weekdays, but as I make clear to my post above, I couldn't see any in a random check -- and it didn't look like 500 seats had already been sold at £20 either.
Yes, I dislike opera. But there are plenty of other things I dislike too. I don't complain about them, because the sums spent are far smaller, and because I believe in diversity in the arts. An occasional opera festival? Fine. It's just the day in, day out, half a million a week (actually rather more) that I find hard to believe.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Andrew,
How can I know they're unwarranted? I could equally well say the same of your assertions, and still more of George's. I started digging out some numbers and facts, because so far, there have not been many. I'm sorry if it came across as blind belligerence. It wasn't intended to.
I'm sure you're right about the state of health of the horse in this particular opera, though, and that there is little point in continuing.
Cheers.
Roger
George9
-
http://www.roh.org.uk/booknow/reserve.aspx?perfid=10710
The Royal Opera House, Covent Garden.
The Rake's Progress 28 Jan, 2010
Seats from 5 quid.
Seats from 10 quid.
(please don't complain that they're not at the front).
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Andrew,
Well, sort of, except that Frances used to work at the Los Angeles Music Center (she has two degrees in theatre) and her opinion of the way in which money is thrown around, wasted and mismanaged in opera is even lower than mine. So with the only two examples I know pointing in the same direction, perhaps you can forgive me for a somewhat jaundiced view. Read Terry Pratchett's Masquerade for an extremely amusing fictional exposition of the same view.
I'm sure you're right about an advocate to speak in rebuttal, which is why I looked up some numbers. Otherwise it's just flat assertions.
And, like you, I'm not advocating spending the same on electric violin as on opera. I'm not even advocating cutting all funding to opera. I'm just suggesting that for even £100,000 a week (over $140,000 AUD, over $160 USD) -- less than ONE-FIFTH the budge of ONE opera house in the UK -- you could fund A LOT of painters, writers, whatever. Most of it would be crap, but what the hell? The punts that paid off would reinvigorate art a lot more than yet another production of an 18th or 19th century opera.
Cheers,
R.
Jamie123
Veteran
Roger,
while I might have put it a bit more politely I also feel that your discontent with the Opera is quite strong. I'm not quite sure I understand your argument here. Your main point seems to be that the Opera is an institution that caters to the rich and excludes the poor by way of prohibitively high prices. So far, so good. However, your discontent seems to reach farther. You also seem to have a problem with Opera as an art form per se especially when it comes to old renowned artists like Wagner. And, in addition to that, you also seem to feel the same way about old master paintings which you dismiss as "trophy paintings".
Here I have to completely disagree. I think the role of government funding for art is to make it more accessible to a larger part of the public. In the case of Opera I think the government's effort should go towards making it cheaper so that the general public has the opportunity to enjoy it. I certainly do not think that the Opera should be left to the rich.
Also, I strongly disagree with your position on old master paintings. I think it is very important that public institutions (museums) acquire old master paintings of great significance for art history so that they can be enjoyed by the public instead of hanging in a mansion or being locked away in someone's safe.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear George,http://www.roh.org.uk/booknow/reserve.aspx?perfid=10710
The Royal Opera House, Covent Garden.
The Rake's Progress 28 Jan, 2010
Seats from 5 quid.
View attachment 75495
Seats from 10 quid.
View attachment 75496
(please don't complain that they're not at the front).
Lucia de Lammermoor? Which, as I say, I chose at random as a big-name opera. Yes, you've found seats at another show for a fiver. I couldn't find any at the one I chose for under £31.
Neither you nor I have made an irrefutable argument. But as Andrew has said, there is little to be gained by further discussion, without some real information on ENO funding. Or any other opera house's funding, for that matter.
Cheers,
R.
George9
-
Your original argument was that it was too expensive for the "poor".
"The poor subsidising the rich".
My argument is that it is not.
£5 a seat.
QED.
...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear George,
Well, I did say 'possibly' about what I called 'trophy paintings'. But I stick to my point about PUBLIC art. A painting in an art gallery is public. We differ about whether opera is. I can see your argument. Yes, some more people can see it. We differ on the cost-effectiveness of subsidizing it. Would you put £10,000,000 into the ENO if it were not subsidized at all? I suspect not. If there were one cheap seat? Again, I think not. Ten? A hundred? It's a slippery slope argument. I come down on one side (as a result, in part, of Frances working in the business, initially in box office accounting and then in payroll). You come down on the other.
Let's just take 500 £40 seats at £10: £30/seat/weekday, which excludes Fridays on my reading. That's £15,000 a day, £3,120,000 a year. That's assuming they're open 52 weeks a year; I am pretty sure it's rather less than this.
If ENO receives a subsidy of any more than that, then a good deal of the subsidy is indeed going to the rich. How much does ENO get from the Arts Council? Dunno. Do you? It would be interesting to know, wouldn't it? But that would, I think, be at least as convincing a QED as yours.
You are right. I do not like opera. I have already said as much. In fact, I don't like much Western music between about 1700 and 1900 (to paint with a very broad brush, though there are clear exceptions). But I wouldn't give a toss about public subsidy of an art form I don't like if opera didn't suck up what appears, in all of the few examples of which I have any knowledge, to cost an absurd amount of money compared with the other arts. In one sense, of course opera adds to diversity. In another, it strangles it: money that is spent on opera cannot be spent elsewhere.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear George,
No, it wasn't, actually. It was that to the effect that anyone who can afford £100] for a seat, doesn't need a subsidy from me. Go back to the original post (I did).
Regardless of the availability of cheap seats, on which point I am grateful to you for enlightening me, it's hard to argue with that statement.
Cheers,
R.
Jamie123
Veteran
Dear Roger,
my name is not George. It's not Jaimie either but it's definitely not George.
Anyways, I'm not sure I agree with your defninition of "public art". In one instance you seem to define it as publicly accessible art (i.e. art gallery) and in another as publicly funded or subsidized art. I do think that public funding and subsidies should aim to make art more accessible to the public but I don't think all publicly accessible art is "public art*. An art gallery is usually privately owned. Yes it's open to the public but so is Louis Vuitton.
I don't pretend to know how much money goes to what institution in what country but we should also keep in mind that some art forms require more money to be supported than others.
Also, as George has shown, tickets to the opera can be acquired for a reasonably low amount of money. Even your example, where the tickets were £31 is still in the realm of what I would consider reasonable. The fact that the cheaper tickets are sold out faster than the more expensive ones is not really surprising.