You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Britain
Over 100 British artists join campaign against funding cuts
2010-09-13
(Xinhua) -- Over 100 leading British artists have joined the campaign against the proposed 25-percent cuts in government funding of their meal tickets the arts on Saturday.

Supporters of the artists' campaign will be asked to sign a petition which will be sent to Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt.
The Ministry of Funny Walks having taken heavy cuts itself...
The petition points out that it has taken 50 years to create a vibrant arts culture in Britain that is the envy of the world, and appeals to the government not to slash arts funding. It warns the government of risking destroying this long-term achievement and the social and economic benefits it brings to all.
For decoration?!? I don't think so; when Rembrandt and his crew where making waves in the Netherlands, they were able to make a decent living strictly from private sales. Likewise several generations of artists in Renaissance Italy, Regency England... the list goes on and on. Bottom line, if an artist needs a government subsidy, it's a clear sign he's not good enough to make it on his own.
The artists acknowledge that reasonable cuts and efficiencies are necessary
but on someone else please. Perhaps the military?
but they fear that the 25-percent cuts being proposed will destroy much of what has been achieved and will have a particularly damaging impact on national and regional museums and their collections.
The museums already have collections, generally considerably more than they have room to display. Without government subsidies distorting the market, they'll be able to afford the few truly good pieces they need to update their catalogs... and if necessary they can sell off some of their less remarkable pieces to decorate bourgeois living rooms, leading to improved lives for all involved.
Robert Dufton, Paul Hamlyn Foundation director, said: "We are pleased to support this campaign and hope that its message is taken on board. As independent funder of the arts we are aware of the effect that cuts will have on many of the organizations we support. We stand to lose a great deal as a society if arts organizations are forced to stop the very valuable work they do."
Because supporting the mediocre, who would benefit psychologically as well as financially from being forced into professions for which they are eminently more suited, is the primary function of any civilized society.
The campaign is being organized by the London branch of a national consortium of over 2,000 arts organizations and artists dedicated to working together and finding new ways to support the arts in Britain.
Given that your government is nearly bankrupt, y'all might want to get on with finding new ways to support, as well as narrowing the list of those you are willing to work for.
Artists joined the campaign including David Hockney, Damien Hirst, Anthony Caro, Howard Hodgkin, Anish Kapoor, Richard Hamilton, Bridget Riley, Antony Gormley and Tracey Emin.
Really, I must pay more attention. I haven't any idea who these people are. Perhaps if Mr Mondrian were among their number, I'd be more impressed.
Posted by:Fred

#9  I haven't any idea who these people are.

I've heard of Tracey Emin. Her great work, "Everyone I Have Ever Slept With" -- a tent appliqueed with the names of, well, guess -- was tragically destroyed in a fire. Another "work" was "My Bed", in which she exhibited...her bed.

Her first public artwork, for which she was paid some staggering sum, was a little bronze bird sitting on top of a tall pole. It's designed so that the bird is hard to see, and according to Emin, "represents strength and femininity." In her defense, the bird did look like an actual bird.
Posted by: Angie Schultz   2010-09-13 18:16  

#8  One question always comes to mind when people (politicians) want to publicly fund artists, musicians, writers, etc. To wit: are we more culturally attuned now, than before the public expenditure(s)?? Just askin'.
Posted by: WolfDog   2010-09-13 11:13  

#7  "If you don't pay me for my feces fingerpainting, I might have to get a real job."

The horror.

The horror
Posted by: Frank G   2010-09-13 10:17  

#6  "We stand to lose a great deal as a society if arts organizations are forced to stop the very valuable work they do."

Please provide verifiable statistical proof of this statement, Mr. Dufton.
Posted by: no mo uro   2010-09-13 08:36  

#5  

The leftist artist should be careful, the alternative may be a Goya painting....March 30, 1746: Francisco Goya, Spanish painter, was born. A romantic painter and printmaker regarded both as the last of the Old Masters and as the first of the moderns, Goya was a court painter to the Spanish Crown and a chronicler of history and political oppression. "The subversive and subjective element in his art, as well as his bold handling of paint, provided a model for the work of later generations of artists, notably Manet and Picasso
Posted by: Goodluck   2010-09-13 07:13  

#4  In Oklahoma, our glorious legislature has seen fit to subsidizing the arts by mandating one percent of the value of any construction project to be set aside for the incorporation of art.

The mandate at the time was placed firmly in the "Seemed like a good idea at the time" rubric, but now, in the era of falling revenues, has moved over pretty solidly to the "What the hell were we thinking" department.

I understand the need for arts funding. It is a subsidy to keep all those crappy artists and their art at bay and to prevent said artists from hitting the rich up for their rent.
Posted by: badanov   2010-09-13 06:45  

#3  Best publicity possible to maximise support for reducing "Arts" funded by extortion.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2010-09-13 06:35  

#2  Arts funding = Welfare for the unemployable children of the rich

And an anecdote on what happens to publicly funded arts that happens to have market value.

At the bottom of my street in the UK (when I was a kid) was the local library, which had a small garden area to the side and in the middle of this was a Henry Moore sculpture.

No one ever used to go there, which was probably why me and my friends used to hang out there likely plotting our next piece of mischief.

Henry Moore sculptures are valuable, even in those days worth thousands of pounds, and one night someone backed a truck with a crane up to the garden. Lifted the sculpture, which to my knowledge was never seen again.
Posted by: phil_b   2010-09-13 03:45  

#1  Do a Google Image Search on some of these names. These people are government supported? Amazing. Actually it's not amazing, nobody would support them otherwise.
Posted by: gromky   2010-09-13 03:16  

00:00