Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I searched, and could not find a thread that asked this question.

    Well, by Arts I mean industries such as Ballet, Opera, Dance, Theatre, Modern Art etc - which all receive a substantial subsidy from the Government.

    The main reason for this, of course, is the idea that these industries enhance 'our culture', and that without these subsidies the industries would falter and fail.

    Firstly, I believe that it is not right for the Government to specify an industry that should receive a subsidy, and choose this over another passtime. For example, although some may consider Ballet to be very enriching, I can name an equal number of people who consider a game of Football to be enriching. The only difference is, the people who like Football are willing and able to pay to sustain their hobby; why cannot the others do the same? Remember, the point here isn't whether or not football enriches society - the point is that people are stripped of the choice and freedom of what is enriching.

    Simply put, if people, by their own accord, are not going to visit these theatres, galleries and opera houses, and are not willing to spend their money on these industries - then who is the Government to say otherwise? If these activities were truly 'enriching', this would be recognised by people and thus not require a subsidy.

    Secondly, I am not convinced that the Arts actually require a subsidy. Consider the US, for example. The Arts are not subsidised, and it doesn't seem to have had a detrimental effect; with artists such as Elvis Presley, The Beatles and Charlie Chaplin emerging. I would also question whether private investors would step up to the plate if there was no state intervention. Consider the Getty Gallery as an example, one of the world's most famous galleries, and one that is not state run.

    What do you think?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I think if these things weren't subsidised, it would go back to the old days when they were past times only for the very rich and privileged. Personally, I hate the ballet, but the common man/woman has just as much right to see it as the well off.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Modern art :puke:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    I think if these things weren't subsidised, it would go back to the old days when they were past times only for the very rich and privileged. Personally, I hate the ballet, but the common man/woman has just as much right to see it as the well off.
    Why is that? If they don't have the money to fund their love for Ballet, why do they have the same 'right to see it as the well off.'?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dodgyant)
    Why is that? If they don't have the money to fund their love for Ballet, why do they have the same 'right to see it as the well off.'?
    Wow, you're old school, do you also think university should be solely restricted to the upper classes? :curious:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    This will sum up every opinion past, present and future in this thread, and it's funnier too.

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    I think if these things weren't subsidised, it would go back to the old days when they were past times only for the very rich and privileged. Personally, I hate the ballet, but the common man/woman has just as much right to see it as the well off.
    And where does it end with this mentality?

    "Personally, I hate mansions, but the common man/woman has just as much right to own one as a the well off."

    If you can't afford something, then you don't get it. Your mentality approaches communism, I must say.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    And where does it end with this mentality?

    "Personally, I hate mansions, but the common man/woman has just as much right to own one as a the well off."

    If you can't afford something, then you don't get it. Your mentality approaches communism, I must say.
    No, you think? Could it be because I'm a socialist? :eek:

    Bravo, Captain Obvious! :congrats:

    Also: Where does your philosophy end? Shall we go back to the days when university was the luxury of the rich?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    Wow, you're old school, do you also think university should be solely restricted to the upper classes? :curious:
    With the 'if you can't afford it, then you can't get it' mentality, there are obviously exceptions for education, healthcare, etc.

    A subsidy for education enriches society with an influx of bright young minds who, without support, would not be able to make the contributions to society that they now make.

    If you subsidise the arts, you're not going to get a monetary, nor a societal return on that investment.

    I am such a student who would not be able to go to university were it not for government support. I am also such a person who cannot afford to indulge in the arts performances that I wish to indulge in as regularly as I would like. But I can see sense in subsidising my education fees, and not subsidising the cost of indulging in the arts.

    Indulging in the arts is a luxury, whilst education, I would say, is a necessity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    With the 'if you can't afford it, then you can't get it' mentality, there are obviously exceptions for education, healthcare, etc.

    A subsidy for education enriches society with an influx of bright young minds who, without support, would not be able to make the contributions to society that they now make.

    If you subsidise the arts, you're not going to get a monetary, nor a societal return on that investment.
    You could argue that the arts also offer an education. Furthermore, I think free museums and free art galleries most certainly give a social return to the investment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    No, you think? Could it be because I'm a socialist? :eek:

    Bravo, Captain Obvious! :congrats:

    Also: Where does your philosophy end? Shall we go back to the days when university was the luxury of the rich?
    So you consider anything else apart from socialism old school democracy?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    I think if these things weren't subsidised, it would go back to the old days when they were past times only for the very rich and privileged. Personally, I hate the ballet, but the common man/woman has just as much right to see it as the well off.
    That's a contentious issue which stretches far wider than simply the arts though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by trachimbrod)
    You could argue that the arts also offer an education. Furthermore, I think free museums and free art galleries most certainly give a social return to the investment.
    I didn't know that there were many museums and art galleries that you had to pay to enter in Britain? I've certainly been in one for which I had to pay a fee. But I was of the opinion that this thread was mainly focussing on the performing arts? Theatre, music, etc?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    With the 'if you can't afford it, then you can't get it' mentality, there are obviously exceptions for education, healthcare, etc.

    A subsidy for education enriches society with an influx of bright young minds who, without support, would not be able to make the contributions to society that they now make.

    If you subsidise the arts, you're not going to get a monetary, nor a societal return on that investment.

    I am such a student who would not be able to go to university were it not for government support. I am also such a person who cannot afford to indulge in the arts performances that I wish to indulge in as regularly as I would like. But I can see sense in subsidising my education fees, and not subsidising the cost of indulging in the arts.

    Indulging in the arts is a luxury, whilst education, I would say, is a necessity.
    Ah, I see, so you think it should only be subsidised if it means an increase in the nation's wealth? Subsidise healthcare so the working classes don't spend their whole lives sick and unemployed, subsidise education so they can earn more, and thus as a country we're richer, eh?

    That's all well and good, but personally, I see no reason why it shouldn't be extended to fun and hobbies too, people have just as much a right to enjoy themselves whether or not they're working or upper class.

    Or would you rather see us plebs playing marbles on the pavements whilst the suited and booted gentry head off to the art galleries?

    (Original post by abstraction98)
    That's a contentious issue which stretches far wider than simply the arts though.
    Well, quite :wink2:

    (Original post by poossum)
    So you consider anything else apart from socialism old school democracy?
    Sorry, your question's a little unclear, could you clarify please?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Hmm. As it happens, tomorrow I'm going to London to see a play at the National Theatre (presumably a recipient of subsidy, I'm not sure, the tickets were quite cheap) and am probably going to pop in to the Tate Modern too (definitely subsidised, as it's free). I am an Impoverished Teenager for whom these activities would have been impossible in a different time where culture was the preserve of the upper classes. So that's a Good Thing.

    But then it's difficult, because we need money for other things. So I think in principle they should be subsidised, but only once we've got enough money for everything else and have sorted out things like, um, poverty. But then that's obviously never going to happen (or not in a long time anyway), so why not distract people and give them something to do in the meantime? Hmm.

    [/incoherent babbling]
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dodgyant)
    I searched, and could not find a thread that asked this question.

    Well, by Arts I mean industries such as Ballet, Opera, Dance, Theatre, Modern Art etc - which all receive a substantial subsidy from the Government.

    The main reason for this, of course, is the idea that these industries enhance 'our culture', and that without these subsidies the industries would falter and fail.

    Firstly, I believe that it is not right for the Government to specify an industry that should receive a subsidy, and choose this over another passtime. For example, although some may consider Ballet to be very enriching, I can name an equal number of people who consider a game of Football to be enriching. The only difference is, the people who like Football are willing and able to pay to sustain their hobby; why cannot the others do the same? Remember, the point here isn't whether or not football enriches society - the point is that people are stripped of the choice and freedom of what is enriching.

    Simply put, if people, by their own accord, are not going to visit these theatres, galleries and opera houses, and are not willing to spend their money on these industries - then who is the Government to say otherwise? If these activities were truly 'enriching', this would be recognised by people and thus not require a subsidy.

    Secondly, I am not convinced that the Arts actually require a subsidy. Consider the US, for example. The Arts are not subsidised, and it doesn't seem to have had a detrimental effect; with artists such as Elvis Presley, The Beatles and Charlie Chaplin emerging. I would also question whether private investors would step up to the plate if there was no state intervention. Consider the Getty Gallery as an example, one of the world's most famous galleries, and one that is not state run.

    What do you think?

    You do realise the Beatles were from Liverpool don't you?
    No subsidies for any art. If it doesn't stand on its own feet why should the tax payer subsidise it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    Ah, I see, so you think it should only be subsidised if it means an increase in the nation's wealth? Subsidise healthcare so the working classes don't spend their whole lives sick and unemployed, subsidise education so they can earn more, and thus as a country we're richer, eh?

    That's all well and good, but personally, I see no reason why it shouldn't be extended to fun and hobbies too, people have just as much a right to enjoy themselves whether or not they're working or upper class.

    Or would you rather see us plebs playing marbles on the pavements whilst the suited and booted gentry head off to the art galleries?
    Well that depends on your outlook. I didn't go to university to increase my salary potential, nor to increase the prosperity and wealth of the nation.

    The way I see it is that the societal benefits of free education and healthcare are the main focus and priority. A culture of intellectualism among healthy citizens is nothing but a good thing. These intellectuals will be the people who take us forward through modern advancement. New ideas, new inventions, new drugs, new projects, innovation, progress etc. The monetary benefit of this is inherent and secondary, as far as I am concerned.

    The Government, however, may see it the other way about. They may see the monetary benefits first, and see the societal benefits second.

    But in all honesty, I don't think it matters what way you look at it, the conclusion is the same - subsidise education and healthcare.

    Plus you seem to be contradicting yourself rather fundamentally. If we subsidise education we will earn more, and the country will be richer, yet despite that, we won't be able to afford our hobbies and recreation? That just doesn't make sense. You could subsidise the arts to make it accessible for the poor, or you could subsidise education, giving the poor an opportunity to make themselves wealthy and be able to sustain their own recreational activities without draining government resources and whilst increasing the societal and monetary benefits of a more educated population. I fail to see why we would be playing with marbles on the street when we have subsidised masters degrees and PhDs.

    Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day, kind of thing...
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Democracy)
    I think if these things weren't subsidised, it would go back to the old days when they were past times only for the very rich and privileged. Personally, I hate the ballet, but the common man/woman has just as much right to see it as the well off.
    Well, you have to remember that the subsidy money doesn't just magically appear to pay for opera and ballet. The money is withdrawn from the pockets of the poor (and the rich) via taxation to pay for these indulgent self-important pursuits. The working classes have a heavier tax burden than they need have because some well-meaning busybody in Whitehall thinks it'd be really nice for the lowly classes to be able to buy opera tickets for £30. When, in reality, next week's food bills and fuel payments might be the greater priority. I think taking taxpayer money to subsidise arts is insulting to the working classes, not empowering.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vander Beth)
    How do you know what the population views as enriching and wishes to have their money spent on?
    Well, the logic goes, if they wanted their money to be spent on it they would, of their own free will.

    That these things aren't commercially viable shows that they do not.

    So what people like Democracy are saying is that people don't want to spend their money on the arts, so we should take it away from them and spend it for them, because people like Democracy think it's worth spending money on.]

    Edit: Where did that post go?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    Well, the logic goes, if they wanted their money to be spent on it they would, of their own free will.

    That these things aren't commercially viable shows that they do not.

    So what people like Democracy are saying is that people don't want to spend their money on the arts, so we should take it away from them and spend it for them, because people like Democracy think it's worth spending money on.]

    Edit: Where did that post go?
    I deleted it because I didn't feel like debating this morning. I just wanted to say that your's and the OP's 'logic' is refuted by Democracy first post and your argument is presumptuous in that it assumes that your position is held by a majority. I don't know how the population feels about this and I know that you do either.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 19, 2009
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.