Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vander Beth)
    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.
    What, so you don't think it's fair that people with more money get a greater say?

    Fair enough anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Do they need to be subsidised? I dunno. Whatever keeps 'modern' art at bay is good with me.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Overground)
    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 The money is withdrawn from the pockets of the poor (and the rich) via taxation to pay for these indulgent self-important pursuits.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.
    However subsidising is not a bad idea in principle, it is not fundementally flawed, but yeah you're right, it does need to shifted so more of the burden is placed on the rich.
    • Thread Starter
    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?
    You see, here is a critical error.

    The reasoning behind subsidised university and subsidising the arts is completely different.

    The reason that the Arts are subsidised is because the 'enrich our society', the reason that University is subsidised, is to give a fair chance to everyone to make a decent living and explore their potential.

    So, I guess what you have to do, is prove that the Arts do actually 'enrich our society', and more than that, explain why it is the Arts that get a subsidy, and not any other activities.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Democracy)
    However subsidising is not a bad idea in principle, it is not fundementally flawed, but yeah you're right, it does need to shifted so more of the burden is placed on the rich.
    That's a completely different debate you've opened there.

    Arts subsidy is patronising, counter-intuitive, and costs the poor.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dodgyant)
    You see, here is a critical error.

    The reasoning behind subsidised university and subsidising the arts is completely different.

    The reason that the Arts are subsidised is because the 'enrich our society', the reason that University is subsidised, is to give a fair chance to everyone to make a decent living and explore their potential.

    So, I guess what you have to do, is prove that the Arts do actually 'enrich our society', and more than that, explain why it is the Arts that get a subsidy, and not any other activities.
    I've already been through this, I don't think enrichment for society only comes from wealth or income, I think keeping society's members happy is important too:

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...4&postcount=14
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Modern art
    I think it's about time crop circles featured in modern art galleries. Hey, if aliens don't exist then it deserves more of an entry than a cow split in half. Some of the designs are really clever in all seriousness. That said, the most famous modern artist in the country probably deserves his recognition not that he has a single entry in any galleries that I know of. Tony Hart, of course.
    • Thread Starter
    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, if we're all getting richer, then surely the poorer would have more to spend, and thus can go to the Art Gallery?

    The point is, since when does going to an art gallery make us happier in the first place? Yes, the rich may enjoy it, but that doesn't mean everyone will. No matter how many times I go to the opera, and no matter how free it is, it is not going to entertain me, or make me that much more enriched. The only problem is, the government has removed my freedom to choose what I want to spend my money on - I no longer have the choice to support the Arts or not.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dodgyant)
    Well, if we're all getting richer, then surely the poorer would have more to spend, and thus can go to the Art Gallery?

    The point is, since when does going to an art gallery make us happier in the first place? Yes, the rich may enjoy it, but that doesn't mean everyone will. No matter how many times I go to the opera, and no matter how free it is, it is not going to entertain me, or make me that much more enriched. The only problem is, the government has removed my freedom to choose what I want to spend my money on - I no longer have the choice to support the Arts or not.
    I wonder then, why that wasn't the case 100 years ago?

    And what I said was that people should have the oppurtunity to go to these places, nobody said they have to enjoy it. Your argument is the same sort of weak sophistry that's plastered accross the Daily Mail i.e. "why should I have to pay for so and so's degree?"
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    I wonder then, why that wasn't the case 100 years ago?

    And what I said was that people should have the oppurtunity to go to these places, nobody said they have to enjoy it. Your argument is the same sort of weak sophistry that's plastered accross the Daily Mail i.e. "why should I have to pay for so and so's degree?"
    Ok, why should everyone have the opportunity to go these places?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dodgyant)
    Ok, why should everyone have the opportunity to go these places?
    Because leaving it only as a pursuit of the rich is unfair and injust and brings this country back to the Victorian era.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    Because leaving it only as a pursuit of the rich is unfair and injust and brings this country back to the Victorian era.
    Why is it unfair and unjust? I wouldn't consider it unfair or unjust if I didn't have the opportunity to go to the Ballet. The rich like to play croquet, I like to play Tennis. The rich like to watch the Ballet, I like to watch TV. The Government is removing my freedom as I am forced to support the Ballet.

    How does it take us back to the Victorian era? It's just one small part of society, it's not going to cause a huge paradigm shift that will lead us back into the Victorian era.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dodgyant)
    Why is it unfair and unjust? I wouldn't consider it unfair or unjust if I didn't have the opportunity to go to the Ballet. The rich like to play croquet, I like to play Tennis. The rich like to watch the Ballet, I like to watch TV. The Government is removing my freedom as I am forced to support the Ballet.

    How does it take us back to the Victorian era? It's just one small part of society, it's not going to cause a huge paradigm shift that will lead us back into the Victorian era.
    All this "the rich like this the poor like that" sophistry is proving my point. People are not born, genetically predetermined to like certain activities, they like/dislike them based on their social upbringing and class. The wider you make this gap, the more you polarise society and keep the plebs only playing football and only the rich going to Brahms concerts, and shrugging your shoulders and saying "that's just the way it is".
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The thing I find to be a problem is that though the beneficiary of a government subsidy the tickets still aren't very affordable for many people and this effectively makes them excluded.

    For a random selection for an opera,the cheapest seat was £20 and the highest was £67.

    So, I'd image that for many, the benefit of Government help isn't felt; £20 a seat may as well be £200 a seat.For it simply means the same thing. So, if they aren't going to benefit though they do contribute they may well feel that they should not contribute at all.I feel that on an individual basis that this is a hard arguement to refute.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    I wonder then, why that wasn't the case 100 years ago?

    And what I said was that people should have the oppurtunity to go to these places, nobody said they have to enjoy it. Your argument is the same sort of weak sophistry that's plastered accross the Daily Mail i.e. "why should I have to pay for so and so's degree?"
    It wasn't the same 100 years ago because his sentance was 'if the poor are getting richer', which they are.

    The poor are perfectly capable of spending their money to sustain a multi-billion pound film industry, and football clubs with expensive stadiums and extravagantly paid players. The reason the arts need subsidy and have high prices is because they aren't as popular amongst the poor, not the other way round.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    leaving it only as a pursuit of the rich is unfair
    I can’t afford to pay for a holiday.

    I can’t afford to purchase a car.

    I can’t afford to buy the latest video games console.

    Relatively speaking, most people on TSR are rich in comparison to me and can afford the aforesaid commodities. You said "leaving it only as a pursuit of the rich is unfair". So tell me, Democracy, do you think the taxpayer should subsidise these as well?
    Offline

    0
    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?
    Not neccaserily . I see something enriching as something which brings meaningful gain to the indivudal , the indivdual however does not always seek meaningful gain or is possibly mistaken when partaking in an activity which he or she hopes to be enriched.

    Look at the sales of healthy and nutritous foods alongside unhealthy foods , you'll find that unhealthy/ fast foods tend to be a more lucrative business than healthy food. It would be absurd to say that unhealthy food was more enriching than healthy food purely because more people bought it.

    I'm not trying to make the argument that ballet is enriching , i'm just questioning your reasoning for saying it isn't . I think comercial viability damages the integrity of things , look at cricket for example . Mainstream ballet would have the balerinas wearing cocal cola outfits. I don't particularly like ballet but I can appreciate it at least.

    (Original post by Democracy)
    Because leaving it only as a pursuit of the rich is unfair and injust and brings this country back to the Victorian era.
    I think the reason ballet is popular amongst the rich is because they are pretty much the only people that desire ballet . If the majority desired for themselves or their children to partake in ballet then it would have comercial viability .
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    We seem to be finding a very complex solution to a very simple problem.
    "Taxpayer's should subsidise art!"
    "But only the rich go to the opera, why should the poor pay for it?"
    "Well make the rich be taxed more to go to the opera!"
    "But what about Modern art?"
    "Do poor people like Modern Art?"
    "I don't know!"

    These problems can all be solved by market forces.
    By subsidising the arts you are punishing people who do not wish to go to the theatre and the opera by making them pay for other people to go. If you want to go and see the opera, you can pay for it.

    I'd much rather live in a world where a poor man who wants to go to the opera can't, because he can't afford it, than a world where lots of poor men who don't want to go to the opera have to pay for other people who do.

    And if not enough people want to pay to go to the opera, well the opera better cut it's costs, lower it's prices, or go bust. And people can complain about the decline of society, and the arts dissapearing, but if they cared that much about the opera, well, they would have paid for the tickets themselves instead of expecting the taxpayer to foot the bill for their extravagant entertainment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Taxpayers should not subsidise hobbies in most cases. Whilst I'm for subsidised museums and art galleries, I do not see why theatre should be subsidised, if it can't support itself there is a reason, because not enough people want to use it. If only a small number of people want to use it why should an entire nation support it?

    As for the idea of it being subsidised so it's more accessible, yeah, it's a nice principle, but I don't agree with it. I spent in excess of £700 following Everton last year, and as a student who doesn't have money to throw away, that's a huge part of my income, but I don't believe I should receive help from a government subsidy to follow a team hobby that's been part of my family and part of the culture of the nation for over a century, I find the money by hook or by crook out of choice, it's not the job of the tax payer to help me find that £700.

    The budget should be sent on essential areas, ballet is not essential.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by respect_campaign)
    Everton
    lol :p:
 
 
 
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
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.