It is now an archive for my newspaper and magazine pieces. My blog can now be read at: www.spectator.co.uk/stephenpollard
Politics, economics and culture from the master. Unmissable.
Melanie Phillips home page
Melanie Phillips' peerless blog. Read, and learn.
Daniel Finkelstein's Times Comment Central
A daily must-read.
Tim Worstall
Lots of interesting nibbles - and a ruthless swatter of economic gibberish.
Harry's Place
Must-read left of centre blog from writers who understand the threat to the West.
Clive Davis
Always interesting selection of culture and politics, from an Anglo-American bent.
Samizdata
Libertarian blog, packed every day.
Norm's blog
The thoroughly sensible thoughts of renowned left-wing academic Norman Geras, Professor of Government at Manchester. And cricket, too.
Public Interest
Peter Briffa's inimitable take on The Yazzmonster and other assorted demons.
Reform
The public sector reform group; their website is an invaluable source of data and ideas.
Centre for the New Europe
The leading European public policy think tank.
Developed by:
| December | 11 |
| 2006 |
I love the way a sentence can be taken in an entirely different fashion by two people. Take this from Richard Brooks in yesterday's Sunday Times:
Over lunch, Tessa Jowell and I had a friendly spat about her government wasting zillions on the Olympics while it’s set to squeeze arts funding. Britain excels at the arts, while our current standing in sport, notably cricket, football, rugby and athletics, where cash now sloshes around, is abysmal. Naturally, Jowell defended the money for the games. But here’s the killer. The arts sector, which includes everything from live theatre and music to heritage, has been told to plan for annual financial cuts of 7% from 2008. The culture department does not deny these figures.
I read that and thought 'hurrah'. To me, the 7 per cent 'cut' (I doubt they are real cuts rather than a reduction in the increase) in the arts budget is a small but welcome development. The complaint should be that it too small. And I would take Mr Brooks' point about wasting zillions on the Olympics as, equally, a call for cuts there (preferebly to zero).
To Mr Brooks, however, the message is that instead of wasting zillions on the Olympics, we should spend it on the arts.
UPDATE: That philistine, Oliver Kamm, takes issue with me here.
BTW, the deleterious impact of arts subsidy is one of the subjects I will be dealing with in my new book. When I finish it, that is!
MessageSpace
I've never been comfortable with the idea of State funding of the arts. Quite apart from the fact that it is not a legitimate function of government, I can't help being reminded of the stultification of art under Stalinism. Is the current crop of avant-garde non-art a reaction to the inability of taxpayer-subsidised artists to be genuinely transgressive? This might explain the spoilt teenager nature of so much of what passes for genuinely thoughtful work these days. Can anyone claim that Nicholas Serota, for example, is not as much a creature of government as a mandarin in the Department of Work and Pensions?
The correct word is 'patronage' not 'subsidy'.
Historically, the arts have always depended on patronage whether from the aristocracy or the church.
The State has merely taken over, at least in part, their function on behalf of us all.
Ideally, we would all be less philistine and readier to pay more ourselves as individual consumers, whether through commissioning works or simple donation to orchestras, theatres etc. However, the State has constrained our ability to do so by ever-increasing levels of personal taxation.
In the circumstances, we can either let the Arts die or tolerate some public patronage.
Pollard's position would lead too the death of high Art.
I think that the State should support great museums, opera houses, symphony orchestras and other areas where acknowledged and unchallenged great from the past, art which is of itself educational and part of the culture of any decent person, is made available to the public. If we accept that the State has a part to play in the education of the public and the raising the tone of culture and civilization in a country, I think that is right. I think it should absolutely not subsidize contemporary arts in any way, because that destroys the artist's need to find a public and a language to interact with his/her public. Living artists should take risks and seek to be noticed, not go to the Arts Council for a cheque; they should try to impress real people. That, of course, does not include situations where the State itself needs the work of artists - designing public buildings, statues, banknotes or postage stamps. Other than that, the State should keep strictly away from the market for contemporary art.