Funding for the arts versus sports

Cossy

I enjoy watching both sports and the “arts” I enjoy Art Galleries and the theatre.

I think that they are all equally important!

but 'arts' are so much more than just art galleries and theatre, which I am taking to include all music. Our towns and cities were not all built yesterday on blank sites, they were settled, some times 1,000 or more years ago and reflect the deep hsitory of ordinary people that can still be read in the streets and architecture and the every day items of ordinary living found in museaums, that have changed beyond measure since our childhoods. these too are part of the arts and in many cases more ordinary people are immersed in this everyday of their lives. Elite sports is for the few, mostly people just watch sport..

The large Victorian cities tended to have imposing art galleries, museums, public libraries and swimming baths. Usually incorporating somewhere a large hall used for recitals

I don’t think anyone was suggesting robbing Peter to pay Paul, Casdon, just debating the fairness of the current huge discrepancy as revealed by the cost of sending Team GB to Paris.

Ilovecheese

Schools are also encouraged to go for more science based subjects, because they are easier to mark and grade.

Really. Still guess you can't get decent Art teachers that realise all children's abilities, only a favoured few. Put one child off going for an art degree.

There are special grants to schools for sport that every school receives. Where are the special grants for the arts? - non-existent.

large Victorian cities also have houses of all periods. The growth of the city can be traced in the age of houses. Georgian in the city centre, not many, replaced by modern offies, but always a few left. Then early Victorian then later, early 20th cnetury, prewar.

I have been on fascinating cit walks pointing out how the road pattern was set down by the Saxons, a market buit by a medieval magnate and so on.

Culture and the Arts are not just in imposing buldings. It si all around us.

winterwhite

I can’t think of a good minister for the arts in recent years. Or a good education secretary for the last 10 years. That would help.

I forgot. We had Nadine Dorries!

Aveline

I think that taking the money out of arts and sport would be likely to make really good artists of all sorts and really good sportsmen more likely to percolate to the top. Too much funding can be stifling too...

I very broad statement, but from personal experience of being a parent whose child graduated drama school a year ago.
We help where we can, but she has a massive student loan, and often works long hours without breaks for weeks on end - she has learned 3 weeks without a day off is probably maximum, just so that she can afford to work on her own work, getting it seen, and getting herself credits. She rarely makes enough to cover her expenses. She needs the credits to be able to work for a theatre or company, and needs exposure for her company to be taken seriously.
She hopes to apply for arts Council funding, but it is very thinly spread, so a company is needed to write the application to increase your chances, and this cost money.
On top of this there are so many professional memberships needed to find and apply for jobs, and if you have an agent, that's at least 10% of your earnings gone.
So in my view, a little more funding would give creatives like her the time and energy to produce new work, and let's not forget the revenue from these productions- the tourists watching West End shows, also using hotels and restaurants, or the small towns like Buxton (where she saw her first show at the fringe) benefitting from visitors.

So many high profile companies are willing to support/sponsor sports. Of course a great way to raise their profile and profits.How many banners do we see at art galleries, museums , exhibitions showing sponsorship?

I'm very aware of the lack of funding for the arts as my DD has a degree in Music and works in the arts. She started her career with the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra while still a student at Birmingham University, moving from orchestra management into artistic planning and tour management. She has worked for the Royal Scottish National Orchestra and for the Philharmonia in London but now is Head of an all female orchestrs in Dubai. Over the years she has seen public funding in the arts cut more and more. It is understandable that in difficult times, with councils being declared bankrupt, difficult choices have to be made, and Birmingham is one place where huge cuts have happened.

People working in the arts don't command the same salaries as those in equivalent areas of responsibility elsewhere. Her job in Dubai is very well paid, but if she returns to the UK, even to a higher level role, she is unlikely to earn the same amount. Thankfully she is not primarily motivated by money, but by job satisfaction, otherwise she would be unlikely to ever return home!

I've been fortunate over the years to enjoy many of the concerts put on by the orchestras she has worked for, often without charge, or at significantly reduced charge. Frankly I can't afford to attend many such concerts now at the amount they cost, as my pension is quite small, but I was able to go to work with her as her chauffeur, carer and bag carrier when she broke her ankle during her time in London. Part of her role involves attracting sponsorship for the orchestra but this is not easy in the current financial climate. Sadly the situation is unlikely to change any time soon.

Just what I was going to post !

4allweknow

So many high profile companies are willing to support/sponsor sports. Of course a great way to raise their profile and profits.How many banners do we see at art galleries, museums , exhibitions showing sponsorship?

Actually there is quite a lot of commercial subsidising of the arts, but the arts people are getting fussy over whose money they will accept. BP, a major arts funder has been rejected by several companies recently, Cutting your nose off to spite your face in this case.

However I do agree that some funding is inappropriate. Those many arts and academic instutions who accepted money from the Sacklers, the US family/firm who developed oxycontin, the opiod drug behind the epidemic of opiod addiction problem in the USA, and who hid the addictive nature of the drug, now face real problems with renaming the facilties the family financed.

I think the Sackler funding is the tip of an interesting iceberg.
Sponsorship money for the arts has to be purer than driven snow these days and I don’t really understand it. The money has been made, is it better or worse for some of it to be spent on cultural activities?