Download
1 / 34
340 likes | 452 Views
“ WHY should we give money to that man?” PM Thatcher referring to on Peter Hall 1980s. Why did we need state subsidy?. Apart from the tendency to revive and overdress bad Victorian plays at the drop of a box-office receipt, Binkie Beaumont has been
E N D
“WHY should we give money to that man?” PM Thatcher referring to on Peter Hall 1980s
Why did we need state subsidy? Apart from the tendency to revive and overdress bad Victorian plays at the drop of a box-office receipt, Binkie Beaumont has been righter on a higher level than anyone else”. Ken Tynan http://www.theatrevoice.com/2218/billington-on-the-state-of-the-nation/ [08:10]
Why did we need state subsidy? • West End & Binkie Beaumont, HM Tennent, pre-1946 • An entrepreneur dedicated to creating viable financial concerns. • His domination of west end was scarcely challenged. • Why should it have been? Spectacle, lavish designs, international flavour, star actors, high quality • Polemic: His values! “obsessed with glamour”, what of contemporary life and political concerns in Britain at that time? We have British Upper class; where are the other voices? • And yet, one of Theatre’s loudest voice support him (at first...!): “Apart from the tendency to revive and overdress bad Victorian plays at the drop of a box-office receipt, he has been righter on a higher level than anyone else”. Tynan
Billington on subsidy http://www.theatrevoice.com/2218/billington-on-the-state-of-the-nation/ [23:45 – 25:50]
The case for subsidy • A subsidised company is the foundation of healthy theatre. • Subsidy can and must restore the cutting edge to theatre
The case for subsidy • Theatre remains any society’s sharpest way to hold a live debate: “What attracts audiences is new questions, not old answers”. • For Hall, theatre’s function is social: to provoke. • This is also his case for subsidy: “anyone who needs theatre can enjoy it”. • Subsidy keeps seat prices low
The case for subsidy • why not the arts? • agriculture, manufacturing, construction and industries, including communications and computing – not to mention banking
The case for subsidy • Arts are hugely beneficial to UK plc. • income from creative industries generates revenues of around £112.5bn • employ more than 1.3 million people, which is 5% of total employed workforce in UK. • Arts exports contribute around £10.3bn to the balance of trade, and the industries account for over 5% of GDP.
in 2008 the whole of UK theatre received £54m in subsidy • It paid back nearly £75m just in VAT in London alone. • That's quite a return. • financial support for the arts: not subsidy, but investment.
The case for subsidy • the arts is one of the few areas in which Britain punches above its weight. • The relatively small Arts Council subsidies are a cheap and virtuous way of making Britain a place where people want to visit or come and work, where companies want to relocate.
The case for subsidy • arts subsidy needs a vision of the arts as a whole, across different forms, different regions, sometimes choosing the difficult, the controversial, the neglected. • One thing that the arts should stand against is the idea that everything can be decided in the market place
The ArgumentsAGAINST • The moment artists are paid in advance (which is what a subsidy means) they are tempted to become wasteful and self-indulgent, showing off to their cronies instead of having to appeal to the public. What the public wants may not be the perfect guide but it's better than what administrators and bureaucrats decide we should have. • (Kinsley Amis)
The ArgumentsAGAINST • Popular arts don't need subsidies. • Unpopular arts don't deserve subsidies. • If the arts funded by the state enrich our lives sufficiently, then it won't be difficult to persuade people to contribute. • There's no justification in forcing people to contribute.
The ArgumentsAGAINST • How can one body (the Arts Council) be charged with deciding what is or isn't culturally relevant for both this country's inhabitants and the many international visitors who partake in our cultural scene?
the alternative business sponsorship
Private sponsorship • Private sponsorship introduced 1979 Argument for: We are a mixed economy and private enterprise should be encouraged to support new developments in the arts.
Private sponsorship • accountability. • Who is the Arts Council accountable to? the general public? we don’t influence the way in which they hand out funds. the government? • the arts is a commodity. True it has other benefits but as far as this government is concerned business is business
The Big Society • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M2OXa2_GLg&feature=related What is fairness & the big society • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYqni3XMflI&feature=related Jeremy Hunt on Big Society and fairness (Newsnight, 6 October 2010)
The Big Society • Government agenda seeks to shift power from politicians to people. • formed key element of the Conservative 2010 election campaign • first major policy announcement of the new coalition government • Aim: to give people much greater say in local decisions and to encourage them to get involved in their communities. • negative press because of the implications that a lot of activities will rely on volunteers and that more can be done for free, or little money.
The Big Society & the Arts Jeremy Hunt, Cultural Secretary: “Building the culture of giving ... Philanthropy.... a cultural shift ...chimes with Cameron’s ideas on social responsibility ... draws on and enhances the culture of giving in this country...
The Big Society “the best theatre must be free of direct market forces”. (Peter Hall:12)
Questions • Peter Hall: “This book is very much of its moment: 1999”. And in 2011? How relevant are his arguments today? • Do we want/ need the arts? • Should we be prepared to pay for them? • Does innovation need tradition to support it?
“Subsidised theatre is a wonderful idea. At its best it can ignite noble aspiration. It can inform, entertain, elevate... ...But not when it is like this”. Quentin Letts, Daily Mail
