If you'd listen to the majority of the public the only thing that'd get subsidized would be football... and they make enough money as it is.

People's perceptions of what are 'minority interests' are often very interesting, with some people finding ballet, for example, less worthy of subsidy, than other, less U, activities. Many percieve subsidising minority interests such as opera, ballet or fine art as favouring the wealthier middle classes, essentially they regard public subsidy of fine art as a tax on the poor to help pay for a rich-person's hobby; when in fact quite the reverse is true.

Many arts, for example opera, are not, in general, finacially self sustaining - if opera houses don't recieve financial support then opera as an art form could not exist. Likewise art galleries - many of our finest galleries, some of the finest in the world, are free to enter; relying on donations and subsidy to enable everyone to visit them freely. If they weren't subsidised then they would have to charge for entry and far, far fewer would come to visit them - public access to fine art would dwindle, but it would be the poorer, less-U, people who would suffer most from this as fine art education is generally far better among the middle classes than the working classes, and without access to galleries and theatres people would never have the opportunity to improve there access to, and knowledge of, the arts.

We have public funding of schools, because there is a certain minimum standard of education everyone should have access to; there's public funding of health, because everyone needs a certain minimum standard of health care. In both cases it is the poor that need these most - without public subsidy they could not have an adequate level of health care or education. It's the same for the arts - we must have a certain minimum level of "art literacy", and the people who have least access to the arts are once again the poor; the arts have to be subsidised because if they weren't then only the most privilleged would have access to them.

A portion of my income is used to subsidise a sport I have no interest in - football. If the BBC or Sky buy the rights to a football game, that's being subsidised by the money I pay them; yet football dosn't need subsidy from any people other than those countless tens of thousands who buy £50 shirts and £500 season tickets. A football tax to prop up less populist sports and arts is perhaps in order.

Well, only four days ago I went to London on a school trip, a kind of fun thing before school starts again (tomorrow morning:upset. We went to the British Museum and it was amazing, it had great Asian and Eastern art/sculptures/writings and to loss that would be a shame, but we also saw the Tate Modern, basically a house of ponsy rubbish! Boo hoo, the Tate Modern burnt down, oh no, so sad #

"It wasn't me, it was the butterfly I tell you, the butterfly!"

It's definatly a good thing and so what if you never go to it, that's your problem. We pay subsedies for football (I never watch), for hospital when you could be with Bupa and buses when you use a car.

Subsedies good, Demona bad! Ha Ha!

---

by KieranFrost

Subsedies good, Demona bad! Ha Ha!

---

Though initially I assumed the Demona was advocating abolishing arts in favour of coal mines, council estates and whippets, the parts of her profile that say English Lit, Bristol & Cambridge make me suspect she's actually quite civilised

---

by Callum
make me suspect she's actually quite civilised

---

You obviously haven't met her

---

by Callum
People's perceptions of what are 'minority interests' are often very interesting, with some people finding ballet, for example, less worthy of subsidy, than other, less U, activities.

---

Opera and ballet are minority interests. That's not a value judgement, merely an observation of the relative number of people who go to them.

---

Many arts, for example opera, are not, in general, finacially self sustaining - if opera houses don't recieve financial support then opera as an art form could not exist.

---

Opera in this country could not exist. The art form would not die out - for instance opera has a far greater following in Germany and Italy. Few individuals in this country go to the opera, it is largely attended by corporate groups.

---

Though initially I assumed the Demona was advocating abolishing arts in favour of coal mines, council estates and whippets, the parts of her profile that say English Lit, Bristol & Cambridge make me suspect she's actually quite civilised

---

*Demona clubs Callum around the head and grunts a bit*

Art is an essential part of life. Whether we find it in television, film, opera or the Tate Modern isn't really the point, the fact is we all need it for the quality of life we all expect. Further, I would suggest that different art forms feed off each other. You may not be big on modern art, but your favourite musician may well be, and much of their music may be inspired by it.

My point is that for a healthy culture we need diverse art forms. For this we need to subsidise those which are not self-sustaining, for the good of the whole. So, yes, I am all for art being subsidised by the state. The alternative of returning to a patron system seems far more barbaric.

And for the record, buses are not subsidised (thanks to Maggie), and nor is football. You could argue that the BBC buying rights to show football would be a subsidy, but then you would also have to argue that the BBC showing soaps is a drugs subsidy (cf a certain ex-Eastender, and a few others no doubt). No one is forced to watch TV, or to have Sky, so how that money you spend is redistributed can hardly be called a subsidy.

And Callum, what's with 'less-U'? Call me dumb but I couldn't figure out what you meant by it.

---

by Jayjay
And for the record, buses are not subsidised (thanks to Maggie), and nor is football.

---

I'm puzzled by your comment that buses aren't subsidised, are you just distinguishing between central subsidy and local govt subsidy?

There may not be direct subsidy of football, but there is a lot of indirect subsidy of it - for example, though much of the cost of, say, policing a large football match, is picked up by the teams, the indirect cost of it (particularly with lower-league teams, which are generally very economically inefficient), is borne by the tax payer and local businesses; granted there is also a lot of direct and indirect income from football - both centrally and locally, but that is generally quite focused into narrow areas.

Also the BBC has repeatedly broken it's remit to maximise diversity of terrestrial TV by bidding against ITV for shows (not just football) and even showing the same programmes as ITV.

---

And Callum, what's with 'less-U'? Call me dumb but I couldn't figure out what you meant by it.

---

Apologies for employing an unclear convention, U and non-U are generally used to denote characteristic distinctions between upper and non-upper class behaviour, interests and liguistics.

---

by KieranFrost

"It wasn't me, it was the butterfly I tell you, the butterfly!"

---

yes we need to subsidise art, even if you don't like it or think so art is very important, i myself can not live without it!

---

by Jayjay
My point is that for a healthy culture we need diverse art forms. For this we need to subsidise those which are not self-sustaining, for the good of the whole. So, yes, I am all for art being subsidised by the state. The alternative of returning to a patron system seems far more barbaric.

---

Although that is the system under which most of the works which require subsidy were created...

---

by Callum
We have public funding of schools, because there is a certain minimum standard of education everyone should have access to; there's public funding of health, because everyone needs a certain minimum standard of health care. In both cases it is the poor that need these most - without public subsidy they could not have an adequate level of health care or education. It's the same for the arts - we must have a certain minimum level of "art literacy",

---

'Must'? Actually, I would place 'art literacy' way, way behind health and general education on the list of priorities, and personally, I've got through life okay without ever having been to the opera, whereas I suspect it would be quite different had I not had access to education.

---

and the people who have least access to the arts are once again the poor; the arts have to be subsidised because if they weren't then only the most privilleged would have access to them.

---

But the reason why certain arts require public subsidy is not that people don't have access, they do. It is that people don't want to make use of that access in the numbers needed to support them. Making entry to art galleries free certainly encourages people to go, but if there was a small fee, the only people whose access would thereby be cut off would be those unable to afford to travel to the gallery in the first place.