Funding for the Arts

[R1Geezer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...tertainment_and_arts/
If all these actors with squillions in the bank care so much about funding for the arts why don't they stump up some cash from their own not inconsiberable pockets? In these austere times surely even from their Ivory towers they can see that incoherant daubings by some art luvvie are low down the list of priorities.

[R1Geezer]

Dam "Funding" people "Funding"!

[Zeuhl]

I think you'll find the 'Arts Groups' in question are theatre related not 'daubings' related. That's why well known actors are involved.

I agree it's a difficult sell in times of austerity but worth remembering that the luvvies and the 'Media Industry' is up there with the Financial Sector and Manufacturing in terms of its value to the economy: theatre, film, tv, music, computer games etc

So maintaining funding for grass roots seems sensible.
.

[jackthehat]

I quite liked 'Funking for Jamaica'........

[R1Geezer]

fair enough Zeuhl, so why don't the rich ones pump a few quid in to help the guys at the bottom?

[Zeuhl]

Good point.

I think some do. I know they often they work with these groups for free or work for union minimum rates to make their crowd-pulling involvement possible. And they give time to mentoring, visiting uni/drama schools etc

Some of them are notoriously mean - my theory is that because the profession is so insecure and they've spent early years so broke, they are just neurotic about hanging on to it because "darling you never know when the work will just dry up".
.

[AB Editor]

Artists live in a very matey & exclusive world, even at the grassroots level. I know that galleries especially seem to be in the business of luvvie-ism - entirely based on who you know and who likes you (not necessarily your work).

As such it seems wrong to fund what is mostly another "old boys club" with public money.

And, to top it all off, most artists and film makers find the prescriptive nature of the arts council & British film council (since shut down) more than a little crass and pointless.

Spare Ed

[rov1100]

Only a small fraction of actors are said to be well off. I believe that up to 80% are out of work at any one time. The big names will always get work. Its no coincidence we are seeing more and more well known faces appearing in the soaps which were often looked down upon in the acting profession.

[Maydup]

I agree that actors are not often very wealthy people. Not in the comparison with their equivalents in business and financial sector. I also think your assumption R1Geezer, that the successful ones don't support the arts is probably wrong. Many of them do.

It is a matey world AB because people support each other, especially at grass roots levels where artists and performers are scratching a living and making their wages up in pubs and clubs. If one hears of a job they tell each other.

The biggest winners in theatre are the producers (Lloyd Webber and the like) who have piled money into the London theatres as well as set up bursaries for young peole. In visual art, there are a few wealthy ones too and they have agalleries now for young ones.

If truth be told, the arts is one of the most supportive sectors there is and its a myth that they don't put anything back. Not all but many do.

[youngmafbog]

I dont care, so long as I dont have to pay for it.

Afterall no one wants to save my local boozer, which is my enjoyment, in fact the total opposite - it is taxed into oblivion.