Crime Cases Still Using Cassettes
Technology9 mins ago
Is This A Good Use Of £215,000?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I guess an Arts Council can fund whatever it considers art, that it wishes. We all know that there have been some weird definitions of art in the past. Although funding individual performers rather than establishments with expenses to pay, seems doubly weird. Can't performers access the welfare net anyway ?
What's less clear though is why an arts body has something called a coronavirus culture fund. One would have thought they had a budget for supporting the arts already, regardless of viruses.
What's less clear though is why an arts body has something called a coronavirus culture fund. One would have thought they had a budget for supporting the arts already, regardless of viruses.
The world of the Arts doesn’t consist solely of luvvies - it also employs thousands of people who take no direct part in producing art or performing - and everyone needs to earn a living - even luvvies. Whilst I do think the Arts must be supported - the country would be a poorer place without it - I can think of far worthier recipients than this man. Not the best decision.
It's lazy journalism to prod the outrage of the great British public by finding something that will stoke their ire with minimal effort, and this is another tiresome example.
Pick a subject on the fringes of entertainment with a garish image and you will have a rampaging mob in seconds.
The standard knee-jerk reaction, already posted on this thread, is to compare the money with a more 'deserving' cause, comparing something life-threatening with this frivolity is a usual winner.
But let's take a step back and think for a moment.
If we start discriminating against entertainment simply because it is something which causes an adverse reaction, where do we draw the line?
Stop subsidising opera because it is elitist? Or Shakespeare because it has no modern relevance?
That's not how art operates, nor should it be.
Yes there are plenty of deserving causes, so let's stop funding the BBC to make EastEnders, and send that money to a hospice ... as I say, where do you draw a reasonable line.
In a civilsed society, there should be funding for necessities, and for culture, which is necessary in its own way, even if not a life-saving way, but to simply deny something because you or I don't think it's valid or worthwhile is not how a rich and varied cultural word is going to survive.
I vote they stop making You've Been Framed because I think it is an appalling abuse of children.
But it's not just my opinion that matters, is it?
There are millions of art and culture projects that may or may not deserve funding and appreciation, picking one at random and getting all het up about it is simply an exercise in lazy pointless provocation.
Pick a subject on the fringes of entertainment with a garish image and you will have a rampaging mob in seconds.
The standard knee-jerk reaction, already posted on this thread, is to compare the money with a more 'deserving' cause, comparing something life-threatening with this frivolity is a usual winner.
But let's take a step back and think for a moment.
If we start discriminating against entertainment simply because it is something which causes an adverse reaction, where do we draw the line?
Stop subsidising opera because it is elitist? Or Shakespeare because it has no modern relevance?
That's not how art operates, nor should it be.
Yes there are plenty of deserving causes, so let's stop funding the BBC to make EastEnders, and send that money to a hospice ... as I say, where do you draw a reasonable line.
In a civilsed society, there should be funding for necessities, and for culture, which is necessary in its own way, even if not a life-saving way, but to simply deny something because you or I don't think it's valid or worthwhile is not how a rich and varied cultural word is going to survive.
I vote they stop making You've Been Framed because I think it is an appalling abuse of children.
But it's not just my opinion that matters, is it?
There are millions of art and culture projects that may or may not deserve funding and appreciation, picking one at random and getting all het up about it is simply an exercise in lazy pointless provocation.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank44 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles90 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles91 mins ago
News153 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.