“There’s something deeply amusing about egalitarian snobbery and its assorted conceits. The functions of the welfare state apparently include saving unprofitable drama productions from a disinterested public. Mere commercial forces and popular appetite must not impede work of such tremendous cultural importance that no bugger wants to see it. There’s an inescapable arrogance in the assumption that a given artistic or theatrical effort should somehow circumvent the preferences of its supposed audience and be maintained indefinitely, at public expense, despite audience disinterest or outright disapproval. And when that same disinterested public forks out its cash voluntarily for something it wants to see, this is something to be sneered at and blamed on former Prime Ministers.”
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayApril 17th, 2009 |
 13 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
A wonderful quotation.
I would like it still better if Thompson didn’t misuse the word “disinterest” three times.
The trivial final straw for me was the plan to provide free theatre tickets to under 26s. The minister announcing it all but apologized that it was only a few million. All the tax I will likely ever pay, plus everything my wife will pay, and probably all the tax my kids will ever contribute, has gone on a plan to help young people see actors.
@Clovis – his use of disinterest is excessive, but perfectly cromulent; most modern dictionaries reflects its use as meaning either impartial, or lacking interest in a thing (i.e. it covers the earlier meanings of both disinterested and uninterested)
The Republicans are much better about not funding shi* art (and art in general) than Democrats are in the US.
I guess it comes with the territory of being the party of cultural populism and economic elitism, as opposed to the economic populism and cultural elitism of the Democratic party.
The desire of left-leaning organisations to get young people in to theatres is less to do with promoting the arts and more to do with the fact the plays will be full of socialist diatribes and “class issues”
Getting impressionable youngsters watching someone complaining about Thatcherism, years after she has retired, and the need for working class solidarity is seen as a good thing. Never can get too much of anti-capitalism rants from unshaved actors on sets of squalid bedsits.
Years ago I remember a left-wing ‘newspaper’ in Sheffield complaining about down-trodden workers going to see “Billiards” at the Crucible Theatre. What the working classes really wanted, screamed the rag, was more plays about the class struggle.
Unfortunately, what those workers wanted was to enjoy seeing good Snooker. For them, the revolution could wait while Higgins beat Spencer.
I have often wondered (but never enough to do anything to find out) whether it is pure accident that the Conservatives have Frederick Forsyth (who’s books are popular)(Oh, alright, and Jeffrey Archer, ditto) while Labour had Harold Pinter (who’s books are only read because they are set texts).
Some years ago I was told that Communist Hungary had no TV on a fixed night (Monday?) each week to encourage people to go out to the Theatre. Can anyone here confirm that, and let me know how well it worked? I can’t help but feel it did more to encourage conversation at home than visits to the theatre.
Reminds me of this piece(Link) about Vaughan Williams by Stephen Pollard about how the State funding disconnected the giver from the receiver and put the whim of a clique in charge.
For music, so it is for schools, housing, art…life.
There are plenty of “difficult” right wing writers and plenty of popular left wing ones. If you extend the area from novels then think Hollywood actors. Popular ones are frequently left wing.
I think you have a point about the Set Texts though.
If plays are interesting or amusing the audience will appear. If they are tedious, boring and all about subjects such as deprivation, poverty and the real world they will fold as they are crap. Basically the government yet again wants to distort the market. But even a free ticket wouldn’t induce me to go to a theatre to sit through 3 hours of utter bolocks.
The Pentagon loves spending taxpayers money on Gay Bombs, Goat-staring research, white elephant technology which does not work, and huge Pork programs.
So, the Pentagon in fact has much in common with state subsidised theatre; both produce heaps of crap at the public’s expense.
The difference being that the crappy theatres don’t waste trillions and cripple the taxpayer o the extent the Spentagon does.
Fair enough, Regulus, but at least Pentagon spending does occasionally result in something usable, if grossly overpriced. Moreover, national defense is one of the few proper functions of the federal government. You can’t say that about arts funding and keep a straight face.
State sponsored art should be seen as a failure of education.
At a music education conference friend pointed out that a fraction of Covent Garden subsidy would teach every child a love of music e.g. Kodaly method and then no subsidy would be required – the audience for opera would be large enough. The reaction from the establishment was horror.
Lefties love art subsidies because they are crap artists and actors who don’t want to have to get a real job.
But that doesn’t produce an audience for the crap.
So schools and colleges require attendance and government subsidizes that too…by leftie teachers unions.
Oh, I long for the days of basilica building indulgence sales, which were voluntary. Taxation isn’t voluntary and there’s a gun to your head. And there’s no time off in purgatory. LOL
Sometimes there is a role for the subsidy of unpopular art – but it should be done voluntarily (by people who see what most people do not see in a work), not by taxation.
For example there was plenty of modern art in Britain before government subsidies started in the 1940’s.
British Conservatives (at least the leadership in London) do not seem to “get it” (about this question – or much else).
As for American Republicans:
It is the normal divide – between the “unrelistic extremists” and the “realistic pragmatic people who have made peace with modern politics” (so beloved by David Frum and other neocon types).
Forget that “the realistic” people lost the Congress for the Republicans in 2006 and that “compassionate conservativism” is the wild spending (and compromises over things like the “affordable housing policy” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to economic collapse and the comming into office of Barack Obama.
That is where the “middle of the road” policy must lead – as was explained by Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek long ago.
Unless we hold to our principles the left win automatically.
But principles are things that creatures like David Frum do not understand.