The stuff we do cannot exist on box-office alone. It is hugely labour-intensive and simply would not happen without state funding.
One wonders what he thinks happens to the money when government doesn't take it out of our pockets. Perhaps he is worried that if the people's wealth was spent by the people that they would prefer not to spend it on his enterprise. Hardly very commutarian of him really, is it?
I'm not going to try and join a serious debate with you because frankly you'd be happy as a pig in the proverbial if Rupert bloody Murdoch provided the entertainment to the masses lock, stock and barrel.
Mrs Umbongo and I go to Covent Garden and the NT quite a bit and we're very grateful for the taxpayers' "decision" to subsidise our pleasure. However, when I lived in the US, I also went to the opera and theatre and saw very much the same fare. Much of it was subsidised, not by taxpayers but by rich (and not so rich) individuals with - wait for it - their own money (although there are tax breaks available to donors).
I would add that much the same cultural garbage (cheered on by similar chatterati) is accessible in the US as is available through Arts Council (and other taxpayer) funding here. The moral there though is that just because you are good at making money (or choosing a wealthy family to be born into) your taste can still be corrupted by fashionable nostrums of what constitutes "art". But at least the money being thrown down the cultural drain is yours (or rather theirs) not mine.
HotGingerFan- great name.
The thing is, I don't see why the taxpayer should be forced to subsidise the arts.
I'm also not at all convinced that you can get "the masses" (as you describe them) to take up Shakespeare by simply making the tickets cheaper. Even if you could demonstrate it would be better for them than Murdoch's excellent Simpsons.
Doh for a muse of fire!
Umbongo- yes, being a billionaire doesn't necessarily make you immune from arts wibble.
But as you say, it's their money- NOT OURS.
"'The stuff we do cannot exist on box-office alone. It is hugely labour-intensive and simply would not happen without state funding. It would be twice as expensive for audiences, so far less accessible. We spend a very large proportion of our grant on subsidised seats. "
Wait a minute, it's not accessible to me anyway since I don't live in London. They could subsidise the seats by 100% and I still wouldn't be able to go.
So why are my taxes being used?
HotGingerFan,
why do you deserve the money more than the people who ACTUALY worked for it?
Can you justify your arrogance?
casino hotel stratosphere casino hotel stratosphere casino hotel stratosphere. casino deposit play casino deposit play casino deposit play.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
