This morning's short video has now been published. In it I argue that Labour has had a long history of funding the arts. Now we squabble over commercial sponsorship of it. It's time we realised that state funding of the arts is vital to our well-being.
The transcript is:
The state should be funding the arts in the UK.
There have been debates this summer about which organisations should or should not be funding and sponsoring major literary and other events. But I think that's the wrong argument to have.
Clement Attlee set up the Arts Council in 1945 in the UK. Why? Because he wanted everyone to have access to the arts.
Harold Wilson created the National Theatre.
Tony Blair, the Tate Modern. And he increased the funding for the arts in general.
And that's what we should be doing.
Everyone should have access to the arts. Because art done properly lets us see the world in a different way.
And that's what we need to do, if we are all to make progress in our lives and understand the complexity of the world we live in. The state should be funding that for everyone, whatever the medium is throughout the UK.
Let's stop the arguments.
State funding now, please, for the arts.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Why are the arts so important? I can recommend this short video “Do schools kill creativity? by Sir Ken Robinson”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY
Surely ending child poverty is more important?
There is no either / or. Both can be entirely afforded.
the old quote ‘man does not live by bread alone’ is so true. We need our thoughts and emotions stimulated and shown other possible ways of thinking and living in order to grow psychologically. The ability to put ourselves, for a time in the shoes of others, builds our empathy and humanity.
I worked in therapy for 20 years and I saw people can endure all sorts of illness, hurt and troubled pasts if they still have meaning and purpose in their lives. The arts can provide all sorts of examples for us to choose and adopt.
Thank you
It is not enough to feed impoverished children and give them homes (although admittedly that is an important first step). We also need to provide them with education and give them the means and opportunities participate in wider society. Part of that is the intellectual and inspiration that the arts and literature can deliver, whether that is art galleries or museums or theatres or concerts or libraries that are reasonably accessible to all. Why should disadvantaged children be intellectually impoverished?
Thank you
Thank you, Ian Stevenson, for your heartening comment (at 9.15am). And thank you, Richard, for raising this subject.
May I add to this not just ‘the arts’ but all manner of community and interest groups?
Not just via direct funding either but through the provision of places where they can meet, there is the obvious ‘community centre’ but support for things like village, school and church halls, sports pitches, allotments etc.
If it all comes from the same pot then the Little Snoring and District Model Railway Society members may well regard the well being of The Royal Opera House as important even if they have no interest in going themselves.
Agreed, very much
Listen to Professor Dame Nancy Rothwell, FRS, President and Vice-Chancellor of The University of Manchester, on ‘The World This Weekend’ from approximately 17.40 speaking on science and innovation. She has served as Co-Chair of the Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology.
At 19.00 she says “… without social sciences for example it’s very hard to implement some new innovations… changing things… that requires an understanding of human behaviours…”
So when Sunak has finished rubbishing arts and humanity degrees, perhaps he’d like to discuss what is and isn’t valuable with her. She was elected Fellow of the Royal Society in June 2004 and made Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire in June 2005 in recognition of her services to science. I wonder if he thinks her opinions are of merit?
Sorry. I seem to have taken the opportunity for a rant.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0020h97
Thanks
The arts have been a major input into the national economy. Worth billions of pounds in export revenue and domestic employment and of inestimable value in terms of Global cultural influence. You’d think that would weigh something in the small brain of the Tory, but it doesn’t seem to. 🙁