Debate or spin?

Moogee been barking on the debate again…here his latest …

from Arts Council Debate Tim Rose said…

I find myself thinking the heretical thought that public funding of artists is a disease posing as a cure. I would like to see a 10 year moritorium on funding of artists. There is no clear criteria on who should get funding, remedy whether the public might agree with the way their money is being spent (sometimes a contemptuous disregard for public opinion from funding bodies). Also it creates a dependancy culture within the artistic community leading to an unwritten belief in the power of the state to ‘dictate culture’ and paradoxically dissempowering artists in their self belief. Art is not easy, every one is not an artist and there is no real reason the state should pay artists any more than an aromatherapist. I do believe in funding for galleries and exhibitions but artists should only be funded for specific commissions…….well I said it, got it off my chest and feel better…hey ho!

I find myself in sympathy with Tim Rose’s comments. Not because the practitioners in East Midlands are any better or worse than rest of U.K. We have our share of tickboxers and plain lame like anywhere but because it chimes with an unspoken assumption being aired about what the cuts will mean in reality. As money slowly seeps away from lottery and grants are cut it appears that the best and most honourable solution is to give the money to organisations and galleries that can share the benefits between a group of artists rather than one. An old-fashioned benevolence but one that far fairer than hefty wads of cash being hoovered up by the most able to fill forms or convince the ‘administrators’ in A.C.E.of their genius.

Finally has anyone noticed that this debate was launched just before the cuts were announced – pre- emptive spin to bury bad news comes to mind but maybe I just a tad cynical – our government would never do something like that would they?

Of course not….the very idea…

Gloria Cummins said….I believe the only principle should be has it got sustainability?

“sustainability” has become a buzz word here for the droves of eager beavers working on their app forms before the bar gets lowered again…and it like most buzz words means absolutely nothing at all….

If somebody can show me how any project can be described as having “sustainability” I’d like to know how…even projects I been involved in that appear to have legs are suddenly confronted with problems in location, funding and direction that can mean they can end at any point. There is no ‘given’ that talking up a projects long term prospects means that when push comes to shove any funding stream or sponsorship can be guaranteed. The private sector knows that when the money runs out the shutters come down and the same rules apply to the arts unless you happen to have a particularly lovely benefactor with deep pockets or…heresy..you have a business model that ‘makes money’…and few arts bodies would be able to think like that…