To think that £1 billion of tax payers money spent on the arts in this country really only serves a minority

[goodnessgracious]

AIBU to think that organisations such as The Royal Opera House (they receive 26 million a year) should be self funding and not relying on tax payers money.

I would have thought that arts funding should be to support up and coming arts or at least arts that will benefit all of society. I really don't understand why certain organisations receive so much help from tax payers?

Singsong
Commendable as the outreach programs are there is a big difference between taking the arts to people who would otherwise not have access to it and those people actually wanting to watch it.

ipaddy, thanks for the link I will check it out.

There isn't an arts organisation in existence in the UK that doesn't do a lot of outreach work.

60.8 million seats? I'm pretty sure that more seats were sold for arts productions (which comprises way more than the ROH and ballet). You mention 1.6 million people attending these matches - it's more like 14 million for theatre. As far as I remember, the Arts Council (I think it was), used to justify it's funding (now drastically cut) by citing attendance figures for live productions as being far greater than those for sporting events. We have world-class culture in this country (can't say the same for our footballers ) and that generates significant tourism too - it's not a case of simply "giving" millions of pounds to the arts, they act as an investment / spur in other areas of the economy.

Also, the arts is waaay more than just ballet and opera. what about...

music workshops for adults with learning difficulties?
dance classes for everyone from 2 year olds to girls doing Higher dance to OAPs doing ballet for keep fit?
art classes for kids?
outreach projects involving communities who otherwise wouldn't engage with the arts (the elderly, the isolated, those suffering from mental health issues which would prevent them setting foot in a theatre)?
local drama groups needing a venue?
learning to sing? or learning to felt? or make stuff out of clay?
I could go on...

crazy
I actually found the stats. Apparently 13 million seats were sold for subsidised theatre performances in 2011. .

I rarely go to opera or ballet (although I like both), but I disagree with the OP. Also, families using food banks are not the fault (or responsibility) of arts organisations. They are victim of an economic system where it is acceptable to pay less than a living wage, where we can have the news that the economy has reached its highest point since before the Banking crash but so many people living in poverty. Cutting the arts won't change this.

Rabbit my dad worked for many years in community arts projects, they were all subsidised snd none of them made any real, lasting difference to the lives of those they helped.

The plays they performed were watched by oaps and while I'm sure they were entertained it was a great deal of money uselessly spent teaching people performing arts, lighting, set design, when they would never get a job in any of these industries as they lacked practical experience outside the amateur sector and did not have the relevant qualifications.

So please can you justify your assertion that a civilised country requires subsidised ballet instead of an adaquate standard of living for 3.5 million children?

How are they supposed to grow up to appreciate the arts when they haven't even had enough to eat?

As I said really I don't have the solutions but it just sticks. But then I suppose in a capitalist country there will always be the haves and the have nots. Haves go to the ballet and have nots go to the food bank. Unfortunately I do think the up coming generation will make money their god and I can't blame them if they have seen their parents struggle.

The cheap seats at ROH sell out v. Quickly because there are a lot of people who want to go who can't afford 150quid!

There are always day tickets if there is something you really want to see but you have to pay with queueing time for them!

reallywitty

I agree with you. Please read my OP again. My point is why certain establishments get so much when it is only enjoyed by the minority of the country.

You know the golden age of the musical? All those Hollywood-produced, technicolour extravaganzas that people watched in the 40s and 50s?

It's not a coincidence that it was during the war years and rationing. People like to have a bit of escapism, a few hours of entertainment. As cardibach said, it's not the fault of arts organisations that families are having to rely on food banks.

Sorry OP, I just reread your OP.

I guess it's because places like the ROH are Britain's "flagship" venues.

Surely the reason more people attend football matches than ballet / opera is because every single town and city in the UK has a football team and a pitch with stands / or a stadium.

Even our rubbishy little town has a football stand with a few hundred seats. We only get ballet and opera when they tour and come to our theatre.

Coffee as I said, cutting arts subsidy wouldn't help children in poverty as it isn't the subsidy but the organisation of society which is affecting them. DO you really think closing the ROH would lift even one child out of poverty? I don't.
I also know lots of people who got jobs in professional theatre based on amateur experience - where else do you think young performers/technical staff get their experience? Also many who benefit from outreach training don't want to work professionally anyway - but they get real 'lasting benefit' from the enjoyment and community engagement of taking part.

And when opera/ballet tours they are often left with half empty theatres which is why more small companies don't set up. There is just not the interest for ballet/opera in the general population. Many people just don't like it.

And yet I bet everyone's local ballet classes are fit to burst with tinies in tutus...

I agree with all the smaller things but I am talking about 26m to ROH and I think the OP is too. How much food would even 1m buy?

Singsong

And for those posters laughing and sneering at people enjoying commercial theatre and popularised performance. Please don't forget ballet was never popular and only reached it's heyday when the mass media got involved with the Fonteyn and Nureyev story.

I don't think people don't like it, goodnessgracious I think they don't know it. As a PP said, people are unwilling to try new things. People like you dismissing it as elitist don't help - it makes people think it isn't for them. A friend of mine took some 8 year olds from a school in a deprived area to the opera once. They were a bit apprehensive but were absolutely spell bound. I think that if more people were encouraged to try it many of them would find they do like it. Also I hate football. We all have different tastes. Many small football teams have empty seats/spaces - they aren't all Man U!

I must admit that I have benefitted from heavily subsidized events at the ROH. I saw both a ballet and an opera which I would never have ordinarily been able to afford there, this was a scheme for families. Also been to workshops with the kids when they were young at ROH.

We do have a local opera which is funded largely by our borough. However as my DD has been in 3 productions at it has benefitted us in some way. I absolutely loved the performances as well - tickets there start at £15 and a lovely open air venue in a park.

This thread on top of the one about sport being more important/more fun for DCs as an extra curricular than music (which was 'a bit 1950s' apparently) is very depressing.

I understand where you are coming from OP, especially if you live rurally like me with basic services like buses and libraries all closing

However, I do support Arts funding, even if I'm not always 100% behind where it's going. The reasons I support it are (1) heritage, (2) tourism and, crucially, (3) financially. You might be surprised to learn (as I was) that arts finding tends to return £3 for every £1 invested. That's not including indirect returns like tourism either.

There is currently some Arts Council funding seeking to redress the geographical imbalance by investing in areas where people aren't engaging as much. More of this and I'd be very happy.

Cardibach I disagree, a billion pounds would lift a lot of children out of poverty. It is simply not true that such a large smount of money wouldn't make a difference.

And as I've said, the people attending do not really benefit, and it is nearly impossible to quantify any benefit they may get. Most of those attending the workshops my dad ran did so because they received an extra ten pounds a week in benefits, and it was easier than doing a sheet metalwork course. The only ones who pursued an arts career afterwards were those who already had relevant work experience or qualifications.

So if it doesn't really make a difference at grassroots level - and if you have any statistics proving otherwise I'd be glad to be wrong- then you are left with a huge sum of money being spent on minority interests, and as the op is asking, is this really justifiable?

My answer is that it isn't, raising a third of children in poverty is an unacceptable mortgage on our future, and shows that we have vastly more worthwhile things to spend money on.

In reply to

Lady I am fairly sure you can have a civilised society without subsidised arts.

someone wrote

Coffee - no you can't.

Is the reply saying that productions only as lavish as can be fundeded by ticket prices are so inferior as to be worthless, or at least not worth enough to make society civilised?