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?

Lula, you're right, I'm wrong. It's 3 billion over five years, not annually! Mea culpa.

I dont think its right that the roh gets more subsidy than the all the arts companies in the entire westcountry get combined, especially as they have a large membership scheme and major corporate sponsors. Especially as they dont tour in the uk as much as in the past.

But I'm all for arts subsidies in general. Especially as they generate money. Many of the subsidised companies transfer productions to the commercial sector and so generate tax revenue.

The subsidised sector pay their actors, unlike the unsubsidised fringe where actors can end up working in a show for less than the cost of their travelcard and so being a part of the poverty statistics.

dances agree, was just about to post to say to the OP, what if one of your children happens to be very gifted at dance, singing, choreography etc.? Do you want there to be nothing for them to aspire to?

So called "elite" arts have more effect on our economy than just the tickets - my brother for example is an architect who specialised (until recent funding cuts) in building and renovating theatre, opera and gallery spaces - his whole practice benefits from lottery arts funding for theatres, opera houses and galleries in cities throughout the UK (take a look at how many cities have big and small theatres and opera houses - the result will surprise you). His practice wins funding bids, employs builders, secretaries, contractors, all generating jobs and income...

The net economic and social benefit of the arts is very high across the country. The ROH functions as the flagship which helps maintain the rest. For example, it also acts as the home to our best ballet and opera companies - dancers and singers come from around the world to be there. British ballet training at the various Royal Ballet schools and companies is renowned as one of the best in the world - in the best three or four ballet traditions in the world (easily up there with the best Russian schools, the New York City Ballet and so on). It's simply not true to say ballet and opera just have their roots elsewhere - there is a long tradition of British ballet training and choreography dating back to the late nineteenth century, for example. The ROH supports it's companies and the Royal Ballet School; they also support sister and other companies throughout the UK such as the Birmingham Royal Ballet, providing training and jobs for dancers, keeping the art going, keeping innovative choreographers going....

Set against your 26 million, take a moment to consider that more than £4bn a year, nearly £5bn, of public taxpayers' money, goes every year in capital grants and subsidies to privatised transport companies like Stagecoach, Railtrack etc. for them to cream off in profit to shareholders, and apply your own argument. Which would you rather pa your taxes for, 26 million to support art, maintain a historic building, support whole artistic industries and do education and outreach work at the ROH, or pay it to Railtrack's shareholders?

I need a like button again Archive!

Opera and ballet are huge parts of our cultural history. Most musicals owe a lot to the influence and innovation of opera composers. Mozart pioneered the singspiel approach that we would recognise as musical theatre, for example. It is impossible to look at any cultural matter on a country by country basis due to the cross fertilisation of ideas.

Whether or not they deserve funding is a different issue - the END, ROH etc do a lot of outreach work. It is not just about subsidised elite arts.

Oh and for those that are saying that ballet and opera are extremely niche interests that only the middle classes watch - one of the new performing arts GCSEs which has been very successful in recent years is Dance GCSE, and my local theatre is full to bursting with (cheaper education rate ticket) GCSE dance schools groups from all the local schools every time there is a ballet or contemporary dance company there.

So where does your argument end up, OP? It is exactly the same argument that has been used to remove government funding for universities and other higher education and jack up tuition fees - do you agree with that as well?

Should nothing of cultural value be subsidised, just exist on "ticket sales" alone? Libraries, historic houses, nature reserves? If they can't bring in enough paying punters to support themselves, what do they do?

So ballet and opera have mass appeal eh? I can't think that any north west towns above Liverpool or Manchester ever host any. That's a massive area.

YANBU

Perhaps they should, Floozey. Perhaps it is a bit discriminatory to deny opera and ballet to all those Northern towns and cities. Maybe a bit of subsidy would help?

AIBU to be depressed by a lot of posts in this thread?

So the subsidy is derisory, something like 16p pc pw, according to the link. And still the puritans come out, whingeing, chipping, believing there is some kind of invisible forcefield between them and this mysterious culture oh and yeah "that London" sees the lion's share anyway so it must be bad.

Just sick of this shit. The country spends billions on all kinds of pointless and unpopular crap yet anything that might turn out to be even be slightly intelligent or life-enhancing is begrudged, deemed "not for us" - this attitude that only exists here.

Give over.

Floozey, The Sands in Carlisle do from time to time. But in general, there are only a few places which have the capability of hosting professional opera and ballet. Smallish towns just wouldn't have a suitable venue. In any case, it's not that far to get into Manchester from say Blackburn. There are plenty of amateur groups in smaller places however.

I always wonder what people mean when they say if this money was reallocated it would solve all sorts of problems. How exactly would that work? Of course, if the ROH stopped the people who worked there would then be jobless.

Someone upthread said that amateur productions didn't do anything to change people's prospects. What about art as being an end in itself? I'm never going to be a professional musician but playing music is a massive part of my life. (And by the way, my teacher only came to my city because of the Opera company here, as well as the conductor of the Youth Orchestra and so on. There is a massive trickle down effect from these institutions.)

Every professional that I know started off in youth theatre (often subsidised) or youth music (ditto).

The Opera subsidy is a tax break for the relatively rich

The 222 billion allocated for spending on Social Protection is taxpayer-funded for the relatively poor. I think 1bn subsidy for the arts is pretty fair by comparison.

If this money were reallocated, for example to 'lifting children out of poverty'the only people who could afford to enjoy high culture would be the very rich.

I find it bizarre that people are arguing supposedly from an anti-elitist stance for an approach that would retrench precisely the cultural divides these same anti-elitists supposedly want to break down.

Not to mention that it's pretty condescending to assume that poor people are always going to want another cash handout rather than access to this country's cultural heritage.

shockinglybadteacher

In regard to you question whether it's all arts or just the big ones that I take issue with.

It's the fact that 7% of the total arts budget goes to the ROH. I think it should be spread more evenly. So I agree with arts funding but I don't think so much should be put into one area which has such a niche audience.

Crazyspaniel
the arts contribute £5.9 billion to the UK economy, and make up 0.4% of GDP on less than 0.1% of public spending.
But many of the arts that contribute the 5.9 billion do it without any public spending. So those figures do not show how much the arts that receive such huge sums from taxes contribute only the total contribution from all arts including those that aren't subsidised.
Hope that make sense, I am not the best at explaining things sorry!

archivefever
Should nothing of cultural value be subsidised, just exist on "ticket sales" alone?

My OP and subsequent posts explains I think that I am not against all arts fundings just such huge fundings for niche areas.

I've just put our postcode in Squoosh's link. It's less than £6 per person, per year here.

It's money well spent IMO.

Archivefever

What if one of your children happens to be very gifted at dance, singing, choreography etc.? Do you want there to be nothing for them to aspire to?

If they are great at dance choreography or singing there are plenty of non funded arts for them to aspire to. And on another note you could argue that there would be little point aspiring to work at the ROH if you are being trained in the UK because I think 99% are not trained in this country and fail to get contracts with those companies.

If they are great at dance choreography or singing there are plenty of non funded arts for them to aspire to. And on another note you could argue that there would be little point aspiring to work at the ROH if you are being trained in the UK because I think 99% are not trained in this country and fail to get contracts with those companies.

That's not true at all - the Royal Ballet school feeds to both Royal Ballet companies and has very strong links with the ROH. It's something in which we really excel - the Royal Ballet is one of the globally truly great companies.

Where are all these non-funded dance arts? I mean if your child turns out to love ballet and be exceptionally good at it, what would be the point in suggesting they do, I don't know, pop dancing for music videos, or becoming a Zumba teacher?

Do most people in this country benefit from the Royal Opera House?

there is no one thing most people benefit from.

Archivefever

the Royal Ballet school feeds to both Royal Ballet companies and has very strong links with the ROH.

I think you are wrong. You will find that the Royal Ballet School feeds in international talent late on in the school years (often in the last year or so) and if you actually look beyond the initial stats you'll find many of the Royal Ballet stars may claim to have been from the school but in reality perhaps attended the school for only a year or so having been trained abroad. In the main the principle dancers are a) not British born b) not been at the school for a any meaningful length of time.

I mean if your child turns out to love ballet and be exceptionally good at it, what would be the point in suggesting they do

I believe most UK talented ballet dancer end up working abroad.

In any case my argument is not where the dancers/singers come from it is merely why SO much funding gets given to an institution that only really serves a minority.

www.theartsdesk.com/dance/opinion-what-ballet-school

This makes for interesting reading especially the section on total number of jobs in the sector 289!! and how much it costs the tax payer to train hundreds of students in different ballet schools around the country and ultimately so many jobs going to overseas talent.

The argument about so many children doing ballet up and down the country really has no bearing on the reality of the profession.

I would say there is a vast difference between people enjoying doing ballet and people enjoying watching ballet.

There are companies that article has missed out, for example Ballet Theatre UK. Dd & I went to see their production of The Little Mermaid in Crewe earlier in the summer. The theatre was packed out.