The national campaign for the arts (1 Viewer)

ann post · Oct 22, 2009

i joined this group on facebook a while back and combined with a few meetings i've been at through work its giving me the vibe that this is a pre emptive campaign on the next budget so that the arts workers can keep thier present employment.

nothing wrong with that.

what it makes me think about when i read thier releases, is this.

i'm not sure if art (now i dont mean the administrators, sound engineers, office staff and so forth who keep the boat afloat) should be funded by govt at all. its an ethical point to me that if somone is truly into what they are doing, they can find the money/means to do it, either by inspiring private sponsors with thier talents or saving up themselves and making it on thier own. to put a different discription on the same train of thought, is it a case of art imitating life, or art imitating the arts budget??

ann post · Oct 22, 2009

http://www.ncfa.ie/index.php/campaign-message/

ann post · Oct 22, 2009

related, somehow

taubstumm · Oct 22, 2009

ideally i wouldn't need to ask for money to do art stuff. maybe after the revolution, etc.

but, with things as they are, in the real world, right now, right here, arms-length state support for the arts makes practical sense.

i'd rather get money from the state than from microsoft or starbucks or whoever to do art crap.

though it's a pain in the hoop filling out the forms.

ann post · Oct 22, 2009

not i said:
i'd rather get money from the state than from microsoft or starbucks or whoever to do art crap.

is there really that much difference??

taubstumm · Oct 22, 2009

ann post said:
is there really that much difference??

yes

ann post · Oct 22, 2009

actually i'm drawing myself off the point here, i'd much rather ask you, besides necessity/reality/the time at hand, do you think its ethical for art to be funded?? and if it wasn't funded, how differently would you operate??

taubstumm · Oct 22, 2009

ann post said:
actually i'm drawing myself off the point here, i'd much rather ask you, besides necessity/reality/the time at hand, do you think its ethical for art to be funded?? and if it wasn't funded, how differently would you operate??

in the abstract, theoretical sense, it's probably not ethical for art to be funded, but try telling that to a concert orchestra full of hungry musicians. as for the methods of funding, i'd feel far more compromised taking money from a corporation than from a state, but maybe that says more about me than about art funding.

having said this, i've only got filthy art cash off the state once, so others probably have a greater level of experience and insight about this than i do.

Scientician 0.8 · Oct 22, 2009

Seems to be a significant "high art" bias to arts funding. Is this the case or just my perception? A kid who practices 10hrs a day playing metal in his bedroom has to get a job eventually, a kid who practices 10hrs a day playing classical violin can join an orchestra and bitch about the state.

ann post · Oct 22, 2009

not i said:
a concert orchestra full of hungry musicians.

uh, i wouldnt consider an orchestra to be artists at any stretch, usually they are more like a labour force, with a touring soloist, composer or local virtuoso taking central roles in the art, i.e 90% of an orchestra is an uncreative force, like the dude down your local playing sweet home alabama ad infinitum. i'd consider them like i consider the sound engineers, floor staff and so forth, they arent what i'm curious about at all.

maybe to hone it in better, a prick like cathal o'sharkey has claimed 1000's in grants over the years, wether his poems are good or shit is irrelevant, because the bottom line is that paper and pens are basically free if you hang out at the copier in any office for two hours.

The poet has in been in receipt of numerous state grants, the most valuable of which is probably the €258,000 project to extend his cottage at the foot of the Errigal mountains in Donegal.
Mr O Searcaigh donated his papers to Donegal County Council and, in return, can live in the cottage rent free for the rest of his life.
The cottage is also being extended for use as an artist's retreat. The project -- called Teach O Searcaigh -- is jointly funded by the Arts Council, Udaras na Gaeltachta and the local authority.
Other grants include a €2,000 from Foras na Gaeilge in the past three years and a €15,000 grant to his publisher to fund two books of poetry. The poet raised €50,000 for his Nepal charity by auctioning art works donated by friends such as Pauline Bewick and Seamus Heaney.
Mr O Searcaigh told the film-makers that his charity is not formally registered, which means he cannot avail of charitable tax exemptions.
Mr O Searcaigh avails of the artist's tax exemption.

he's an extreme example in fairness.

taubstumm · Oct 22, 2009

ann post said:
uh, i wouldnt consider an orchestra to be artists at any stretch, usually they are more like a labour force, with a touring soloist, composer or local virtuoso taking central roles in the art, i.e 90% of an orchestra is an uncreative force, like the dude down your local playing sweet home alabama ad infinitum. i'd consider them like i consider the sound engineers, floor staff and so forth, they arent what i'm curious about at all.

i know a few orchestra chimps who might disagree with you, but then the example was offerred somewhat in jest, so let's not get too carried away with it, eh?

ann post said:
maybe to hone it in better, a prick like cathal o'sharkey has claimed 1000's in grants over the years, wether his poems are good or shit is irrelevant, because the bottom line is that paper and pens are basically free if you hang out at the copier in any office for two hours.

he's an extreme example in fairness.

they made yeats a senator too. pricks!

ann post · Oct 22, 2009

not i said:
i know a few orchestra chimps who might disagree with you

why, did they write it?

taubstumm · Oct 22, 2009

ann post said:
why, did they write it?

should they get money only if they did?

Carlow Punks! · Oct 22, 2009

ann post said:
why, did they write it?

no, 'not i' just wrote that post

ann post · Oct 22, 2009

eh, lads, if you look at my first post, and then my reply to mr. not i, yyou might see that i consider them to be completely necessary to the facilitating the arts, and my question is more about wether creative people are being true to their art by being govt dependent or somehting.

Carlow Punks! · Oct 22, 2009

ann post said:
eh, lads, if you look at my first post, and then my reply to mr. not i, yyou might see that i consider them to be completely necessary to the facilitating the arts, and my question is more about wether creative people are being true to their art by being govt dependent or somehting.

like, very well made point, or something

washingcattle · Oct 22, 2009

ann post said:
eh, lads, if you look at my first post, and then my reply to mr. not i, yyou might see that i consider them to be completely necessary to the facilitating the arts, and my question is more about wether creative people are being true to their art by being govt dependent or somehting.

No way could you live of an average size arts council grant. most of what you're talking about here are miniscule amounts of money. the vast majority artists struggle. I know several artists who have recived large amounts of money from the arts council and they all have to keep showing up for work on monday so i have no idea where you get the idea of dependance from.

A very simple way of looking at the ethical question is this; you have a job and maybe a few things in your life which you care deeply about. if the government offered you a grant to fascilitate your job or whatever, ethicaly you can take the high road and not apply for it. if you have no ethical reason not to take the governments money then apply. you can't talk about ethics on such a grand scale. personal ethics are all that matters.

ann post · Oct 22, 2009

oh hai logic.

lympog · Oct 22, 2009

ann post said:
i'm not sure if art (now i dont mean the administrators, sound engineers, office staff and so forth who keep the boat afloat) should be funded by govt at all. its an ethical point to me that if somone is truly into what they are doing, they can find the money/means to do it, either by inspiring private sponsors with thier talents or saving up themselves and making it on thier own. to put a different discription on the same train of thought, is it a case of art imitating life, or art imitating the arts budget??

I'm sorry, but this only works to a point. The amount of money involved a lot of art/music/theatre/film shows can be massive.
I did it for enough years and although it was amazing fun and a great experience, the whole bullshit of constantly being penniless to the point where I was scrambling cash to afford bread is utter tosh.
People can go on about having "the will" to do something, but sometimes to do it right requires some sort of monetary input

ann post · Oct 22, 2009

so the message i'm getting here is that if funding is cut in the next budget (and of course it will be, sadly), never minding the effect it would have on the 'floor staff' around the country, its going to have a negative effect on what people can produce??? has anyone been making ends to see how they can work on a lesser budget in the next few years?? i'd say its time to get on that case.

The national campaign for the arts (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

21 Day Calendar

Similar threads

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Latest Activity

We value your privacy