I wonder whether anyone else heard a fascinating interview on the Today Programme this morning (just before the 0700 news) about the impact of the Olympics on Arts Council funding.  An Arts Council spokesman was pointing out that one of the effects of the decision to hold the Olympics in London was that the Arts Council would suffer swingeing cuts over the next five years.

None of this is news, but the interview was interesting for a couple of reasons.  First, the spokesman, in discussing the sort of event which would no longer receive funding, spoke in terms of a street festival in Oxford featuring, inter alia, acrobats and fire sculpture; no mention of what might be termed the more serious arts (we all know that serious music is very much at the bottom of the Arts Council's list of priorities, and we all know that New Labour seems to regard sport as “of the people” while serious music is old, uncool and unmodern).

Second, the Arts Council spokesman argued that it supported the staging of the Olympics in London because it presented a great opportunity for the arts.  John Humphrys was dismissive; people would be coming from all over the world to London, obviously, but to watch people running and throwing things. What did the arts have to gain from this? (“Oh look, the beach volleyball doesn't start 'til three so we can fit in that lunchtime Lieder recital”)

The implications seem clear.  The London Olympics seem likely to be a financial disaster (£9 billion is only the start of it, as any observer of Government grands projets will be all too aware); the arts will take a disproportionate part of the hit; and within that serious music will fare even worse than now.  Far from being an opportunity for the arts, people at the Arts Council must know that the death-knell is sounding for state funding of the less fashionable arts – which means serious music - at least for the next few years.

Any thoughts?

Well, I think the writing was on the wall about the financial probity of the project when a Minister who "couldn't remember" being given a £600,000 house by the Head of State of a foreign country was put in charge of the project

Yes, Kitty. I feel sometimes that this is what the government wants: more manageable people. I am sorry to say, but I felt like that in America the most. I think it is less in Europe and in Canada. I am sorry that I say that. Having said that government here is spends much more on sport and sport arenas than on culture. Nevertheless, governments have to spend on culture too and private sector participates sometimes.
To talk about America, they are pioneers in involving private business and may be this is the way in which the world is moving: not to wait on the government, but be active yourself. This has its own benefits, at least one can rely on himself.

Beware what you wish for, including the olympics, the bill maybe rather large !

They should tax the people who will make money from it, the tv companies, the hotels,restaurants etc.

General education is there to produce workers & consumers, not thinkers.

Thinkers do nasty things like stop buying crap, refusing to pay tax because they disagree with the leadership and even refuse to fight in wars.

see thoreau for more info...

"you CAN fool enough of the people for long enough to get elected "- George W Bush

 

That's exactly what I meant, Kitty. As a US resident (I think?) you'll also be aware of the resurgence of creationism and other superstitions over there (and also over here, to a lesser extent). Originally I found this in a way inexplicable, in so far as more actual scientific research goes on in the US than anywhere else, and those scientists on whose work the US's technological and military preeminence is built certainly don't believe the world was created four thousand years ago, so why is the US government ancouraging people to think in that way... and then I read some of the writings of the neoconservative "guru" Leo Strauss, and realised that all of this cranky fundamentalism isn't actually believed in by the people in charge, it's a tool they use to generate ignorance, compliance and indeed fear in the general population. And obviously it works - just as it did in the Middle Ages.

Very interesting. There seems to be a spreading consensus that we are on the brink of a new "Dark Age" despite the availability of information technology.