From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: government and the arts
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:42:39 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster

In article <VANCE.92Apr14093141@kyoto.speech.sri.com>, vance@speech.sri.com (Vance Maverick) writes:
> In article <1992Apr13.160248.5422@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
> 
>    I certainly don't advocate impostion of the government's will. (See below)
>    The analogy with health care is the same as that with education:
>    these things must be able [available? Ed.] for all, whether they
>    can pay or not.  Education for the nation's industrial health,
>    health care for its physical health and the arts for its cultural health.
> 
> I guess I disagree with you about the purpose of education -- at
> least, I am very glad *I* was permitted, in the course of my
> education, to pursue interests not related to my country's industrial
> health!  And the notion of cultural health just begs the question of
> who gets to decide what constitutes culture.  [Didn't you leave out
> religion here?  Or do you maybe think like Matthew Arnold on this one?]
> 
OK. For industrial, which I agree was an unfortunate choice, substitute
intellectual. But an intellectually healthy society is much more likely to be
industrially healthy as well. By cultural health I suppose I mean, amongst
other things, quality of life, which is something that is quite easily
quantifiable, in terms of crime rates, rates of stress-related diseases and so
on. What's the argument about religion?

>    You are mistaking government support for government control. I
>    wholeheartedly encourage the former, but think the latter to be
>    intolerable.
> 
> OK, so how in practice will you provide support without control?
> Surely someone in the granting agency (to use US terminology) is
> judging "quality"?
> 
"Government control" I understand to be the state telling the artist what 
to produce and when. It is the sort of thing that happens when the state
decides that, say, Benjamin Britten's music is not acceptable, and so it will
not support any future production of Peter Grimes. Government support is what
happens when the state gives the money to a group of experts in the field, and
leaves it up to them to allocate the cash as they see fit. The funding body is
completely independent from government in its decision-making process. That is
state support without state control. 


>    [question about *what* culture to support -- point that opera
> 	is not everyone's culture]
> 
>    As above. The government must, and to a certain extent does (but
>    for how long?) support what is best called community arts.
> 
> Could you be a little more explicit about which are community arts and
> which are the other kind (and what the other kind is called)?  Seems
> to me the combine blandly represented by the phrase "The Arts" is in
> practice the art of a very particular community.
> 
By "community arts" I mean the traditional arts of a particular community. You
objected that opera was not the art-form of people in Brixton. I agree. But
they do have their own form of arts, which stands to that community very much
as "classical music" stands to the white European community of which I 
am a part. Community arts is, if you like a catch-phrase to remind us that
intellectual white middle-class males do not hold a monopoly on what constitute
"art".

>    I think that this ["community arts"] is as
>    important as its support for the great opera companies and theatres
>    in the UK.
> 
>    [...]
> 
>    but in Britain we have an institution called the BBC. It is funded
>    by television licences and government subsidy. It supports the
>    arts, and particularly music to an enormous extent (see my post of a
>    fortnight back)
> 
> Just out of curiosity -- which music?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
> believe it supports (1) standard "classical" music activity and (2)
> "modern", i.e. academic post-classical, composition etc. -- this is
> the "third programme" (no?), with its .02% of the listenership or
> whatever.  


That's not a fair ploy. You've run together two completely seperate answers of
mine. If I remember correctly (I do not have my last post in front of me) you
were saying that you didn't think it was possible to have a
government-supported broadcast service which supported the arts, however
narrowly or broadly you define that term. But to answer your question. Radio 3
does support what you suggest, and I am very glad that it does: without it this
country would be much the worse, particularly for those of us fighting a
rearguard action for classical music. But the BBC does not just consist of
Radio 3. There is also Radio 1, a rock station, Radio 2, an easy listening
station, Radio 4, a speech station, Radio 5, devoted to education and sport,
national stations for both Wales and Scotland, 30 or so local radio stations,
devoted to their local communities as well as 2 national television stations.
In amongst all this diversity, there is support for more types of music than
just classical and modern! 
Stephen
> 	Vance
> 
> [posting from the USA, by the way -- wasn't it obvious from my name?]
Your mail address included "Kyoto" I thought. I admit Vance would be a slightly
unusual name outside the US :-):-):-)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical