Letting Scotland soar
A question. In fact, several questions. Do you support the arts? Do you believe they need and merit public support?
That means public money.
Do you believe they should receive a larger or smaller proportion of public funding? Your honest answer, please.
Does your answer change if you are reminded that public spending levels are about to be squeezed by comparison with the largesse of recent years?
Would your answer change if you could be persuaded that the arts can contribute significantly to Scotland鈥檚 wider economy? That they can enhance growth?
These questions arise for me because I am chairing a summit on Scotland鈥檚 cultural strategy in Edinburgh.
The background is the plan to .
Legislation will shortly go through Holyrood with the new body due to take charge next year. It will effectively subsume the present roles of the Arts Council and Scottish Screen - but is charged with much more.
'Flabby tolerance'
For me, the snag is that structural reorganisation can frequently give the appearance of fervent activity while little changes in practice.
To be frank, the stated aims of Creative Scotland look rather like the sort of thing any arts organisation should aready be doing.
At the conference, Culture Minister Linda Fabiani spoke well about the aims: fostering excellence; building partnerships; ensuring autonomy for Creative Scotland on artistic matters, allowing the arts, as she put it, 鈥渢o soar鈥.
But John Knell of Intelligence Agency reminded us of what can happen to those who soar rather too close to the sun, without adequate planning and preparation.
He spoke frankly of the need for Scotland鈥檚 cultural sector to challenge its own presumptions, to face the issue of competition for resources, to prepare responses to the sceptics, to disown 鈥渁 flabby tolerance of mediocrity鈥.
By all means, let Scotland soar. But let鈥檚 be clear where we鈥檙e going - and how.
And let鈥檚 try to take the people with us.
I'm 
Comments
I support arts funding at significant levels, but not quangos, nor jobs for politicos, banks of administrators and the self-promoting
Good to hear that someone sensible is at the helm! My recommendation would be to desist from giving too much or indeed, anything to Scottish Opera. They are a high-brow lot who consistently look down upon us poor ignorant folks. They gasp in horror when told that you like Puccini. "No no", they cry. "You must listen to Egbert Von Snivelstein's new opera in Croatian. Entrance fee, 拢50.00 plus a free tour of Park Circus! The arts should be for the people and not just for the chattering classes of Hillhead. Give the public what they like and the cash will roll in. Sure, there has to be some 'avant garde' stuff but not to the exclusion of all else. If this makes me sound a boor then fine, I'm in good company ie., the majority of Scots. (rant over)
Well, let's start with a Definition. Before I say whether or not I support something, tell me what it is that my cash is going to support ?
I know what I don't support and that is the same weel-kent self-perpetuating faces from the McChattering Classes (to borrow a phrase) telling me how my cultural life is enriched by "Scottish" Opera, "Scottish" Ballet, "Scottish" whatever.
The bottom line is that there are still kids in Scotland living in Poverty in the 21st Century. Our roads are like a third world country. We have no decent public transport. We are (still just) an oil-producing nation and have the most expensive petrol in the world. Our Health Service needs Billions. Our education system, of which we were once so proud is a mess.
Forget "The Arts". Let them stand on their own two feet. Give the People of Scotland a decent life and let us pay for "The Arts" voluntarily IF WE WISH TO.
As for Would I change my mind if it could be shown that "The Arts" contribute to the economy...I'll let you know when somebody tells me why Scotland knocked back a Billion Notes Business Investment in the North East. I'm sure that Aberdeen Council's rake-off from that would have kept The Lemon Tree open for a few years.
Don't get me wrong, there are places where public subsidy should go. For the benefit of the Public.
What did the Ballet, the opera, the "art outreach programmes" ever do for me ?
The Yartz comes way down the list of what I voted for, Ms Fabiani.
Brian like many of other folk in Scotland i feel that the arts and culture are tied together.
However to us ordinary tax payers the "arts"also have to be value for money too often the perception that Joe public gets is that theatre companies seem to expect limitless funding .
The function of art is not to prop up the provider but to enhance the life of the consumer. Any funding must based on whether the product can be marketed, delivered and enjoyed and not whether it enables artists (in all their forms) to be 'cutting edge'.
In response to No.2, have you ever been to Scottish Opera? When I was a student, and indeed for some time afterwards, when my means were not exactly extravagant, the very reasonable ticket prices at SO meant that I was still able to see and hear great art. I seem to remember paying about a fiver to see a fantastic Rheingold, and a similar price for many other pieces I would otherwise have only known through vastly more expensive CDs. My appreciation of this art form, and my artistic appreciation in general, would have been significantly poorer had it not been for the public subsidy that allowed this institution to provide seats at a price that even I could afford.
Do the arts make or take money? I suspect that may be the bottom line for a goodly number, but a) 'taking children out of poverty' is not neatly served by upping the level of financial support - helping children reach their full potential and stopping telling them 'it's no for the likes o us' just might turn Scotland into a more truly creative country, and thus a more entreprenurial one. I.e., one where we actually make things rather than assembling the products of others.
b) Funny how every other country in Europe and beyond manages to have national theatre, opera and dance companies, not a few of international standing, whilst in Scotland it's .. ay, you've guessed ' no for the likes o us'. Of course that costs money, and of course its disbursement has to be monitored, but if we are a grown up country at last, isn't it time we accepted that finding ways of financially supporting 'the arts' at all levels is simply something a grown-up country does?
The arts in general are absolutely essential to the well-being and emotional health of any individual. Many EU member states recognise this and pay and respect artists accordingly, in fact I think in Germany they are considered to be public servants. I would be willing to bet that if everyone had access to one hour a week of unadulterated, creative self-expression, there would be a corresponding increase in economic productivity and a fall in the number of people suffering from mental health issues. Yet it is generally the case that the arts comes second to sport when community resources are distributed, and somewhere near the bottom as far as national priorities are concerned. The arts stop people from being bored, and that is a vital step in preventing crime, promoting health, innovation and confidence. Please let Creative Scotland recognise this!
Why should middle class pursuits be funded by the tax payer. The Arts are no more entitled to Public funding than Football or Horse Racing.
Was going to post a comment but Ewen said it far better than I could!
Agreed with your 1st comment couldnt be put any better.
Lets look at everything on merit and how interested the public would be.
I like most am not interested in Opera, let it do its own thing with its own money.
I would like to see Arts events like 'Battle of the Bands' to promote Scotland's upcoming youth. Just look at the amount of kids out on Skateboards etc. doing stunts that the best Ballet stars couldnt dream of, lets get them involved showing off their skills in an art forum, they are the future talent of Scotland I think the Political words are 'Social Inclusion'
One of the best events I saw was a chainsaw art competition in Canada, OK its a bit redneck but it was a lot of fun and it paid for itself by auctioning off the Art produced. I know a bit off track but to me thats what arts is supposed to be adout. Make it fun and it wont need our cash it will generate its own.
I like the sound of 'Creative Scotland', but for goodness sake, let's drag 'the arts' in Scotland off it's phony pedestal.
Scotland's real creative wealth lies in the hundreds of talented and motivated young designers it produces every year - creative people destined to work abroad (where Scots talent and training is highly valued) or end up in second-rate jobs at home.
These are the people that design the new products, the new images, the new buildings, the new fashions - the new ideas, and it these people who we will need to help develop Scotland's manufacturing and cultural future.
They don't need funding but rather would contribute way beyond their cost. All they need is recognition and encouragement - now can 'Creative Scotland' do that?
The arts in scotland hmm?
Certainly the world would be a dull place without them. I believe although Im not as informed as our culture minister im sure, that their should be some support on grass roots levels to keep young artists moving up through the ranks. So that in later years they can and do contribute to the large scale festivals that are held throughout scotland bringing increased tourism, raising scotlands international profile and doing all sorts of good for the nation not to mention the economical benefits.
The international profile of scotland was hugely increased with the acclaimed Black watch play and the benefits of the Edinburgh Festival, military tattoo, world highland games championships, T in the Park etc speak volumes and should not only happen but should be encouraged to flourish further bringing more and more people to our shores.
I dont believe we should squander money on interestingly shaped fruit in a special glass beaker but we should support Arts that will endevour to put something tangible back into the communities that support them whether that be economic, social, or increasing scotlands name in the world.
We all know that the budget squeeze has been caused by numerous factors south of the border.
Between the 2012 Olympics swallowing up vast amounts of lottery cash, various wars, all major construction projects in and around London costing more than the entire Scottish budget, and a Labour party at Westminster determined to make an example of Scotland (how dare they not vote for Labour), it's hardly surprising the money is more limited this year.
Let's also remember that the "culture" thing, while I enjoy the odd show here and there, tends to be very narrow in its variety, and expensive (this is likely to reduce the attendance as the house price "fiasco" takes it toll).
I've yet to see a show which demonstrates Scottish culture.
The arts should be value for money? How on earth can you even begin to define that? I don't for one minute believe that anyone expects limitless funding. Most art scrapes by on the funding it receives, which it often has to fight tooth and nail for. The well-publicised examples of spending, such as Scottish Opera's, and are by far an exception.
Why should we expect the arts to contribute to growth? Surely a good sign of a vibrant and successful country is the arts and culture it produces i.e. growth produces culture and not the other way around. Without funding we would have nothing but commercial TV (no 大象传媒) and corporate mutliplexes for entertainment. I shudder to think of such a shallow and dull possibility.
Lastly, if we're going to mention having an opt-in system for where our tax goes, then i opt for not spending mine killing people in foreign lands.
Artistic merit should, of course, be supported but the article expressed it well when talking about the surplus of flabby mediocrity that heavily populates the sector in Scotland and the wider UK.
Does the Arts really contribute to tourism inflow directly ? I'd say it is difficult to tell that it does or otherwise. Is the Scottish Arts the reason for the majority of our tourism inflow or is it a pleasant diversion from the main reason that the tourists come-mild weather,ancestry, and outdoor pursuits like golf, hill-walking and mountain-biking?
There's no harm in testing the robustness of the Arts to market disciplines and the Fringe is one place where it should happen.
One argument could be: invest enough in tackling deprivation and fragmentation and the result is a robust culture.
But art is one such investment - i.e. it has a positive impact on society. This is true both on the micro level, that is, art as therapy or as an outlet for the excluded, and on the macro level, where we derive pride from 'our' culture.
But the 'our' is significant. Ownership is key. This doesn't need to mean we only produce lowest common denominator art though. I'm sure Florentines were proud of Botticelli, whether they thought he was any good or not.
I support funding for the arts--and I am a keen audience member. On the other hand, it's been over 30 years since I have been to school but I still support funding for education. Of course there is a debate to be had about levels of funding and how well it is used, but I would like to think we recognise the value of government investment in the arts.
And for those who say it is investment which never touches their lives: I first saw Tilda Swinton (2008 Academy Award Winner, Best Supporting Actress) at the start of her career in a play at the publically funded Traverse Theatre, Edinburgh; and JK Rowling launched her writing career with a grant from the Scottish Arts Council.
Subsidised jobs are a thing of the past, what was good enough for steelworkers and miners should be good enough for sculptors and violinists. If their "art" doesnt pay enough then they should go out and get a proper job.
More money for the arts, please - but on condition that the money is spent on artistic endeavour rather than administration.
Why, for example, does every professional theatre need an army of people to fill out funding forms? Shouldn't Creative Scotland either a) make the application process simpler or b) employ people themselves to work directly with theatre administrators, meaning maybe 5 people employed by Creative Scotland rather than 5 for each arts venue?
I support funding the arts, and ensuring better use of resources. Some points:
Research shows approximately 70% of major change programmes fail to deliver the intended benefits. Main failure causes are poor internal communication and a failure to address issues of organisational culture. So by all means reform, but do it intelligently.
Get a clear strategic focus: as my granny used to say,if you don't know where you are going, any bus will do. There needs to be both clarity and agreement on what should be funded and why....and we can't afford to do everything.
Make sure the new organisation focuses on a few key priorities, and is held to account, not for how it spent the money, but what it delivered for the arts and the community of Scotland.
Yes, the arts have many benefits for society. Their benefits will be greater the more the people participate. Anunderlying theme has to be enhancing engagement.
Is that enough to be getting on with?
A Charity Commissioner in England once said that he wouldn't support a charity that didn't invest in a proper level of administration. A properly administered charity is one that is probably spending donations wisely.
And so with the arts; be they in Scotland or anywhere.
Isn't it great that the people who like to make disparaging remarks about public money being spent on the arts will never get within a mile of actually making any funding decisions...
Everyone should have the chance to see live performances of, for example, The Merchant of Venice, Madame Butterfly, Swan Lake, Rachmaninov 2, or see a Rembrandt. After that, it's up to them. But the opportunity should be publicly funded.
But as #2 said, that's far too populist for the self-styled arts elite. I would tell these poseurs to get lost at once, but not so politely. I object to funding nonsensical "cutting edge" tripe, by attention-seeking talentless bores who set out to shock or offend, when they discover they can't do anything worthwhile. The Emperor's New Clothes, eh?
If you look at most theatres, they stand empty for a lot of the time. If these were schools they would be closed.
Much better use should be made of these facilities. A lot more shows could be staged, and so bring in a much more regular audience, rather than just putting on large, expensive, classic productions, which only a minority of the population would ever think to go to.
Outdoor theatres are another thing, and although I agree they cannot be used in the winter, they also remain unused throughout most of the summer.
What do all the staff do between shows? I mean the people who work in the theatre, not the people on the stage. No doubt a lot of them will be on temporary, low-paid contracts.
Greater utilisation of theatres would be of greater use to the economy, and to the people who work in them.
The arts are not only an essential aspect of civilisation, but an opportunity for people to be creative rather than destructive. As far as I am concerned, everyone in Scotland should have the chance to express themselves creatively - and in my opinion this would help to solve some of the social problems that other contributors to this debate have mentioned.
The arts should be supported at all levels and in many different genres, not just at the level of opera and Old Master art, although these are important too as they give people something to aspire to. There should be opportunities for everyone in the country to give something to the arts and to take something from them too.
And who's at this cultural summit - at 拢150 a head or so, my guess is there's limited amount of artists or representatives from smaller organisations! How a public organisation can charge for such an event is symtomatic of the bureaucrats approach to culture - that people's culture is there to be stage managed...
There's much emphasis at the moment on trying to get more arts orgs to raise more from private sources - which then distorts the art. Public funding is there to safeguard artistic freedoms...
I run an arts night in Scotland and I've never even hoped to get a penny out of the Arts Council or any other body, because A)the money simply isn't there and B)these quangos are run by self-interested cliques that don't want to help out anything except their own vested interests.
If you want to do a 'modern lighting installation', guarenteed you'll get some money, probably a lot. Want to make a movie, write a book, record music that deeply reflects life in Scotland? Those aren't London based ideas, so tough. Also the same council who rejected funding Irvine Welsh's Ecstacy for not being Scottish enough...
Perhaps if the quangos had some real money, real artistic knowledge and weren't run by London media types with no grasp on Scottish culture, then artists would feel more secure here. Perhaps if organisations like the 大象传媒 stopped repressing Scottish artistic voices and belittling our people then artists might feel more eager to work here. Perhaps if there was some sort of thinking in the arts strategy, there might actually be some art.
I do think the Arts of all kinds should be publicly assisted.
However - IF an organisation receives funds from the public purse - then it should not be able to charge prices that people on minimum wage or pension would be unlikely to be able to afford.
If tickets cost more than 10 or 20 pounds then all we are doing is subsidising the already rich(-ish).
The idea of people on more than 100,000 being taxed at a high % (60-90???) level - BUT being able to offset that with donations to charitable causes is an idea worth exploring once there is full fiscal control in Scotland.
Final thought - there do seem to be more and more 'one-off' events - scenic lighting of mountains and forests that attract large amounts of funds for what seem IMO to be a bit of a 'fad'.
Soaring might be a wee bit ambitious,Brian,I'd settle for learning to fly first.I'm with 3 for at least the first few sentences in defining what it is you're wanting to do with what resources.Do you want to support as many arts and cultural organisations as there are and end up giving each tuppence ha'penny or focus on the less popular and appear elitist?You ask us to state larger or smaller but I don't know what's spent now.
I've visited several kulturhaus in Scandinavia which acted as the local cinema as well as the theatre,art gallery,bookshop for relatively small populations.On the one hand I'd love to see such a thing down my way as well as around the Highlands but wonder if people would really go for 40 to 50% local and national income taxes,and other assorted property and consumption taxes to pay for these kind of things.
Once you start to define the questions needing asked,the enormity of the answers to be given can swamp the process.How do you choose to support architecture,visual arts,craft/design,film,literature,music,drama fairly with what will inevitably be limited resources?Good Luck,Brian!
As a student who is considering embarking on a career as a musician (hopefully involving both performance and education) I obviously have a vested interest in this. I hope people can take look at these views from the optimistic viewpoint with which they are written, rather than allowing cynicism to be the major factor in this debate.
I would say that arts funding should be similar to the funding the 大象传媒 traditionally has had, given long-term security but with stated aims - what better motto for arts in our country than "to inform, educate and entertain". Is it a conincidence that (in my opinion), one of the best orchestras in the country in terms of programming, education, and halping develop young Scottish talent is the 大象传媒SSO. It should be recognised that cultural institutions and companies play a huge role in the life of our country and should be funded to sufficient levels and with sufficient security in funding to allow them to be daring and imaginative, providing international quality productions, while at the same time trying to harness and encourage the best talent Scotland has to offer. This can't be done if companies have to fight for their survival every three years. In terms of education, projects such as "Sistema Scotland" should be encouraged and developed, and successful community projects for educating children in the arts should be promoted, as often they do a far better job than national companies at getting young people involved. At the same time our national companies should be made to provide as close to free access for children and young people as possible, not to watered down, "accesible" productions, but to regular performances of mainstream and contemporary works. We should be seeking to allow young people to explore art and culture for themselves while they still have the interest, without trying to patronise them and tell them what we think they can understand. This new body should be seen as an opportunity to make Scotland a country seen throughout the world as a cultural beacon, rather than an excuse to save money for the government. Let's hope that by the time I'm making a career in the field this has started to take place.
Brian, I think the arts require generous public funding if they are to exist at all. Sure, it may sometimes appear to be a waste of money when you see poor productions, but writers, artists, and composers need time and space to learn their craft, and the freedom to make mistakes and come up with the odd dud is essential. Some 'flabby mediocrity' is inevitable. In this respect it is rather like funding for pure scientific research where scientists are given the freedom to pursue their own interests. Sometimes this leads to dead ends. Sometimes, though, to significant discoveries and breakthroughs.
There seems to be a lot of inaccurate and unfair criticism of Scottish Opera. Over the past few years I have seen several excellent productions in their Essential Scottish Opera series. These were in various locations about the North West Highlands and on every occasion were full of locals enjoying top class music, not the "McChattering classes", whoever they are. For example, last year they put on Cinderella by Rossini. I am not an opera expert but I don't think this is an obscure or difficult work inaccessible to most people. I can't remember any of Oscar Von Snegelstein'sworks being performed and I must defer to the superior knowledge of #2, but what's wrong with trying something new?
Tickets cost less than a second division football match. I know because I have also seen quite a few of these. Why the false dichotomy between arts suitable for the "common people" and the "chattering classes" anyway? Inverted snobbery perhaps?
I support the move provided it genuinely means more money for the arts. The cultural strategy for Scotland will hopefully not be too centralised, however.
Finally, its a tired point but it has to be made: London's Olynpics has seen Scotland, and the rest of the UK, deprived of much lottery funding prompting the current discussion of the funding needs for the arts.
Surely art is not all about Scottish Opera and @out of reach@ ticket prices for concerts etc. Scotland has wonderful Art Galleries and Museums that are free for the public to visit. There are hundreds of brilliant artists in Scotland really struggling to make ends meet but they pursue in their careers to give the public fantastic art.
They should be given every encouragement and much greater recognition for their input into our culture. Some monetary assistance as in the Eire system to help them.
I wish to thank them all for making my life so much happier when viewing their works.
Get a struggling artist on the board of the new Creative Scotland and let their views be known
"Funding for arts" seems to me to be biased towards a very narrow section of the arts spectrum. I work as a concert promoter specialising in death metal, black metal, thrash metal, grindcore and other extreme musical genres which have never received a penny from the public coffers in this country.
Compare this to some other European countries where concerts, festivals and tours receive at least some level of support from local and national government and it's clear that extreme musicians in this country are being short changed. A little support with expenses incurred in recording and touring could make the difference for a lot of people being able to make a living from extreme music or not.
It'd be nice to see arts funding directed towards something that isn't classic music, pretty pictures or pretentious "installations."
Why is state funded art in Hitler's Germany or Soviet Russia a jolly bad thing, but, in modern Scotland it's a jolly good thing?
Somehow, without the Scottish Arts Council, humanity managed to produce Durer and Rembrandt, Renoir and Titian, Mozart and Verdi whereas, with the assistance of the Scottish Arts Council we have produced - well, what exactly?
Why does Scotland need a state subsidised company performing Italian art and German art before we can hold our heads up as a mature cultural community and yet, for some reason, it is not necessary to have a state-funded company producing Japanese Kabuki theatre? Why is that?
Sorry, I take the view that if people enjoy something, they should be free to indulge their hobbies but I don't wish to subsidise it any more than I wish to subsidise Premier League football.
This seems to me to be another case of fur coat and to be polite no underwear. Our Schools are facing closure the basic education for our children is under threat and we want "The Arts" if all children are fed three healthy meals a day are educated and kept warm in the winter and our old folk kept warm in the winter and fed three healthy meals a day then let us think about "The Arts" and for instance a tram system.
The big thing about arts funding is that "Who pays the piper calls the tune." It is a pity that artists have to struggle, they always have done. If they are given money, that immediately makes them state artists and they have to do what they are told. They adapt mighty quick, for they all need money. (Only the punters need art.)
This can produce excellent entertainment services, which is probably the best you can hope for any government, even a good one, to do about the arts.
The second thing about arts funding in Scotland is that the arts establishment will have to disentangle themselves from their London establishment attitudes and substructure (e.g. publishing and bookshops) before there is any hope of the best Scottish artists reaching the fore.
My third thought, is, however much money you give the arts, they'll spend it. Where is the point where the result stops getting better?
I absolutely support Arts Funding.A Nations Culture is it's Soul without it a Nation ceases to exist in any meaningful sense.Scotland is the absolute proof of this,Our Political Revival of recent decades began as a Cultural one.
I am impressed that this forum hasn't been hijaked by one group of people with an agenda.
I feel the arts are important in any develpoed country the problem however is in how the money is spent. Far too much is spent on large projects for the upper and middle classes (of which I am probably one) through the likes of Scotish Opera without enough being spent trying to engage the wider community. Can this change with the current decision makers? Probably not.
My agenda is for sports in Scotland, particularly skiing. Where I believe there are bigger returns for less money, but I still believe the arts should be funded but less on these large costly projects for the rich.
If the arts are to receive public funding, then surely it should be to the benefit of all and not a minority.
Cultural development is clearly of national importance, so why is it enjoyed by the minority? Those projects funded should be obliged to improve access to their work. This could be achieved by allowing Scottish primary schoolchildren free viewing of the performances or exhibitions.
Not only will this provide the kids with a wee free school trip, it may also instil a sense of culture in them so that future generations appreciate the importance of the arts.
If future generations appreciate the arts, and see a tangible return for their money first hand, then perhaps debates about arts funding may one day become a thing of the past.
Actually all the evidence shows that the way to produce a vibrant prosperous modern economy - which ultimatly benefits everyone - is to attact young professional people to come and work in your city or country.
Having an active Arts scene is crucial to this, and several studies of differing civic behaviour in the states and elsewhere have amply demonstrated that putting money into Arts and Cultural events and people to seed this pays off much more effectively in the long run than virtually anything else.
In fact we should be stripping as much money from the misguided social programs of West of Scotland Labour as we can and giving it to the artistic community. We should be thinking radically here - for example offering deep tax discounts to people involved in the arts. And lets have none of this 'it's elitist' rubbish - it's the elite we want to attract. Why on earth are we satisfied with just one Opera company for example?
The arts is part of the entertainment business. For my entertainment I watch football and pay to watch my un-Government subsidsed team at home. If they need more money they get sponsored. So it should be for the arts. Why not sell the jerseys (costumes) or sponsor a singer?
I have no objection to grass roots subsidy but when not a professional level.
I began reading your article with an open mind, and was endeavouring to give the subject due thought and consideration.
鈥 but, you have managed to condemn the Arts with a single phrase.
>
鈥 jolly good if we do
鈥 but if we don鈥檛, never mind darlings, we鈥檒l carry on regardless.
There should be no 鈥榯rying鈥 about it, either you take the people with you, or you fail.
So, in answer to all your questions 鈥 鈥楴o more funding鈥!!!
Certainly not until there is a fundamental change in attitude from within the Arts, the time has now come for it to face the harsh realities of life and stand on its own two feet.
Hopefuly this new body will try and encourage Scottish design graduates to stay in Scotland and change the London centric design culture.
We were spoon fed in uni a diet of being told that to be successful designers the only place to go was London.
As much funding as possible should be used to create oppurtunities for Scottish designers.
More should be done also to get films to be shot in Scotland, if Ireland can attract them why cant we.
Icarus did indeed ignore his farthers advice Brian,i say that's create and endorse the arts,lets get people active,there is too many people spending to much time in front of the box.
Frankly I'd prefer greater funding for the arts than misplaced and mis-managed funding for social projects. The arts enrich our culture, values and country; through tourism and self-esteem among other things. Sadlly our social projects have funded Quangos and corruption... and little else. Viva Capitalism.
the arts?
brian scotland is full of artists and creative people. However loads of these people regard it as no more than a hobby. I enjoy art both viewing it and producing it. However i would never regard myself as "an artist" and perhaps what creative scotland should be about is letting the confidence of artists soar.
Arts in scotland are snobbish. Look at jack vetriano. The establishment art group dont like him but his paintings are loved by people all over the world. So I think what creative scotland should be about is the management of producing art. I think every artist who wants to exhibit something in public shuld be required to pay a fee of one pound to register themselves for say five years with the arts council so that the arts council then gets an idea about all the art projects in scotland and can provide these artists with support and also this will allow people to become more aware of where art is being produced and by who. They could have a website listing where art is being performed or displayed. That way we then find out where the greatest talent is and why there is more talent in one area rather than other. We then will find out best practice for producing great art.
i'm going to copy the text on this blog, then paste it onto the outside of a 150w light bulb which will switch on and off at random intervals.
...and i will title the installation:
"Scotland, Still Blinded by Class War".
...where do i collect my huge grant please?
In an often brutal world, I believe the arts play a crucial roll in humanising society. Who's to say who music is for? Surely choice is what's important and therefore to prevent areas of live performance becoming elitist through high ticket prices, subsidy is essential. And lets face it, the investment that the arts need is a drop in the ocean.
There really is a lot of rubbish written about Scottish Opera. It seems to me that just because your second contributor doesn't like opera is no reason to prevent those of us who do like it from enjoying it, at reasonable and accessible prices. I have no children, yet I have no choice but to pay taxes for schools for other people's children, so I don't see why some tax money can't go to Scottish Opera. And as for the comments about a horror of Puccini, well that's simply nonsense. Scottish Opera gave a very fine production of Tosca a couple of years ago. Tosca being composed by someone called Puccini! The current season contains one modern opera and three other standard accessible operas. I mean, surely the arts are there to be challenging at times. It can't just be the easy favourites all the time or we would never hear anything new and nothing would ever change. How boring it would be to have endless performances of a few favourite works. Opera is an important art form and it deserves to be supported, just like theatre and the plastic arts and painting and all the other means of artistic expression. I loath dance but I still think dance companies should be supported. There must be a broad spectrum of art and the funding should be directed towards things that are perhaps not commercially sustainable. After all what's the point in subsidising something that can make a profit anyway?
The arts help us to see life from a different angle. Arts education helps us to know ourselves. The arts are not a luxury in a democracy, they are essential.
Money could be much better used if the arts had a proper level of long term sustainable funding. As a former arts administrator I know all to well how much time is spend by a ludicrous number of people creating and filling in forms, jumping through hoops in order to be able to tick the right boxes to receive funding. The money spent on this should be going straight into the arts.
Be brave, Brian. This is important.
I think that there are two big problems that the arts face in Scotland.
1. People are not necessarily exposed to 'the arts' at school or with their parents, and when they hit the real world get sucked into working hard through the day and watching 'telly' in the evening, occasionally going to a mainstream cinema to see a blockbuster.
2. A lot of the best theatre, music, and museums / exhibitions are based in London, and so London tends to suck in a lot of Scottish talent in these areas, because that's where they can get the best work, and can be sure that lots of people will see it.
I think that public efforts to foster 'the arts' should focus primarily on 'cultivating culture' amongst young people, by providing world class theatre, film making, music making / sound editing, book writing, art creating teaching and facilities for schools. It is important that these facilities be dual use, i.e. for students at schools, and potentially universities during the day, and also for use by the public in the evenings, and where student and public performances / exhibitions can be experienced.
I'm not convinced about providing government funding for artistic endeavours in the real world. Quangos are always staffed by mediocre talentless under achieving people, and so expecting them to be able to discern the best 'art' is a bit rich. Also, is it even possible for anyone to do that, surely everyone likes different things, and so to suggest that one thing is better than another is a bit false. I mean sure you can say that a piece of theatre, music, or art is clearly of a high quality and something to be admired, but can you go much further than that?
So my money would be lavished upon facilities primarily for school and university students, but which could be used by all, and which are world class, and not costing 拢400 million and looking like a Spanish airport terminal.
I think that if you create the opportunities people will take them, and if you have better facilities and a better vibrancy than the London scene then we should be able to capitalise on our immense talent and international fame for the Edinburgh Festivals / T in the Park / Athens of the North guff... and... soar.
Arts as therapy always makes me laugh, it has made such inroads into our buckie-drinking, drug-laden youth. As for Scottish Opera, let's see how many tickets they sell if they are cast adrift on their own. If a couple of hundred from Hillhead want to watch it fine, a grand a ticket.
I was going to sound off on this one; but No3. Ewan has said it all for me. I agree with all he says.
# 46 Couldnt agree more, about the quality of arts administration. Having been a director of a small arts organisation for over 10 years, dealing with funding bodies such as council depts and Scottish Arts Council was a nightmare. I finally gave up when asked to fill in a 34 page document to obtain a 拢500 grant. The criteria for receiving money became not about how many bums on seats do you get, or indeed what kind of artistic statement you were trying to make, but rather how many left legged lesbians requiring wheelchair access did you cater for!!!
What I would say to folk is that arts and culture needs to be nutured at schools, both in the sense of being able to view, and indeed give a platform to practice, that way you will have a far more robust infrastructure as folk get older.
I notice the normal whingers about Opera and Ballet etc, and I too despaired of those organisations until they were given shock therapy, it was indeed a case of far too bloated a carcus, however it is good to see having taken their medicine, the have successfully reinvented themselves and are delivering to the public.
I think grant funding bodies need to be more democratic, not a haven for the great and the good, does the boards of any art organisations have anyone from 18-21 on it, there maybe a few, but the likelihood it will be v few.
Eitherway Brian I look forward to hearing how your group progresses, perhaps a few interim reports might help so that debate is continually stimulated and perhaps give you a more rounded view of the Arts scene
McTernan was hired by the then SAC boss James Boyle for the purposes of "policy advice", a short-term post that ended after three months.
However, an email to Labour MSP Karen Gillon, on the unlikely subject of Sweden, from McTernan's time as an arts consultant, has caused belated problems for the spin doctor.
The exchange sees McTernan, a Scot, compare his home country unfavourably to Sweden. "If you've not been to Sweden before, I think you'll really like it it's the country Scotland would be if it wasn't narrow, Presbyterian, racist etc.
etc. Social democracy in action." It is unclear from the exchange whether the remarks were a serious commentary or were tonuge-in- cheek.
The email release has triggered a row between the SAC and McTernan, who has accused his former employer of breaching his privacy.
The spin doctor, who worked for former prime minister Tony Blair after he left the SAC, is furious that the quango published the emails without informing him first.
In turn, the SAC believes it had no choice but to release the information under its statutory obligations.
McTernan is a well-known Labour partisan who has vigorously promoted his party's manifesto commitments whenever he has been involved with a Labour government.
As policy chief to Tony Blair he became caught up in the "cash for honours" affair that bogged down the former prime minister's last year in office.
A spokeswoman for the Scottish Arts Council said: "The information held by the Scottish Arts Council is subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. None of the exemptions applied in this case.
"Mr McTernan used a Scottish Arts Council email account and is bound by the Act, as is every other Scottish Arts Council employee." McTernan said: "It is absurd to take out of context some words that were sent in a private email five years ago, in order to manufacture an attack on what I am doing now. These emails were released without my knowledge and I will be contacting the Arts Council about this breach of privacy." SNP business manager Angus Robertson MP said: "Given the fact that John McTernan was in charge of Labour's campaign for the Scottish elections and clearly has such a bad view of the country he is meant to represent, it is no wonder Labour lost the election.
"This is also a blow to [Scottish Secretary] Des Browne, since John McTernan is his special adviser, and further compounds the impression that he is an accident-prone minister."
End of cutting.
The above in conjuction with Tessa Jowell's robbing of lottery money would leave not only the arts, but many other organisations in need.
I can only advise those concerned to mail her on her website and ask why.
Wansanshoo.
I'd rather have a car factory.
I do support the arts and I also believe that they need and merit public support.
This is not just because I like to go to concerts (which I kind of do, although my favourite music is traditional and I like playing with friends more than anything else) but because I like living in a place where my children can learn instruments, play music with friends, read books and go to live theatre. These are valuable activities because they open up their way of thinking about the world and help to develop their thoughts and emotions. They are also social activities - something which it is harder and harder to get these days.
Funding the arts is surely, therefore, about something more than providing jobs for musicians or artists or dancers - it is to do with creating the environment and infrastructure in which our children can learn to express themselves through the arts and in which, when they grow to be adults, they can continue to draw, dance, play music - or simply to watch other people do so.
As for economic benefit: well, if we are truly trying to create a Scotland that can compete in a global economy where higher added value comes from knowledge, innovation and creativity then we need to invest in the activities that build those traits 鈥 and 鈥榯he arts鈥 is part of that. The contribution of the arts and our cultural heritage to tourism is, I imagine, huge 鈥 and we will presumably endanger our future heritage if we don鈥檛 invest in it now.
It鈥檚 always easier to focus debate and decision making on short term need rather than long term development 鈥 but Scotland needs to provide as much support to the arts as possible in tight times if it wants to remain a competitive location for tourists and existing residents.
I think the definition of Art today has changed and I welcome the debate on how it should be funded. Everyone has the pontential within them to create art. It isn't 'high brow' it is at the foundations of our culture. Scotland has a vibrant social history of music and story telling which should be nurtured. Recently some of the best computer arts talent in the world is coming out of Scotland. Our film industry has a huge pool of talent and this is only two areas for starters. If skills are not supported in this country they will probably be exported elsewhere or worse, young talent with great potential will end up being undiscovered.
I back up most of what #46 Charles Hand says, but I want to add one thought.
Funding and encouragement for the arts and business always seems angled first toward the young, but consider, what will they be inspired by if there isn't at least some established, accomplished, sometimes controversial culture out there to start a fire?
I fear that we could see a generation of young artists with nothing but self-referential inspirations to fuel their creativity, if somewhat older artists/institututions are left entirely on their own to float or sink. A young person can't know they will like a book/play/painting/idea/craft until they are exposed to it, and it can often be a jumping-off place for a new idea.
Established culture should ideally mean self-supporting, of course. but some essentials are getting expensive, and sometimes a bit of assitance is the answer. The creative life of a country is its soul, not something to be held at arms' length to dangle in front of tourists, or controlled by quangos.
We should only fund the arts that I personally like.
We can get the money from things I never use and which are therefore a complete waste of money - education and healthcare, for example. Why should I be expected to bankroll the excesses of the working classes?
Oh, and what exactly are "The Arts" anyway?
Yep I agree with No3 (Ewen McPherson).
Forget "The Arts". Let them stand on their own two feet. and get their own money.
Why is it that people are waiting for homes on council lists and there are not enough Council houses getting built.
So put the money into something useful like building houses so everybody in Scotland does NOT have to go homeless.
There is one problem with funding for the arts in comparison with funding for all other forms of work related training, on the basis that it is accepted that a career in the arts is considered as work.
If the arts are not seen as work are we funding the workshy?
The problem in the arts is with the numbers trained compared to the numbers 鈥榬esting鈥 does seem to indicate we are training people for a life on the dole or serving at table.
The problem with all other forms of work related training is with the numbers trained compared to the numbers of job vacancies seem to indicate we are not training enough people for the vacancies that are currently available.
We need to set national priorities; do we feel that spending is in the national interest or is it just that MPs are fearful of allocating a reasonable budget on the arts for fear of being labelled heathens.
Are we happy to currently spend on the arts and to import our workforce?
I support many things in society and many such things require my support. I'm just an ordinary person who has a limited income and many roads for it to go. I am all for Scotland 'soaring' as the minister says but most ordinary people don't have a head for such heights. I also resent very much my tax 拢s being spent on supporting something that I don't have time to enjoy and in many cases, don't even understand. Pop Stars never seems to be short of support but then that's what the 'Pop' stands for. The 'air fares' for those people are paid for by their supporters. If the lady wants Scotland to 'soar' then make the 'high fliers' pay for it. In fact make all those who wish to visit museums, art galleries and the like personally pay for it.
Mr. Burrel was probably the best example of almost 'taking it with him'. His 'stuff', looted from all over the world was kept hidden until the Glasgow rate-payers built a place to show it off. The joke was that people from all over the world could see it free of charge. The Glasgow rate payers are still paying!
#51 - to compare universal free education to universal (subsidised) access to opera is ludicrous.
I totally agree with the merging of the two groups.
(i work for a government agency - certainly not in it for myself,i dont know anyone here who is.)
Getting the best for Scotland long term appears to be a sensible way to go and that may mean investing in ALL the arts.
yes that includes some unfashionable ones too.
Oh and that also means investing in youth. (long term social agenda here? - young people EDUCATED in all the arts and our culture)
I dont much like Opera, but nor did i much like school.
Define the arts? I take it there will be money available for new recording studios for up and coming rock bands or new DJ's/Producers?
Only a tiny minority of people like opera/classical, why should these genres receive special treatment?
If you want opera, then you can pay for it. Me? I will stick to paying for tickets for the shows I want to see. Market forces will dictate if something is worthwhile or not. If it's not then it should be relegated to history.
I have recently been to the opera and ballet - and loved both. I also have been to musicals, rock concerts, blues, folk shows etc in pubs, clubs, theatres and concert halls. I do go to museums and art galleries, but I also pay to visit heritage sites.
I enjoy them all - but fail to see why I as a tax payer should subsidise one over the other. Why should opera get subsidy but football does not. They are all valid as cultural events.
So I would have to say I am against subsidising the arts.
With one exception - and that is making arts available as part of our general education. School children (and adults) undergoing education should have both the opportunity and the freedom to view all our arts without worrying about cost.
But I do mean make it available to everyone - from schoolchildren on the Islands to those in the city centres.
The arts are an important part of life - but one which can and should be paid for by the user of the service.
I'm all for funding the arts but am not for Creative Scotland. A new Chief Executive started at Scottish Screen a few years back to streamline the Organisation to be part of 'Creative Scotland'. There were several members of staff being 'redeployed' although they all took redundancies as they had to go through 'hoops' to keep their jobs. What was the point? What has Scottish Screen done since then? Employed nmore staff!!! They are supposed to be fighting the corner for the Scottish Film Industry. Don't they know that there are freelancers out there working their guts off for the minimum wage and that lots of scottish crew have gone South as there's no work here. What's the point in Creative Scotland if things aren't going to change. We can kid ourselves on that it will but will it really. Scottish Screen have been in existance for over 10 years and what impact have they really had? I say keep the Scottish Arts Council and leave it at that!!!!!
All for it - but it has to be fair and be seen to be fair. ie Less cash for the esoteric (Opera / Ballet)and more for grass roots music funding across the board. Scotlands music industry creates millions in revenue but almost nothing is re-invested.
I think that many people contributing to this debate are missing the point. What we are really talking about here is creativity, human creativity! From the moment that modern man awoke he has progressed because of his creativity. Without it we simply would not be here having this debate. The ability to design solutions to problems has been at the fundamental core of our being.
First it was tools and weapons to provide the ability to forrage, hunt and protect ourselves form the elements. With protection came comfort, wealth and leisure and the time to express ones individuality.
The ability to craft and embellish took hold. All around us in nature was beauty and slowly we began to observe, understand and mimic it in cave paintings, jewellery, music, totems etc, etc.
As we controlled more and more of our environment our individual ability as people and nations developed through creative development. We are the only species to have existed on the planet to have made meaningful and creative marks, and these marks are the underscore of our global society from the New Guinee pigmys all the way to the Silicon Valley gurus.
At first we had artisans and shamen artists who crafted and imbued objects with embelleshments and power. These eventually created identities of place, nation, race, stature, propaganda and commerce.
It is not imaginable to comprehend society without these things, and it is a bankrupt argument to argue otherwise!
Everyday we are confronted by the creative, whether it be a label on a packet of biscuits, a tune on the radio, a book cover, a tax return, the car that you are driving, graffiti on a wall, a pair of high heels, in fact almost everything that we see, feel, hear and smell has been invested with our creativity.
Without it we would simply be existing in the ant heap, living only to survive and propagate the species and maintain that status quo for eons and eons. We simply cannot survive, as we do now, without creative artistic endevour. We have come to far! We in fact relish, as a species, in making marks. Its in our psyche, part of our makeup, we simply cannot help it, its part of the reason that we exist.
So to argue Hillhead over Calton is a bit of misplaced bigotry in my mind, scratch the surface of any human and you will find a mark maker underneath, its not always apparent but none the less its undeniably there. To choose a factory over creative art is not a choice, after all if all we have is a world covered in factories and houses, then we are truly in the ant heap and this debate would not exist. Is that really what some of us want, I don`t think so!
But we are at a turning point in our development, it is now possible to contemplate our arrival at the ant heap. We could as a species be only a few key strokes away from it. The technological advances we have made in the past fifty years, and that we will continue to make, have provided us with the ability to either free society or completely stutify it. So this debate, as with many similar around the planet, is very important, it will help us map part of our future, and as long as the arguments for and againts are heard then we will continue to waken up with creative heads on our shoulders. Can we really afford not to continue, as a nation, to invest in our creative arts, I really do not think so.
I welcome the name Creative Scotland and may it truly live up to that name and instigate a wide and varied debate about how we truly invest in the best possible manner for all of the creative people of Scotland.
But what of its powers, will it for instance be able to step in to the debate of whether Glasgow School of Art should continue with the last ceramics department in Scotland. Should it have the power to do so? Should it instigate a policy of buy Scottish, and through that encourage Scottish artists, designers, musicians, actors etc, to stay in Scotland?. We have in the past been expert at encouraging and then exporting these talents.
Can this new organisation work to help encourage more to stay and contribute to an already vibrant creative arts culture in Scotland.
Well I suppose time will! Joe Boyle
I worked for many years as a theatre stage manager and can assure people that I never saw any money sloshing around. By necessity we begged, borrowed ...but no we didn't steal. to get productions on stage, on budget.
I had to give up that vocational career once I started a family as the ridiculously long hours and poor pay did not suit family life.
I retrained as a community worker and I passionately believe that, as Peter Mullan said, you can solve a lot of the antisocial behaviour in Scotland by investing in the arts with young people. Maybe some older ones also..
From my own personal experience I can think of several people I know who have left the poverty and deprivation of their estates through active arts participation. I think some of these people would most likely be in jail or would be dead due to drugs / alcohol / violence if they had not had the opportunity to develop through using the arts opportunities they were given.
I know it is always difficult to compare the value of hospitals and schools with the arts. No one seems to be asking the question why we should have to choose in the 4th richest economy in the world, appartently.
I am currently an active volunteer with an arts development community group in remote and rural Scotland and we are receiving excellent support from the Scottish Arts Council.
I can see there are a lot of frustrations about the perceived elitism of Scottish Opera. I know my 10 year old daughter was so excited to be part of a schools outreach programme with Scottish Opera where the children of her year group from the whole area (20 mile radius) got a chance to meet up and perform a short opera with them.
Investing in the arts is investing in a more rounded and confident population. The arts should expand people's horizons and not be prescribed by commercial sponsorship requirements. I think some commentators think that when Hamlet when comes on stage he should have the likes of 'Tunnocks Teacakes' stitched across his costume.
No.66 My point isn't ludicrous at all. I was simply pointing out that from the tax money we pay some will be devoted to things from which we get no personal benefit. I get no benefit from family tax credits, spending on education, drug rehabilitation programs, funding to Scottish Ballet, the 大象传媒 World Service, the British Council, and a host of other things, but I also appreciate that as taxpayers we should all be getting something back from the state. Also, all this talk about the people of Hillhead being the only ones to benefit from Scottish Opera is ridiculous. The prices are quite affordable and anyone can go to it. And anyway, why shouldn't the people of Hillhead get something back, I'm sure they pay enough.
There are plenty people out there doing their own thing creatively. What would help these people and others who would like to be like them is not salaries. It is infrastructure.
For example, Edinburgh badly needs more small-to-medium sized music venues. The Venue, Studio 24 and the Caledonian Backpackers have all closed recently.
Another thing that would help is the creation of artistic quarters. Glasgow has a tiny one around King St. If bookshops, theatre venues, artists studios and similar places are given tax breaks to set up in certain areas, they would cross-fertilise in my opinion.
A good example of the sort of thing I'm talking about is the free recording and rehersal studio in Castlemilk for local residents.
I think in many ways Craigs post sums things in Scotland very well. We do not know our own landscape. Which when you think about it is pretty amazing. We are after all a very tiny country! We have a tiny population. I could have used the word small for tiny, but I think tiny sums us up in this debate.
Craig mentions King Street in Glasgow, and he talks about it as I could remember it in the late 1970`s early 1980`s. The tiny arts enclave he suggests, is infact a sad shadow of what currently infact exists.
King Street is one of the central hubs in many respects of the thriving arts culture in Scotland, and in many respects the UK. Down here we have currently WASPS studios, The Tron Theatre, Sharmanka Studio, Project Ability, Artists in Exile, The Third Street Gallery, The Glasgow Print Studio, Glasgow independent Studios, Tracy Mcneece Gallery, The Thirteenth Note Bar, Lauries Bar, The Merchant Gallery, The Glasgow Sculpture Studios, The City Halls, The Fruitmarket, Cafe Gandolfi, The Stockwell Triangle and my studio Glass artists. We are all in the centre of the city and we are all easily accessed by the entire population of the west central belt of Scotland and it must be stated the World.
In some respects this is unique in a city and its surrounding landscape. Now consider this, if tomorrow morning we removed all of this arts hub from Glasgow, what would the result be. Would we suddenly become a no go area for conferences, would we no longer be a preferred shopping experience for foreign as well as local tourists. If infact we removed the creative arts from the equation what could we have to offer. Would Glasgow have a Merchant city?Would Glasgow still be The Conference city of choice in the UK, would we still host all the festivals that we do. Some people may not like this next comment, but in many respects Glasgow's thriving and relatively successful arts scene does infact resemble the city and its population, just as the shipyards in their time did also. So to the people that say no to subsidizing the arts when needed, swallow the consequences, go ahead and vote to scrap all culture and then, live the nightmare of grey
When Jules Verne visited Glasgow in the 19th Century, he visited what he considered to be the centre of Technological society, we were the cutting edge, its no wonder that almost all of Vernes writings have as their starting point The City of Glasgow. Now is it possible that if Jules Verne were to visit the city today, he would extol the virtue and value of its art scene, I personally think he could. I am not a subsidized artist( I have never have been), I run a commercial business, I have no corner to defend.
BUT
Our Arts business whether subsidised or not brings in if nothing else 鈥渉eads on beads鈥 to the city hotels. Conference managers, when booking Conferences, consider the broad culture of a place, Glasgow comes at the top of the list so often, and that is in a large part to do with it arts and leisure distractions!!!!. You may not like the art but would you like to live in a city without it, could you infact afford to live here without the financial impact the arts nowadays makes.
After all the shipyards are gone. I am sorry for my next statement, but it must be said, all of the people against the support of the arts, have not come up with a viable alternative. It is as if they have a preference for nothing! Its as if John Knox was still preaching his bitter banter. Scotland has a long creative culture and to deny it is to merely reside in the mentality of Johnnie Knox, it is to deny the reality and aspirations that make us Scots, what we have become known for, and for what we will continue to become known for. Creativity forged us and we forged creativity, we simply would not be Scots otherwise!