Interesting the video says that the arts are willing to tighten their belts.... nice..... so have you been frivolent with our money in the past??? Unfortunately for the arts the government- and the majority of the country do not put the arts on par with education and the NHS. This give the arts an opportunity to makes them self more self sustainable and remove the resentment from areas of the country.
Interesting the video says that the arts are willing to tighten their belts.... nice..... so have you been frivolent with our money in the past??? Unfortunately for the arts the government- and the majority of the country do not put the arts on par with education and the NHS. This give the arts an opportunity to makes them self more self sustainable and remove the resentment from areas of the country.
Im sorry, but is this against the arts? Tracey Emin and the thing they saw in the art gallery that Anthony saw is not ART! How about we get rid of Tracey Emin type of art and concentrate on REAL art?
If they wont fund us, then they can go to hell when they expect us to play their beurocratic games. No more facile risk assessments. No more insuring the public against the chance that they might hurt themselves whilst living their lives in an art environment. No more kow towing to the assumption that anyone who might want to work with children is a potential predator and wasting money on CRB checks. No applying for permission to use public spaces. Set art free!!
I fear the dislikers have truly become a synthetic servant of the artificial beast, i gasp in devastation that these minds are nothing more than an unconscious sponge in a systematic unprecedented comatose
Looking for a place to donate? Consider donating to "The Platform Group" a new theatre company raising money to produce our first show. We're fiscally sponsored, so all donations are tax deductable, and through our indiegogo you can get a receipt right away. Support the arts! Check out more info in the video on my page.
@irdial Yeah, artists never do anything worthwhile with our money, just taking it from us and using it to form a cultural heritage the envy of most nations... and damn those teachers who steal our money to educate our kids! And those bloody doctors, curing us of our maladies with our own money! Bloody socialists. I mean, they're well intentioned, but stealing is always wrong. Period!
"The costs of David Shrigley's animation have been covered with a grant from the Paul Hamlyn Foundation." You see? You dont need to steal money through violence to 'fund the arts'; voluntary philanthropy is the only moral way to do it. These artists are all violent socialists who use the state to steal money for their industry. No matter how well meant the intentions are, stealing is always wrong. Period!
I am from the North and can't paint or dance or act or do anything arty to save my life and dont feel patronised by this silly video that made me laugh.
There is so much wonderful free creative stuff out there. Just go and look if you believe you can't afford it.
Yes we don't NEED the arts like oxygen but this will be a much poorer country without them.
Just look at the mammoth cost of trident and question why we are spending all that dosh.
Your patronisation of northern farmers is glib indeed and proves that some subsidised artists are selfservingselfsatisfiedselfinterested ignorant platitudinous bourgeois layabouts. Any of you worked on a farm? Any of you got proper dirt under your fingernails? Any of you make a youtube video to protest about the desecration of the agricultural sector in this bankrupt country? If you get the subsidy all is right with the world. You probably eat organic kenyan green beans at your dinner parties.
Your patronisation of northern farmers is glib indeed and proves that some subsidised artists are selfservingselfsatisfiedselfinterested ignorant platitudinous bourgeois layabouts. Any of you worked on a farm? Any of you got proper dirt under your fingernails? Any of you make a youtube video to protest about the desecration of the agricultural sector in this bankrupt country? If you get the subsidy all is right with the world. You probably eat organic kenyan green beans at your dinner parties.
@harryross1000 I can't speak for all artists as I don't know them all, but I can say that calling them selfservingselfsatisfiedselfinterested ignorantplatitudinous bourgeois layabouts is as ignorant and ill informed as labelling farmers haggeredgruffuneducatedsheepshaggingflatcapwearing working class inbreds. I am intrigued by your question 'any of you worked on a farm?' And the suggestion that if we haven't worked on a farm it indicates we don't know the meaning of 'real' work. I doubt many
@harryross1000 many artist have worked on a farm.I have mucked out a few horses stables in my time but I don't think my meagre contribution to rural life is quite what you are talking about) but have you ever experienced life as an artist? Currently I have to manage 2 paid jobs to pay my rent and feed myself, 3 artistic projects (2 unpaid 1 paid), am developing a collaborative company, write a blog/review work and try to attend regular classes (I am a dancer). Sure, its a completely different
@harryross1000 type of hard work to farming, its not better or worse. Its just different. Being and artist takes stamina, dedication, self discipline and self motivation. But I refuse to be, or have my extremely hard working friends, called a layabout. So, artists are responsible for creating campaign videos for all industries? If there was a farmers protest would they take two placards..one saying save the arts? Most of my creative friends are the type of people you should wish there were
@harryross1000 more of..aware of food industry related issues, who try and buy British produce, support local industry and would be the first to sign a petition to support British Farmers. I eat British green beans, but rarely have time for dinner parties.
@harryross1000 Shit loads of farmers are artists, have YOU ever been to a local coffee shop in a tiny village? They've usually got watercolours on the walls etc, where do they come from? I'm from Norfolk and spent most of my life on farms or working in garden centres and I eat meat, lots of it!
As a practitioner I have little sympathy for the self indulgent who whinge about funding. For too long the arts world has held its hand out and squandered much of what has been handed over. Duchamp has a lot to answer for when it comes to funding I am afraid it is not good enough to try and persuade the tax payer that art has to be funded just because we say so. If it is worthwhile, there is someone out there who will fund it, go and find it, think out side the box, be more creative!
As a practitioner I have little sympathy for the self indulgent who whinge about funding. For too long the arts world has held its hand out and squandered much of what has been handed over. Duchamp has a lot to answer for when it comes to funding I am afraid it is not good enough to try and persuade the tax payer that art has to be funded just because we say so. If it is worthwhile, there is someone out there who will fund it, go and find it, we need to think out side the box, be more creative!
Yes, by adding bits of comedy to the animation its more likely to become viral and therefore bring the message to wider audience. That is the very nature of utube, its not just a place to make rude comments about other peoples views and uploads.
@zhenart What a stupid comment. You think because there's a cut in funding there'll be no 'arts' next year? There was art before government subsidy and there'll be art without it. Just means the bloated freeloading arts administrators will have to give up their limousines to work and fly economy class when they go on tax-funded fact-finding jollies around the globe.
@holliesteelsucks ... when I mean I want to go see the arts... I mean I want to see the emerging artist not just the big galleries and when funding is cut... most of the time it is the little guys that get hit the most.
@yessingno "Also that private companies, particularly those in the West, often look at short term opportunities while disregarding long term opportunities."
If you're worried about short-sightedness, it's not clear why you seem to support government intervention. Democratically elected rulers, by the nature of electoral politics, will always have systematic bias for short term gain at the expense of long-term sustainability. Google "Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy" for more.
So we shouldn't cut arts funding because the arts contributes so much more to the economy? I wonder how many here arguing that would happily see the civil list cut by 25% ... same principle.
this is nice, and but its fair to say there is still some dead wood in the arts world. I'd like to see the studies done on the economic impact on arts faculties to see if it really is generating income.
i mean, for every one independent cinema hosting world and local talent events, there's someone making a living out of "group therapy using music" or some such bollocks.
I seriously don't understand this campaign - arts organisations have a ready source of income, the public who come to the art shows they are putting on. So if you're say, a struggling theatre, programme something cheap to put on that you know is going to be popular. Why should government be involved?
@firestartertwistedfi It's not that simple. Even the smallest of productions is expensive to produce. Production costs alone; actors, stage management, set, costumes, props, performance rights are inordinate. Then the theatre has to pay its box office staff, fronts of house staff, technicians, bills, public liability insurance and much more. Once a theatre has paid off one days worth of outgoings there's very little profit left (if any, many arts organisations are not-for-profit).
@TheLurker71@bitbutter They aren't self-sufficient because the cost of running the arts is paid by the institution (art gallery, concert hall), but the financial benefit is distributed. Eg.the Tate Modern gallery might cost £100m to run and only take £40m in revenue, but if nearby resaurants, bars and hotels receive £90m in additional overseas profit then it is clearly sensible to keep the Tate open, even though it isn't self sufficient.
@alicevemily "They aren't self-sufficient because the cost of running the arts is paid by the institution (art gallery, concert hall), but the financial benefit is distributed."
So in fact arts funding is a coercive subsidy, not only for art projects that couldn't survive in the market, but also for businesses that happen to be close to large art initiatives.
Can you link to research that supports the claim (made so confidently here) that arts funding generates more revenue than it costs?
@yessingno "You can make the same argument about roads. I hate subsidised roads, messing up the free market."
You sound sarcastic, yet the government's monopoly on provision of roads, like any other coercive monopoly, guarantees poorer service, at higher cost than a private and competitive system would deliver. (also google "A Future of Private Roads and Highways" for some observations on how markets are relevant to road safety issues too).
You're forgetting monopolies often have certain efficiencies that small, private, competitive systems cannot deliver. Also that private companies, particularly those in the West, often look at short term opportunities while disregarding long term opportunities. On top of that, you're talking in platitudes.
@yessingno "You're forgetting monopolies often have certain efficiencies that small, private, competitive systems cannot deliver."
I'm not. In the case of coercive monopolies (eg. government), over time, network effect benefits will always be outweighed by the damaging effects that guaranteed lack of competition has on incentives to provide high quality and efficient service.
I enjoy art and writing, but everyone is facing cuts, and we've just got to swallow the pill. You can be sure that whatever the circumstances, art WILL survive. The only difference may be that the artists may not be able to work in such comfort. But at least an artist can still paint even if he lose funding. What can a secretary do if made redundant? It's a difficult period, we've all got to deal with it.
I love art and writing and stuff, but I think that we have to face up to reality, take a deep breath and accept these hard times. Art will suffer, but everyone is suffering. The difference is, art will never die. As long as people can paint or write, art itself will continue. The only difference is that the artists may not be able to create their works in such comfort. But at least an artist can still paint. What can a secretary do if made redundant?
First of all, it's simply not true that the government has to make cuts because of actions by bankers - that's not an oversimplification, it's a lie. The reason is that the previous government spent this country into hock, blowing borrowed money not on investment, but on current spending. But given the situation they left us in it's simply ridiculous to say that any part of the public sector should be insulated from necessary cuts. A near identical argument could be made for any of them!
And if "the arts generate vastly more revenue for the economy than they cost to fund" then surely they can fund themselves... in which case... why aren't they already doing that?
""And if "the arts generate vastly more revenue for the economy than they cost to fund" then surely they can fund themselves... in which case... why aren't they already doing that?""
That's so silly of you. Think for a just second. I know, I know, you're not used to it but give it a whirl. They generate more money for *THE ECONOMY* than they cost to fund. Ie the money they generate (ie. from tourism etc) boosts local businesses & workers and therefore tax reciepts to the government.
@vagrant1 "Imoney they generate boosts local businesses & workers and therefore tax reciepts to the government."
So tax payers are being forced to subsidise art institutions, _as well as_ those businesses that happen to be near them.
How about this: If local businesses benefit from a local art institute, to a degree greater than the cost of running it, then it would be economically rational for them to collectively fund the institute themselves.
@multipletom 'the arts' isn't one company that needs money. it's many artists and arts organisations that take funding, and use it to develop projects that generate revenue for the country in tourism and taxes. they don't get that money back. it's like saying 'why even have business loans if businesses are generating money'.
@glimbrick "the arts' isn't one company that needs money. it's many artists and arts organisations that take funding, and use it to develop projects that generate revenue"
I see, just like thousands of businesses every year, who seem to operate without subsidy .. in fact, who generate the taxes to feather-bed the arts.
@NeilReddin how are these self-sufficient business of which you speak started then? surely the money to start them comes from somewhere. business loans maybe? how are these different from arts grants when arts generate money and tax too?
@NeilReddin what, like the motor industry? Or the building industry? Or, indeed, most industries... who receive a wide range of incentives from the government.
The difference is, most industries aren't hated by the right-wing press. If you just admitted to hating the arts (because of what you read in the paper), then maybe you'd be able to have an interesting discussion.
@multipletom Externalities. Museums generate vast amounts of revenue for hotels, car services, restaurants, air travel, etc. Right now, the government subsidizes "the arts" on behalf of those businesses.
@multipletom The problem with your statement is that most of the money smaller arts organizations make are for the economy as a whole not for themselves. Many go out to dinner and show. They will spend much more in the restaurant then they will to see the show. This all creates jobs at the gas station, the restaurant, the parking garage, the Theatre/Musuem. It is about enriching our lives in many ways.
@Tilter257 "This all creates jobs at the gas station, the restaurant, the parking garage, the Theatre/Musuem. It is about enriching our lives in many ways."
Do you know which jobs were prevented from coming into existence in this process?
The cuts have almost nothing to do with the banking crisis. Labour was running up a vast and unsustainable deficit before it happened. Then they increased spending even more and the receipts dwindled, so the deficit grew ever wider. Now we as a nation have an enormous bill of debt to pay off - and that doesn't even include the banks.
@NorthernStorm8 Do your homework you daft twit. The vast majority of arts organisations pay more to the government in tax than they receive in state funding. Fuck the rest of the debate that's a cold hard fact that can be backed up by walking into any arts organisation and looking at their budget sheet.
@flashkiddy It's about where the money goes - bigger gallerys pay more tax than the smaller ones that are subsidies or the free galleries vs. commerical - and they all interelate...
The arts existed before state subsidy, they will exist after the 25% cuts (over four years). If something is that good, people will pay to see it. If it's not, there is no moral case for forcing people to.
@47ceaser "What if you are on a low income and can't afford to pay."
If you have less money, you can afford to do less things, in general. This is one of the reasons people aspire to earn more money. To earn more money in a system of voluntary exchange, it's necessary to create things that people value enough to pay for.
@NeilReddin If a theatre ticket was not subsidised it can cost more than 3 times as much as they already do. If something is good, and people can't afford to see it, what do you do then!?
@becks2000star If too many people can't afford it then perhaps the production is not as good as the theatre thinks it is. If it is that good, then people will prioritise their spending in order to afford it. In any case, it hardly justifies forcing everyone else to fund the difference.
@NeilReddin What about young people or people from disadvantaged backgrounds, who genuinely can't afford to see theatre, and their only opportunity is with funding and subsidising tickets. Like with 'A Night Less Ordinary Scheme' with free tickets for 25's and under. Theatre and art shapes and changes people's lives and without funding and subsidising, it is taking the oppotunity to see theatre and live shows away from them.
"because of all those jokers in charge of banks, the government is going to have to make some cuts".
Economics fail. The bankers didn't spend more then they were getting in revenue since 2001 - that was one G Brown - causing the deficit (which is the problem requiring spending cuts).
This video starts from the premise that we all have to accept the fact that the government has facilitated the largest transfer of public wealth to the private sector (the banks) and now we will need to pay for it through austerity measures, including dramatic cuts in arts sponsorship. The arts should be involved with bigger picture, not just it's own well-being.
This video starts from the premise that we all have to accept the fact that the government has facilitated the largest transfer of public wealth to the private sector (the banks) and now we will need to pay for it through these austerity measures, including dramatic cuts in arts sponsorship. This analysis fails to address the essential problem; i.e. systemic problems in governance, finance and economic systems. The arts should be involved with bigger picture, not just it's own well-being.
@holliesteelsucks I notice in your profile that you are based in the States. Kinda puts your comments into a different context, given any cuts to funding in the UK won't really affect you too much?
Why is everyone whinging about cuts, the arts are one of the reasons why we are in all this shit in the first place. Millennium dome anyone? some stupid statue in a shopping centre? That's another reason why we are crap at everything else as we are to busy admiring some ostentatious piece of rubbish that is supposed to be ART
There is a time a place for art, here and now isnt that time.......
@blazer666del The arts industry contributes more to our economy than it costs us. It's naive to think that the minimal costs involved in supporting local art galleries or regional theatre companies are responsible for Britain's economic difficulties.
Great piece stating the arguments clearly and succinctly
@kerennic "The arts industry contributes more to our economy than it costs us."
First, do you have access to any research that backs up this statement?
Secondly: even if true in simple financial terms, the 'cost' of arts funding is being underestimated. This naive accounting doesn't (and cannot) figure in the impact of profitable projects never realised because of the diminished funds that are available for voluntary trade, thanks to the expropriation necessary for arts funding.
I could not care less about arts cuts, I just hope Vince Cable does not cut STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) research funding...that is far more important.
two things wrong with this. 1. don't fall for the received wisdom that cuts are necessary.
2. don't make the argument that it's all about revenue. you've automatically lost if you're fighting the war on their terms, because in reality small arts centres don't make money but they do provide a worthwhile function for culture and education.
@amcellroy "but they do provide a worthwhile function for culture and education."
You seem confident that these thing srepresent an overall increase rather than a destruction of value. But how can you know that funds expropriated to support these things create more value than if those funds had been left in the hands of the people who earned them?
@bitbutter Surveys, evaluations, and ultimately the value judgments of public servants and politicians. It seems to me that we divert most of our resources towards preventing the things we fear (ill health, poverty, crime) but not to preserving things we value. Public subsidy has saved many a public heritage site. Libraries that would have never opened. Sports clubs would have never got off the ground. All that comes from a responsive subsidy scheme.
Public funds are used the promote art in places like the Tate, this benefits the private art galleries/cooperation's that sell the art works. Public money in effect is being used for promotion by those private galleries that have the influence. This promotion is turned in to private profit.( Art Now at the Tate for example). Cut the corporate welfare and let art operate on it own merits in a free market and we will have better art I am sure.
what a load of *cobblers* - if you've got something to say, then say it yourself. Why hide behind a down-the-nose caricature of farmers? Perhaps the next one could feature brain damaged Lottery punters keen to support all the stuff they never see and aren't welcome at.
@Bishbashross So this campaign to save the arts has been started by farmers? Why couldn't they get a real farmer to say it then? Again: if you've got something to say, say it yourself, hiding the black skivvy and latte frenzy brigade behind a fairly contemptuous caricature of rural labour like this is disgusting.
The creative arts, in all their forms, are the engine that drives society, that binds us and gives us our identity - from the economic benefits to the country being a frontrunner in the professional creative industries, to the social importance of creative projects enriching our youth or those who feel they lack a voice in their own communities, an attack on the support of our vibrant, exciting and relevant creative culture is a serious threat to us all.
9 years ago today 3000 people were murdered. Ground zero workers are still sick and dying after they were told by their government that the toxic air was safe to breathe. Even today we are feeling the effects of 9/11 from the war on terror, removal of freedoms, and wars in foreign countries. WTC 7 fell into itself, and the official story says that it was destroyed by fire. Over 1200 architects and engineers think there's more to know. Here's why: watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus
This makes farming more attractive than the arts. Why have 2,000 years of lettering and calligraphy been replaced by scruffy capital letters in felt tipped pen?
Perhaps deviant Damien and twisted Tracy and their ilk could give back most of the megadosh they have coined in by peddling pish for the last twenty years?
Good luck with the campaign. A point well made, I don't think people understand what the true impact of a loss of arts funding would be on the economy.
As mentioned in the video, the arts generate vastly more revenue for the economy than they cost to fund. Even if you have no interest in the arts think of them as a financial investment.
Good luck with the campaign. A point well made, I don't think people understand what the true impact of a loss of arts funding would be on the economy.
As mentioned in the video, the arts generate vastly more revenue for the economy than they cost to fund. Even if you have no interest in the arts think of them as a financial investment.
FOLLOW THE MATHS OF ART: DAMYAN29 x DAMIEN HIRST = DAMN9 SHIT2Y ERA!
Damynine 3 days ago
cool very interesting.. i laugh at the drawing when the guy forgot his hose.. lol...
lovelplants 2 months ago
youtube.com/watch?v=wflq238paEU
SmallFri1477 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
youtube.com/watch?v=wflq238paEU
SmallFri1477 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
youtube.com/watch?v=wflq238paEU
SmallFri1477 9 months ago
youtube.com/watch?v=wflq238paEU
SmallFri1477 9 months ago
This is fantastic
enragedlemur 10 months ago
Interesting the video says that the arts are willing to tighten their belts.... nice..... so have you been frivolent with our money in the past??? Unfortunately for the arts the government- and the majority of the country do not put the arts on par with education and the NHS. This give the arts an opportunity to makes them self more self sustainable and remove the resentment from areas of the country.
DANNYH87 10 months ago
Interesting the video says that the arts are willing to tighten their belts.... nice..... so have you been frivolent with our money in the past??? Unfortunately for the arts the government- and the majority of the country do not put the arts on par with education and the NHS. This give the arts an opportunity to makes them self more self sustainable and remove the resentment from areas of the country.
DANNYH87 10 months ago
Comment removed
ufee 1 year ago
@ufee I do agree with this though. We fund some pretentious East London wank.
amcellroy 11 months ago
Im sorry, but is this against the arts? Tracey Emin and the thing they saw in the art gallery that Anthony saw is not ART! How about we get rid of Tracey Emin type of art and concentrate on REAL art?
icomeup2urKnees 1 year ago
@icomeup2urKnees Here's one, define art... GO!
MrThompson626 1 year ago
@MrThompson626 The man who defines art creates a black hole doing so. :o
FeedsNoSliesMusic 10 months ago
If they wont fund us, then they can go to hell when they expect us to play their beurocratic games. No more facile risk assessments. No more insuring the public against the chance that they might hurt themselves whilst living their lives in an art environment. No more kow towing to the assumption that anyone who might want to work with children is a potential predator and wasting money on CRB checks. No applying for permission to use public spaces. Set art free!!
PhillEvansIllustrate 1 year ago
I fear the dislikers have truly become a synthetic servant of the artificial beast, i gasp in devastation that these minds are nothing more than an unconscious sponge in a systematic unprecedented comatose
cprostudio 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
cprostudio 1 year ago
Who the fuck are the 27 dick heads that have said they dislike this? When the revolution comes we are going to need more space on the wall people!
Uneducated, thick, ignorant, pathetic knobheads. No use to anyone the lot of you!
Wankers everyywhere. Oxygen thieves.
bathcolin 1 year ago
I want you to fund foot fetish porn. They pay more in taxes than they receive in subsidy dontcha know?
fringeelements 1 year ago
Comment removed
ufee 1 year ago
27 people missed the LIKE button... Knobheads
fussell88 1 year ago
GREAT MOVIE - thank you thank you thank you.
orichalcum1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Looking for a place to donate? Consider donating to "The Platform Group" a new theatre company raising money to produce our first show. We're fiscally sponsored, so all donations are tax deductable, and through our indiegogo you can get a receipt right away. Support the arts! Check out more info in the video on my page.
Sharaashleyz 1 year ago
'the arts' *shudder* When art relies on the .gov then we are doomed.
Artist are the most resourceful of all and find a way even in the path of most resistance. I looking forward to what will come out of this period.
krackfoxtube 1 year ago
I think this might be just what ART needs, to get rid of "The Arts" and all it's hangers on.
mangere77 1 year ago
@irdial Yeah, artists never do anything worthwhile with our money, just taking it from us and using it to form a cultural heritage the envy of most nations... and damn those teachers who steal our money to educate our kids! And those bloody doctors, curing us of our maladies with our own money! Bloody socialists. I mean, they're well intentioned, but stealing is always wrong. Period!
ArtoftheState1 1 year ago 6
"The costs of David Shrigley's animation have been covered with a grant from the Paul Hamlyn Foundation." You see? You dont need to steal money through violence to 'fund the arts'; voluntary philanthropy is the only moral way to do it. These artists are all violent socialists who use the state to steal money for their industry. No matter how well meant the intentions are, stealing is always wrong. Period!
irdial 1 year ago
I am from the North and can't paint or dance or act or do anything arty to save my life and dont feel patronised by this silly video that made me laugh.
There is so much wonderful free creative stuff out there. Just go and look if you believe you can't afford it.
Yes we don't NEED the arts like oxygen but this will be a much poorer country without them.
Just look at the mammoth cost of trident and question why we are spending all that dosh.
Please don't come round to my house Tracey. X
RuthieFarnell 1 year ago 2
Tracy Emin SET my house on fire, the bitch
drplbiftin 1 year ago 3
@drplbiftin - she had a little wee on my tenor horn... then took a picture....
orichalcum1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your patronisation of northern farmers is glib indeed and proves that some subsidised artists are selfservingselfsatisfiedselfinterested ignorant platitudinous bourgeois layabouts. Any of you worked on a farm? Any of you got proper dirt under your fingernails? Any of you make a youtube video to protest about the desecration of the agricultural sector in this bankrupt country? If you get the subsidy all is right with the world. You probably eat organic kenyan green beans at your dinner parties.
harryross1000 1 year ago
Your patronisation of northern farmers is glib indeed and proves that some subsidised artists are selfservingselfsatisfiedselfinterested ignorant platitudinous bourgeois layabouts. Any of you worked on a farm? Any of you got proper dirt under your fingernails? Any of you make a youtube video to protest about the desecration of the agricultural sector in this bankrupt country? If you get the subsidy all is right with the world. You probably eat organic kenyan green beans at your dinner parties.
harryross1000 1 year ago 2
@harryross1000 I can't speak for all artists as I don't know them all, but I can say that calling them selfservingselfsatisfiedselfinterested ignorantplatitudinous bourgeois layabouts is as ignorant and ill informed as labelling farmers haggeredgruffuneducatedsheepshaggingflatcapwearing working class inbreds. I am intrigued by your question 'any of you worked on a farm?' And the suggestion that if we haven't worked on a farm it indicates we don't know the meaning of 'real' work. I doubt many
bananabuckley 1 year ago
@harryross1000 many artist have worked on a farm.I have mucked out a few horses stables in my time but I don't think my meagre contribution to rural life is quite what you are talking about) but have you ever experienced life as an artist? Currently I have to manage 2 paid jobs to pay my rent and feed myself, 3 artistic projects (2 unpaid 1 paid), am developing a collaborative company, write a blog/review work and try to attend regular classes (I am a dancer). Sure, its a completely different
bananabuckley 1 year ago
@harryross1000 type of hard work to farming, its not better or worse. Its just different. Being and artist takes stamina, dedication, self discipline and self motivation. But I refuse to be, or have my extremely hard working friends, called a layabout. So, artists are responsible for creating campaign videos for all industries? If there was a farmers protest would they take two placards..one saying save the arts? Most of my creative friends are the type of people you should wish there were
bananabuckley 1 year ago
@harryross1000 more of..aware of food industry related issues, who try and buy British produce, support local industry and would be the first to sign a petition to support British Farmers. I eat British green beans, but rarely have time for dinner parties.
bananabuckley 1 year ago
@harryross1000 Shit loads of farmers are artists, have YOU ever been to a local coffee shop in a tiny village? They've usually got watercolours on the walls etc, where do they come from? I'm from Norfolk and spent most of my life on farms or working in garden centres and I eat meat, lots of it!
vertmb 1 year ago
Seen this?
Brian
brianphilipholder 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I hate artists
dogario 1 year ago
@dogario hate is a strong word.
bananabuckley 1 year ago
@dogario so you hate tv, films, theatre?
keef211289 1 year ago
As a practitioner I have little sympathy for the self indulgent who whinge about funding. For too long the arts world has held its hand out and squandered much of what has been handed over. Duchamp has a lot to answer for when it comes to funding I am afraid it is not good enough to try and persuade the tax payer that art has to be funded just because we say so. If it is worthwhile, there is someone out there who will fund it, go and find it, think out side the box, be more creative!
digiphotology 1 year ago
As a practitioner I have little sympathy for the self indulgent who whinge about funding. For too long the arts world has held its hand out and squandered much of what has been handed over. Duchamp has a lot to answer for when it comes to funding I am afraid it is not good enough to try and persuade the tax payer that art has to be funded just because we say so. If it is worthwhile, there is someone out there who will fund it, go and find it, we need to think out side the box, be more creative!
digiphotology 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi! We are letting you know that we added your wonderful video to our collection at lookva.tv
tretatos 1 year ago
'he's only just been born, that's dirty!'
micalith1 1 year ago
'he's only just been born, that's dirty!'
micalith1 1 year ago
Yes, by adding bits of comedy to the animation its more likely to become viral and therefore bring the message to wider audience. That is the very nature of utube, its not just a place to make rude comments about other peoples views and uploads.
dutchtrucker 1 year ago
This is pure gold! the Wayne Rooney bit is true comedy greatness, well done to those involved in making this animation.
dutchtrucker 1 year ago
@dutchtrucker Is it? I think it's obvious & irrelevant to the argument.
holliesteelsucks 1 year ago
I think the arts are like trees - you think they're incidental but when they're gone, life looks shit
sylviewren 1 year ago 2
@sylviewren I think the arts are like trees too. They get pissed on by filthy bitches.
holliesteelsucks 1 year ago
I think the arts are like trees - you think they're incidental but when they're gone, life looks shit
sylviewren 1 year ago
@sylviewren
They took all the trees
Put ' em in a tree museum
And they charged the people
A dollar and half just to see ' em
Don''t it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got till it's gone
lilyfurryears 1 year ago 20
@sylviewren beautifully said
bananabuckley 1 year ago
I'm from Australia... I want to go to the UK next year for the ARTS... please keep it alive.
zhenart 1 year ago 4
@zhenart What a stupid comment. You think because there's a cut in funding there'll be no 'arts' next year? There was art before government subsidy and there'll be art without it. Just means the bloated freeloading arts administrators will have to give up their limousines to work and fly economy class when they go on tax-funded fact-finding jollies around the globe.
holliesteelsucks 1 year ago
@holliesteelsucks ... when I mean I want to go see the arts... I mean I want to see the emerging artist not just the big galleries and when funding is cut... most of the time it is the little guys that get hit the most.
zhenart 1 year ago
@yessingno "Also that private companies, particularly those in the West, often look at short term opportunities while disregarding long term opportunities."
If you're worried about short-sightedness, it's not clear why you seem to support government intervention. Democratically elected rulers, by the nature of electoral politics, will always have systematic bias for short term gain at the expense of long-term sustainability. Google "Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy" for more.
bitbutter 1 year ago
Would you mind if we took this video and dubbed it for use/relevance for US arts orgs (with proper attribution of course)?
Adaptistration 1 year ago
So we shouldn't cut arts funding because the arts contributes so much more to the economy? I wonder how many here arguing that would happily see the civil list cut by 25% ... same principle.
NeilReddin 1 year ago 3
almost 60,000 people have watched this, yet there's only 30, 000 signatures on the petition....
biddulphh 1 year ago
@biddulphh if you're like me you're a bit hesitant about joining it. the arts do need to become self-sufficient, like other sectors.
moralreef 1 year ago
this is nice, and but its fair to say there is still some dead wood in the arts world. I'd like to see the studies done on the economic impact on arts faculties to see if it really is generating income.
i mean, for every one independent cinema hosting world and local talent events, there's someone making a living out of "group therapy using music" or some such bollocks.
moralreef 1 year ago
don't forget to look at the bigger picture: coalitionofresistance
miscpro 1 year ago
well done! great way of getting the important message across!
inspiringarts 1 year ago
This video is of poor quality, and has a false premise. Have fun.
SomethingSea1 1 year ago 2
@SomethingSea1 The false premise is government.
SomethingSea1 1 year ago
lastest hollywood teen vampire bollox :p LAUL
Catch33 1 year ago
Good stuff!
chrisdoney 1 year ago
This would never happen if Labour was still in power!
TopGearrules 1 year ago
#tt worth a look at if you are into the Arts!
WiredPockets 1 year ago
I seriously don't understand this campaign - arts organisations have a ready source of income, the public who come to the art shows they are putting on. So if you're say, a struggling theatre, programme something cheap to put on that you know is going to be popular. Why should government be involved?
firestartertwistedfi 1 year ago
@firestartertwistedfi It's not that simple. Even the smallest of productions is expensive to produce. Production costs alone; actors, stage management, set, costumes, props, performance rights are inordinate. Then the theatre has to pay its box office staff, fronts of house staff, technicians, bills, public liability insurance and much more. Once a theatre has paid off one days worth of outgoings there's very little profit left (if any, many arts organisations are not-for-profit).
PuppetsNStuff 1 year ago
@TheLurker71 @bitbutter They aren't self-sufficient because the cost of running the arts is paid by the institution (art gallery, concert hall), but the financial benefit is distributed. Eg.the Tate Modern gallery might cost £100m to run and only take £40m in revenue, but if nearby resaurants, bars and hotels receive £90m in additional overseas profit then it is clearly sensible to keep the Tate open, even though it isn't self sufficient.
Tourists don't come to the UK for the weather.
alicevemily 1 year ago 4
@alicevemily "They aren't self-sufficient because the cost of running the arts is paid by the institution (art gallery, concert hall), but the financial benefit is distributed."
So in fact arts funding is a coercive subsidy, not only for art projects that couldn't survive in the market, but also for businesses that happen to be close to large art initiatives.
Can you link to research that supports the claim (made so confidently here) that arts funding generates more revenue than it costs?
bitbutter 1 year ago
@bitbutter You can make the same argument about roads. I hate subsidised roads, messing up the free market.
yessingno 1 year ago
@yessingno "You can make the same argument about roads. I hate subsidised roads, messing up the free market."
You sound sarcastic, yet the government's monopoly on provision of roads, like any other coercive monopoly, guarantees poorer service, at higher cost than a private and competitive system would deliver. (also google "A Future of Private Roads and Highways" for some observations on how markets are relevant to road safety issues too).
bitbutter 1 year ago
@bitbutter "You sound sarcastic"
It's writing man. Doesn't sound like anything.
You're forgetting monopolies often have certain efficiencies that small, private, competitive systems cannot deliver. Also that private companies, particularly those in the West, often look at short term opportunities while disregarding long term opportunities. On top of that, you're talking in platitudes.
yessingno 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yessingno "You're forgetting monopolies often have certain efficiencies that small, private, competitive systems cannot deliver."
I'm not. In the case of coercive monopolies (eg. government), over time, network effect benefits will always be outweighed by the damaging effects that guaranteed lack of competition has on incentives to provide high quality and efficient service.
bitbutter 1 year ago
david shrigley ftw!!!!!
mattmallone 1 year ago
They have empty, dead eyes.
transferosome 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I enjoy art and writing, but everyone is facing cuts, and we've just got to swallow the pill. You can be sure that whatever the circumstances, art WILL survive. The only difference may be that the artists may not be able to work in such comfort. But at least an artist can still paint even if he lose funding. What can a secretary do if made redundant? It's a difficult period, we've all got to deal with it.
Harrazza 1 year ago
Comment removed
Harrazza 1 year ago
Comment removed
Harrazza 1 year ago
Comment removed
Harrazza 1 year ago
I love art and writing and stuff, but I think that we have to face up to reality, take a deep breath and accept these hard times. Art will suffer, but everyone is suffering. The difference is, art will never die. As long as people can paint or write, art itself will continue. The only difference is that the artists may not be able to create their works in such comfort. But at least an artist can still paint. What can a secretary do if made redundant?
Harrazza 1 year ago 3
First of all, it's simply not true that the government has to make cuts because of actions by bankers - that's not an oversimplification, it's a lie. The reason is that the previous government spent this country into hock, blowing borrowed money not on investment, but on current spending. But given the situation they left us in it's simply ridiculous to say that any part of the public sector should be insulated from necessary cuts. A near identical argument could be made for any of them!
lordrosemount 1 year ago
And if "the arts generate vastly more revenue for the economy than they cost to fund" then surely they can fund themselves... in which case... why aren't they already doing that?
multipletom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@multipletom
""And if "the arts generate vastly more revenue for the economy than they cost to fund" then surely they can fund themselves... in which case... why aren't they already doing that?""
Well Said sirs :D
hutchings000 1 year ago
@multipletom i think its startup costs. some banks won't give out loans to arts organisations, but you do have a good point.
moralreef 1 year ago
@multipletom
That's so silly of you. Think for a just second. I know, I know, you're not used to it but give it a whirl. They generate more money for *THE ECONOMY* than they cost to fund. Ie the money they generate (ie. from tourism etc) boosts local businesses & workers and therefore tax reciepts to the government.
vagrant1 1 year ago
@vagrant1 "Imoney they generate boosts local businesses & workers and therefore tax reciepts to the government."
So tax payers are being forced to subsidise art institutions, _as well as_ those businesses that happen to be near them.
How about this: If local businesses benefit from a local art institute, to a degree greater than the cost of running it, then it would be economically rational for them to collectively fund the institute themselves.
Force is a bad answer to most problems.
bitbutter 1 year ago
@multipletom 'the arts' isn't one company that needs money. it's many artists and arts organisations that take funding, and use it to develop projects that generate revenue for the country in tourism and taxes. they don't get that money back. it's like saying 'why even have business loans if businesses are generating money'.
glimbrick 1 year ago
@glimbrick "the arts' isn't one company that needs money. it's many artists and arts organisations that take funding, and use it to develop projects that generate revenue"
I see, just like thousands of businesses every year, who seem to operate without subsidy .. in fact, who generate the taxes to feather-bed the arts.
NeilReddin 1 year ago
@NeilReddin how are these self-sufficient business of which you speak started then? surely the money to start them comes from somewhere. business loans maybe? how are these different from arts grants when arts generate money and tax too?
glimbrick 1 year ago
@NeilReddin what, like the motor industry? Or the building industry? Or, indeed, most industries... who receive a wide range of incentives from the government.
The difference is, most industries aren't hated by the right-wing press. If you just admitted to hating the arts (because of what you read in the paper), then maybe you'd be able to have an interesting discussion.
PeteHindle 1 year ago
@multipletom Exactly. This video just smacks of BS.
IdleGod 1 year ago
Comment removed
anfedorov 1 year ago
@multipletom Externalities. Museums generate vast amounts of revenue for hotels, car services, restaurants, air travel, etc. Right now, the government subsidizes "the arts" on behalf of those businesses.
anfedorov 1 year ago 2
@multipletom The problem with your statement is that most of the money smaller arts organizations make are for the economy as a whole not for themselves. Many go out to dinner and show. They will spend much more in the restaurant then they will to see the show. This all creates jobs at the gas station, the restaurant, the parking garage, the Theatre/Musuem. It is about enriching our lives in many ways.
Tilter257 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tilter257 "This all creates jobs at the gas station, the restaurant, the parking garage, the Theatre/Musuem. It is about enriching our lives in many ways."
Do you know which jobs were prevented from coming into existence in this process?
bitbutter 1 year ago
The cuts have almost nothing to do with the banking crisis. Labour was running up a vast and unsustainable deficit before it happened. Then they increased spending even more and the receipts dwindled, so the deficit grew ever wider. Now we as a nation have an enormous bill of debt to pay off - and that doesn't even include the banks.
multipletom 1 year ago
Pretentious, self important parasites living off the taxpayer.
To hell with all of you. The sooner you are cut off the better for everyone.
NorthernStorm8 1 year ago
@NorthernStorm8 Do your homework you daft twit. The vast majority of arts organisations pay more to the government in tax than they receive in state funding. Fuck the rest of the debate that's a cold hard fact that can be backed up by walking into any arts organisation and looking at their budget sheet.
PuppetsNStuff 1 year ago 25
@PuppetsNStuff so if they pay more to the government in tax... why do they need the government funding in the first place? please explain, thank you.
mangere77 1 year ago
@PuppetsNStuff The vast majority of arts organisations pay more to the government in tax than they receive in state funding?
Sounds like they generate such amounts of revenue, that they could do without the funding, since you pay taxes based on the profit you make.
flashkiddy 1 year ago
@flashkiddy It's about where the money goes - bigger gallerys pay more tax than the smaller ones that are subsidies or the free galleries vs. commerical - and they all interelate...
laladizzylandhi 10 months ago
The arts existed before state subsidy, they will exist after the 25% cuts (over four years). If something is that good, people will pay to see it. If it's not, there is no moral case for forcing people to.
NeilReddin 1 year ago 3
@NeilReddin Spot on. That's the paradox of government funding of the arts.
TheLurker71 1 year ago
@NeilReddin What if you are on a low income and can't afford to pay.
47ceaser 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@47ceaser "What if you are on a low income and can't afford to pay."
If you have less money, you can afford to do less things, in general. This is one of the reasons people aspire to earn more money. To earn more money in a system of voluntary exchange, it's necessary to create things that people value enough to pay for.
bitbutter 1 year ago
@NeilReddin If a theatre ticket was not subsidised it can cost more than 3 times as much as they already do. If something is good, and people can't afford to see it, what do you do then!?
becks2000star 1 year ago
@becks2000star If too many people can't afford it then perhaps the production is not as good as the theatre thinks it is. If it is that good, then people will prioritise their spending in order to afford it. In any case, it hardly justifies forcing everyone else to fund the difference.
NeilReddin 1 year ago
@NeilReddin What about young people or people from disadvantaged backgrounds, who genuinely can't afford to see theatre, and their only opportunity is with funding and subsidising tickets. Like with 'A Night Less Ordinary Scheme' with free tickets for 25's and under. Theatre and art shapes and changes people's lives and without funding and subsidising, it is taking the oppotunity to see theatre and live shows away from them.
becks2000star 1 year ago 4
"because of all those jokers in charge of banks, the government is going to have to make some cuts".
Economics fail. The bankers didn't spend more then they were getting in revenue since 2001 - that was one G Brown - causing the deficit (which is the problem requiring spending cuts).
NeilReddin 1 year ago 4
This video starts from the premise that we all have to accept the fact that the government has facilitated the largest transfer of public wealth to the private sector (the banks) and now we will need to pay for it through austerity measures, including dramatic cuts in arts sponsorship. The arts should be involved with bigger picture, not just it's own well-being.
ecolabs1 1 year ago
if the arts generate more for the economy than they cost then why would the government cut funding?
Pixelbd 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
ecolabs1 1 year ago
Comment removed
ecolabs1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video starts from the premise that we all have to accept the fact that the government has facilitated the largest transfer of public wealth to the private sector (the banks) and now we will need to pay for it through these austerity measures, including dramatic cuts in arts sponsorship. This analysis fails to address the essential problem; i.e. systemic problems in governance, finance and economic systems. The arts should be involved with bigger picture, not just it's own well-being.
ecolabs1 1 year ago
Comment removed
ecolabs1 1 year ago
Great to see this campaign - film looks excellent but Is there a subtitled version of this video for deaf people?
cathyarts 1 year ago
Great to see this campaign - film looks excellent but Is there a subtitled version of this video for deaf people?
cathyarts 1 year ago
Excellent. Even the New York Times reported this, complete with link.
applecounty 1 year ago
Cut funding. There's too many freeloaders on the payroll.
holliesteelsucks 1 year ago
@holliesteelsucks I notice in your profile that you are based in the States. Kinda puts your comments into a different context, given any cuts to funding in the UK won't really affect you too much?
roommanvideo 1 year ago
Why is everyone whinging about cuts, the arts are one of the reasons why we are in all this shit in the first place. Millennium dome anyone? some stupid statue in a shopping centre? That's another reason why we are crap at everything else as we are to busy admiring some ostentatious piece of rubbish that is supposed to be ART
There is a time a place for art, here and now isnt that time.......
blazer666del 1 year ago
@blazer666del The arts industry contributes more to our economy than it costs us. It's naive to think that the minimal costs involved in supporting local art galleries or regional theatre companies are responsible for Britain's economic difficulties.
Great piece stating the arguments clearly and succinctly
kerennic 1 year ago
@kerennic "The arts industry contributes more to our economy than it costs us."
First, do you have access to any research that backs up this statement?
Secondly: even if true in simple financial terms, the 'cost' of arts funding is being underestimated. This naive accounting doesn't (and cannot) figure in the impact of profitable projects never realised because of the diminished funds that are available for voluntary trade, thanks to the expropriation necessary for arts funding.
bitbutter 1 year ago 3
I could not care less about arts cuts, I just hope Vince Cable does not cut STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) research funding...that is far more important.
sirsideways 1 year ago
"Let's face it we're crap at most things these days. England coming forward with Gerrard, finds Rooney in space... " *booing*
Rooney: Stop booing. hahahaha killed me.
rimu5 1 year ago
"The arts are to Britain what the sun is to Spain"... Nice!!!
LVRZFRNNDZ 1 year ago
two things wrong with this. 1. don't fall for the received wisdom that cuts are necessary.
2. don't make the argument that it's all about revenue. you've automatically lost if you're fighting the war on their terms, because in reality small arts centres don't make money but they do provide a worthwhile function for culture and education.
amcellroy 1 year ago 2
@amcellroy "but they do provide a worthwhile function for culture and education."
You seem confident that these thing srepresent an overall increase rather than a destruction of value. But how can you know that funds expropriated to support these things create more value than if those funds had been left in the hands of the people who earned them?
bitbutter 1 year ago 3
@bitbutter Surveys, evaluations, and ultimately the value judgments of public servants and politicians. It seems to me that we divert most of our resources towards preventing the things we fear (ill health, poverty, crime) but not to preserving things we value. Public subsidy has saved many a public heritage site. Libraries that would have never opened. Sports clubs would have never got off the ground. All that comes from a responsive subsidy scheme.
amcellroy 11 months ago
This is bloody brilliant!
seemaleema1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sadly, this video is not very good.
AlchemistJack 1 year ago
Sadly, this video is not very good.
AlchemistJack 1 year ago 2
@AlchemistJack What's not so good about it?
YourRealBestFriend 1 year ago
@YourRealBestFriend Hard to hear the points, shitty character development, and flawed premises.
SomethingSea1 1 year ago
When the tories fucked up back in 1990 we all had a lot of fun.
xxxKINGFROGxxx 1 year ago
Public funds are used the promote art in places like the Tate, this benefits the private art galleries/cooperation's that sell the art works. Public money in effect is being used for promotion by those private galleries that have the influence. This promotion is turned in to private profit.( Art Now at the Tate for example). Cut the corporate welfare and let art operate on it own merits in a free market and we will have better art I am sure.
testimonyofglory 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheExplodingCinema 1 year ago
what a load of *cobblers* - if you've got something to say, then say it yourself. Why hide behind a down-the-nose caricature of farmers? Perhaps the next one could feature brain damaged Lottery punters keen to support all the stuff they never see and aren't welcome at.
TheExplodingCinema 1 year ago
@TheExplodingCinema You're right. Everyone knows farmers don't like art, they only like tractors, animals and stuff like that.
Bishbashross 1 year ago
@Bishbashross So this campaign to save the arts has been started by farmers? Why couldn't they get a real farmer to say it then? Again: if you've got something to say, say it yourself, hiding the black skivvy and latte frenzy brigade behind a fairly contemptuous caricature of rural labour like this is disgusting.
TheExplodingCinema 1 year ago
Dude that kid remiended me of karl pilkington. LEGEND
Murdie118 1 year ago
The creative arts, in all their forms, are the engine that drives society, that binds us and gives us our identity - from the economic benefits to the country being a frontrunner in the professional creative industries, to the social importance of creative projects enriching our youth or those who feel they lack a voice in their own communities, an attack on the support of our vibrant, exciting and relevant creative culture is a serious threat to us all.
flippercat 1 year ago 3
I don't know... I don't care much for theatre, opera and ballet...
On the other hand, it would be a terrible shame to lose out on many of our museums, they hold such fascinating and interesting exhibits :)
Just my opinion.
CensingKilltacular 1 year ago
Brilliant
abrucephotography 1 year ago
We should save calfs from budding artists instead. Mooooooo!
DaveScarboroughUK 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
9 years ago today 3000 people were murdered. Ground zero workers are still sick and dying after they were told by their government that the toxic air was safe to breathe. Even today we are feeling the effects of 9/11 from the war on terror, removal of freedoms, and wars in foreign countries. WTC 7 fell into itself, and the official story says that it was destroyed by fire. Over 1200 architects and engineers think there's more to know. Here's why: watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus
boogaloo80 1 year ago
Comment removed
thedesignhansa 1 year ago
This makes farming more attractive than the arts. Why have 2,000 years of lettering and calligraphy been replaced by scruffy capital letters in felt tipped pen?
thedesignhansa 1 year ago 5
If this isn't David Shrigley, it's a definite rip off.
feydragrey7 1 year ago
@feydragrey7 yep, it is Shrigley, this campaign is being supported very broadly across the creative sector and beyond.
flippercat 1 year ago
Perhaps deviant Damien and twisted Tracy and their ilk could give back most of the megadosh they have coined in by peddling pish for the last twenty years?
walker44444 1 year ago
Comment removed
diafragm 1 year ago
exactly... vital cause... bloody brilliant! ;)
spreddy2 1 year ago
what did antony do to that calf? ha ha
thomuk2006 1 year ago
Signing up now
hesaidtalent 1 year ago
Thumps up if you love art! and Want the cuts stopped or at the very least reduced.
hesaidtalent 1 year ago 4
Comment removed
hesaidtalent 1 year ago
brilliant!
countvanderhoff 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good luck with the campaign. A point well made, I don't think people understand what the true impact of a loss of arts funding would be on the economy.
@holliesteelsucks
As mentioned in the video, the arts generate vastly more revenue for the economy than they cost to fund. Even if you have no interest in the arts think of them as a financial investment.
alicevemily 1 year ago
Good luck with the campaign. A point well made, I don't think people understand what the true impact of a loss of arts funding would be on the economy.
@holliesteelsucks
As mentioned in the video, the arts generate vastly more revenue for the economy than they cost to fund. Even if you have no interest in the arts think of them as a financial investment.
alicevemily 1 year ago 7