Try changing the name of your theatre from the Bristol Old Vic to the Bristol Savings and Loans.
The government will be throwing cash at you, especially if you tell them you're running at a few billion pounds loss.

Surely there's enough middle class money out there to fund these things without resorting to taking money from government.

I would rather see money going to the poor than subsidising a bunch of over paid actors and directors that believe what they do has merit, and therefore, they have a right to be subsidised . If the public want to see their work, they will pay to do so, and if their work is not viable then tough.

@ gilday - I'd hardly call £410 a week overpaid.

The luvvies really believe they're entitled to take money from the poor to fund their silly games? More delusional, arrogant entitlement, worse than MPs and snivel serpents.

You can cut every penny from Opera and ballet as far as I care. It's not even entertainment so spare us. But leave theatre alone. Me for Arts Minister!

Nice bit of special pleading, as always. And a nice tick for the dog whistle of 'if they can give money to the bankers, surely we can get some too?'

Look, I'm sure everyone agrees that the arts are important. In a second-rate modern country like Britain, which only has its history and its culture to fall back on, preserving that cultural history is priceless (not least for tourism revenues, I'm sure, but primarily because it is prima facie important, at least in my view). But how to fund the arts is always going to be a thorny debate. You can have massive public subsidies and not do too much useful with them (France, and the BBC) or almost no public subsidy and produce some great stuff and some appallingly commercial, lowest-common-denominator stuff (US). You have a good crack at the tax breaks for philanthropists - but wasn't it your lot who complained when George Osborne wanted to cap tax relief on philanthropy? And while on the subject, it's always worth looking at the gap in charitable giving between the UK and the Great Satan (to the Guardian) of the US. Perhaps if the tax burden were lower on your customers and your funders, you would see more money coming in without being dependent on the state? Or is that a step too far in your endearingly simple view of the world?

Christ, why did they bother opening this thing to comments? Amazed it took until the fifth one for some berk to start rattling about 'luvvies'.

Subsidy is a) responsible for helping incubate almost every major hit British theatre show of the last several years (Matilda, War Horse, Jersualem, One Man, Two Guvnors), shows that have brought pleasure to millions and brought millions of pounds into the British economy; b) numerous highly worthwhile enterprises like outreach schemes, school schemes, education schemes and of course subsidised tickets.

At the very very bottom line, it constantly amazes me that people seem to get so outraged at the simple idea that the government makes an investment in the arts (a pretty small one really) and the country gets a return on that investment. If subsidised theatre was consistently failing to produce hit shows that boosted the private sector and tourist economy then maybe there'd be cause to say 'er, why are we giving you this money again?', but that's simply not the case.

I can imagine several plausible arguments for taxpayers subsidising theatre.
Obtaining more Tonys for well-paid actors, even British ones, is not among them, in my opinion.

The central argument for public investment in the arts has been overlooked here.

It is that arts education yields public goods. People who might otherwise become wage slaves, often succumbing to mild mental illness, find a way to unleash their innate creativity. That creativity is what prompts people to start businesses instead of waiting for the perfect job, to find better ways of doing things, to offer completely unprecedented products or services (such as Facebook), and even to ward off mental illness by asserting their creativity, autonomy and mastery.

It is a win-win situation. Not only does it transform positively those who express their creativity, but also it saves enormous amounts that would otherwise be spent on mental ill-health. And it helps educators to draw the best out of their students.

That is why children in need of a decent musical instrument should be sent to the front of the public funding queue. It is also why the first object of the Arts Council's Royal Charter is to improve the practice of the arts. This refers to people at all levels of ability and achievement: not just Oscar winners such as Tom Hanks or Meryl Streep.

Those who are keen on awards might well ask how the US system of funding produces so many winners. Yes, many of our own winners came through the subsidised route. But the US does not offer that route. It might well be that subsidy is neither necessary nor sufficient for producing award-winners. Not very firm ground for advocacy.

Experiment can yield public goods, such as completely new and more effective ways of doing things. Once no high jumper used the Fosbury Flop. Now every high jumper uses it. Fosbury cannot prevent others using it. Nor does he get royalties from each user. The Flop is a public good. Public investment should be reserved for public goods.

Incidentally, Fosbury did not set out to be lunatic. He set out to find a more effective way of doing the high jump. Nor did Picasso set out to be lunatic with cubism. Nor did the first film makers who translated theatre to screen. Most successful pioneers set out to minimise the risk of failure and to maximise the probability of success. They regard risk as an unavoidable evil on the route to achievement.

The preservation of classics is well done by museums, and increasingly by digital archiving. The risk that Mozart will be forgotten is vanishingly small. Marlon Brando will still snarl in "A Streetcar Named Desire", centuries from now. The Parthenon marbles will loiter in the British Museum (or in Athens if returned to them) for millennia. Even Harry Potter and Billy Elliott will live forever in digital form.

But we do have at least two solid pillars in the argument for public investment in the arts:

1. Arts Education
2. Artistic Research and Development

Only after Arts Education is fully funded should we even dream of subsidising ticket prices for anyone. People should be treated as creators, not reduced to spectators.

The voter finally decides where money ought to go. And very few voters will vote to deprive their children of musical instruments in order to subsidise ticket prices for mainly well-off audiences.

I might not sgree with the funding cuts for the arts I rarely got the theatre but I do go into public galleries (Tate(s), National Gallery etc) if I'm ever passing, even if it's just for a few minutes. One of the big ironies might be that there are some groups who are continually call for cuts/privitisation of the health service, education, defence etc. yet do go to the theatre, galleries etc who argue why should they contribute to something that they never use. Maybe these people will start to get their heads out of the sand and realise like many people do that there are two options both of which will affect all of us; cuts in services or getting those who can to pay more in taxes.

For an article that tries to go through an argument step by step, you manage somehow to blur the picture of what exactly the money should or shouldn't be spent on...

There should be public subsidy, for the following:

- Education, outreach and open access. It infuriates me that theatres will continue to receive public money after cutting their education programmes. This is the only way to ensure the industry is not purely populated by a middle-class clique. This should be spent on creative learning, youth companies, student loans for those who would not otherwise be able to consider further education in the arts, etc.

- New writing. Simply because the English cannon is so overstuffed with well known works that the free market is unlikely to gamble on new writing of its own accord. However, I also feel that in the case of huge hits, a chunk of profits should always go back into the public purse and no individuals involved (including the writer) should get rich out of it.

- Infrastructure loans. This, put simply, is a way of helping smaller theatres take a step towards being more self-sustaining. There are so many brilliant theatres currently based above a pub, or in a converted factory. etc. A low interest loan to be paid back over several years would enable many theatres to build dedicated premises with bigger audience capacities. Where a theatre can demonstrate that the demand exists for a bigger space, then the government should help them expand. But crucially, that bigger capacity has to result in the theatre being less reliant on subsidy in the long run (not more!).

So to clarify what is not clear from the article - if it's not one of the three points above, I don't want public money spent on it.

'subsidy enables me to escape the strictures of the marketplace'
Well the marketplace is the UK public, they are the ones who would choose to pay to see your plays. The market is not some mysterious force despotic force, it is your next door neighbour, it is the people who live in this country like you. The same people who pay taxes that pay for your subsidy. So what you are saying is that you want money to develop things that the UK public do not want to see. Sounds incredibly elitist to me, sounds like you think you know better then your fellow citizens as to what they should be doing in their spare time.

Ah yes, 'our' theatres? We, Kemo Sabe?

The key point in funding for theatre is that the art requires three things:

1. A theatre, which is in a specific place.

2. Productions on stage: far too few compared with 40 years ago and too many co-productions which extend a production's life but reduce job opportunities by reducing the number of productions overall. They maintain "actor weeks" of work but reduce the number of roles on offer.

3. An audience.

Remarkably, in the early days of arts funding in the UK, late 1940s, it was suggested that it was the audience that should be subsidised enabling them to visit more productions further afield. I don't think this view prevailed for long. The audience still receives the benefit of subsidy in lower ticket prices overall, and even lower prices for some groups.

The building should be subsidised by the local authority, it is their place, and is a facility for audiences drawn partly from that area, and drawing income into that area through tourism etc. (even though Stratford has less than ideal relationship with its resident Royal Shakespeare Company, a bit like Cambridge's relationship with the university).

That leaves the art on stage which should be funded from box-office income and subsidy. Birmingham City Council set such a 50/50 basis for its funding for Birmingham Rep years ago when the theatre was doing through a crisis.

So what you are saying is that you want money to develop things that the UK public do not want to see. Sounds incredibly elitist to me, sounds like you think you know better then your fellow citizens as to what they should be doing in their spare time.

That's obviously not what he means... he's the director of War Horse, which would never have been commissioned by the private sector in a million years because on paper there was no obvious place in the market for a puppet-based play about horses in WW1... it's probably the single most successful theatre production of the last decade, possibly in the world...

Hang on...public investment into the arts should be encouraged because it saves those people from becoming mentally unwell. Im sorry, but thats simply rubbish. Mental illness is not caused by a build up of creative karmic energies etc etc. And even if it was, I would suggest that investing in public arts education as a way to reduce mental illness is a highly inefficient way to improve health. Maybe it would be better to you know, fund mental health services?

Secondly, Facebook is possibly the worst example you could have picked...a product of technology at the worlds leading science and technology specialist university, that was made by science students using computer programming. Creativity isnt the sole domain of the arts, and anything creative doesnt immediately become an arts project.

All this is not to say that I dont think public arts should be funded. Its just that the gains we get are often intangible and economically poor. The arts deserve to be funded for their own sake.

Is it a subsidy or an investment? The number of tourists that come to London to see the shows and spend their money at the shows, cafes, hotels, restaurans and cafes is quite huge. Edinburgh also makes a huge chunk from its festival and this is a perennial thing. The benefit to the overall economy is substantial.

Unlike the behemoth that is the Olympics where the cost dwarves any benefit that might come back to the tax payer.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Saying that War Horse made the NT £9 million isn't an argument. You can't just select one commercially successful example. Rather you have to look at the profit and loss for all the the NT's work, if you're going to apply that kind of reasoning.

The artistic director is king "protected from the marketplace" by some low status team of people desperately trying to keep the theatre from sinking.

Yes theatres do offer cheap tickets but how many try to make sure they promote them to those with little money. Does the old Vic go promoting itself on the council estates of Bristol. No. The Old Vics majority of punters are the same as for most theatres. Middle Class white and elderly.

An alternative view is that Tom will simply spend as much money as he is allowed. In much the same way I remember Peter Hall roaring that he like all theatre people were very good at managing finances. Sorry no. The theatre like the rest of us needs to cut its cloth. Despite Tom's protestations the arts will not die. He'll just have to market himself a little better.

It is amazing how resourceful people can be if they need to be. If the arts are as important as they make themselves out to be then they should be worthy of funding from their audiences. Arts grants just say that the arts are really a dead duck being kept open by the government, like British Leyland for years. Cut it off and self sustaining movements will come like Toyota, Nissan and Honda.

I think all forms of art are an expression of who we are as human,
and reflect our culture and life experience.
It's also a route to the imagination and realm of ideas.

I can't imagine what our society would be like without
access to live theatre, the visual arts and basic amenities
like libraries, galleries and museums; it's also a mark of civilized society
that we value these treasures and open up to all.

It's not a luxury- but a necessity.

I feel particularly strongly about preserving the quality
of arts in all forms in education- and subsidy for community arts.
It's about inspiring and enabling people to explore
as a form of self expression as well as furthering skills;
maybe contributing too by participation in community projects
aimed to improve public health or raise issues for example.
It can be so many things; it has huge scope.

As with core public services, I see the arts as very much on a par
with that. People need outlets for expression and inspiration,
and to acquire knowledge and skills.

There is massive enthusiasm out there amongst young people-
eg in dance, music, and the visual arts.

I've also been part of a community theatre and have witnessed first hand
the passion amongst many teenagers to be involved- and great talent.

Also many older people- eg access to art programmes in galleries;
has an immensely empowering effect on people's lives.

This also applies to cuts to further education in the arts
and a massive increase in fees for courses, thereby
stifling opportunities and social mobility for people
who may have great talent and ambition- of all age groups.

It should not become the preserve of the most priveleged
to afford- we are going backwards if this happens.

I really appreciate this article, and I hope there will be
much more discussion on this, as there has been
a gradual erosion of support and funding having
a cumulative effect over recent years; all those
who love and appreciate the arts must speak out
to defend its value to society, which is immeasurable,
and a mark of our culture.

Jo

Of course arts education should be funded for itself, because being creative is part of being human. Even the poorest people in the world, perhaps especially them, draw and sing and dance. But that is not the sole reason for public investment in arts education.

The most common mental disorder is depression. Some of it is beyond the reach of mere creative activities. But a lot of it is not. The officially recommended treatment for mild depression is cognitive behavioural therapy. An important part of that is developing some activity which gives a sense of autonomy and mastery. Creative artistic activity fits the bill perfectly. People may be besieged by stressful lives. But creative activity, whether creating songs or poems or paintings etc., is a useful way to develop resilience against the stress - especially when done in the company of others. It is much better to invest in arts education, and to have widespread creative activity across our country, than to spend billions per year treating depression.

Children who learn musical instruments benefit even if they do not go on to become professional musicians. They have the joy of creating music, of course. But they do better at the 3 Rs too. And their creativity can help them in a variety of careers: including software, advertising, architecture, fashion etc. But creativity is also at the root of scientific research. As Einstein said, "I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge." He dreamed up the theory of relativity and made predictions which were not tested until years later. In that leap of imagination, he was being an artist. This is the same person who said "Life without playing music is inconceivable for me." I would not bet that his violin-playing was irrelevant to his scientific genius.

These are some of the important reasons why public investment in musical instruments for children should take priority over public subsidy for mere titillation of mainly well-heeled people.

The most common mental disorder is depression. Some of it is beyond the reach of mere creative activities. But a lot of it is not. The officially recommended treatment for mild depression is cognitive behavioural therapy. An important part of that is developing some activity which gives a sense of autonomy and mastery. Creative artistic activity fits the bill perfectly. People may be besieged by stressful lives. But creative activity, whether creating songs or poems or paintings etc., is a useful way to develop resilience against the stress - especially when done in the company of others. It is much better to invest in arts education, and to have widespread creative activity across our country, than to spend billions per year treating depression.

creative artistic activity does not fit the CBT treatment perfectly. CBT is not about activities etc, its about a programme to address dysfunctional ideas. This rarely (if ever) involves artistic projects. It does involve activities that involve confronitng fears and operant behaviour conditioning/deconditioning. Creative arts has very little to do with CBT.

You may be right that people involved in creative arts are less likely to become depressed - but this is independant of the subject - people involved in scientific projects etc are also less likely to get depressed. Its about being in employment, having goals to achieve. So again, no advantage of the creative arts over other fields.

Children who learn musical instruments benefit even if they do not go on to become professional musicians. They have the joy of creating music, of course. But they do better at the 3 Rs too. And their creativity can help them in a variety of careers: including software, advertising, architecture, fashion etc. But creativity is also at the root of scientific research. As Einstein said, "I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge." He dreamed up the theory of relativity and made predictions which were not tested until years later. In that leap of imagination, he was being an artist. This is the same person who said "Life without playing music is inconceivable for me." I would not bet that his violin-playing was irrelevant to his scientific genius.

Again, children who learn musical instruments achieve more because learning to play instruments is generally a marker for being in a rich, wealthy, well educated family. Could you provide me with some evidence that the benefit is above and beyond this? and that it gives them some transferable skills other than playing the instrument?

I agree with Einstein. What i dont agree with is your argument that 1) it will help prevent mental illness/depression (absolutely no evidence -and there are studies which show that it is inneffective therapy 2) creative arts is a major component of CBT

The benefits of the arts are difficult to put into economics etc - compared with science funding, its just not as economically viable. The arts should galvanise funding through making arguments on culture, heritage, its ability to broaden thinking and attitudes etc not on flimsy basis of public health or how funding music instruments lessons is a viable way to increase economic output for the country.

Tom Morris argues that startling, unexpected insights are essential and cites a 1985 performance by Complicite, which is a credible and convincing example.

Sadly, he then goes on to mention War Horse in the same context without the slightest indication he's aware of a qualitative difference. As it happens there was a Polish theatre company at the Assembly Rooms in '84 or '85 who used similar puppetry techniques to much greater effect in a startling and disturbing performance that wasn't entirely undermined by nostalgic, sentimental melodrama. The telling difference is that this wasn't the sort of work that could be so easily appropriated by a Hollywood schmaltz pusher or washed-out national pomp.

An all too familiar effort to conflate commercial success with artistic merit then follows. A common feature of special pleading across the entire cultural spectrum. The BBC wants to chase viewers with PR driven celebrity gossip, karaoke talent shows and other programme formats that entertain us with the cruel humiliation of celebrity wannabes. They contradict their endlessly trumpeted remit by arguing that healthy viewing figures justify continuing subsidies, but also want to hang onto unsupportable arguments from yesteryear that public service broadcasting is inherently nourishing and vital to national well-being.

If such paradoxical arguments were a product of decades of Pavlovian conditioning by funding bodies promoting a flawed market philosophy, it would be possible to at least have sympathy for the self-defeating logic of our cultural leaders. The sad fact is that Britain's cultural output has always shied away from the intellectually driven experimentation that dominates continental culture, but also sneers at pure commercial entertainment as a vulgar, if increasingly unavoidable evil.

With a few notable exceptions like Complicite, British theatre's literary pretensions and middlebrow sensibilities continue to starve audiences of unexpected insight, which is not to be confused with technical spectacle. They set the stage for a constant battle to justify the relevance of state sponsored performance arts to contemporary society, other than the occasional turn from a 2nd rate TV celebrity. Heritage is the final refuge, especially for our regional reps, which mostly reek of aspic and old farce.

As one of those kids from a sink estate who was forced to endure the charity of people who were utterly convinced of their own cultural superiority, the most startling insight I gained was into the previously unimagined depth of middle class hypocrisy. The catastrophic, quasi-religious belief in the market that now forces us to choose between elderly care and the arts is strongest amongst the primary constituency for theatre, opera and ballet. The squeezed, middling sort that are still persuaded to vote for the ongoing destruction of their own values and affectations with a baseless envy of the already redundant, "evil poor" and the elusive promise of unimaginable, material wealth.

When the inadvertent function of British theatre finally ceases to be the provision of a shallow cultural facade that helps the occupants of leafy suburbs to feel that their less noble inclinations are somehow off-set by a level of social sophistication, perhaps such earnest pleas will sound less hollow. In the meantime, the widespread closure of theatres may well provide a more startling insight into where we're heading than the celebrity augmented whimsy and post-Imperial nostalgia that occupies most of our stages.

Nah

It's curious how articles expressing an opinion, especially from well informed
sources, seem to attract very negative commentary and counter views.
I think those who choose to respond are a self selected group,
and not necessarily reflecting wider public views.

I can only say that in my experience, this topic is often discussed
in community arts groups and in the past, via campaigners
and workers in the theatre seeking to challenge decisions
about closures and cuts locally.

Passions often run very high, and long standing audience members
have been willing to sin petitions and write letters in very large numbers;
they really value and love their theatre; also care passionately
about arts provision in towns and cities.

So I don't think there is any apathy in the main,
especially where there has been a tradition of lower funding
than areas, perceived perhaps as more "middle class."

The theatre we used to attend regularly;(no names mentioned,)
was mostly packed to the rafters in 99% of shows.

Over some time it was obvious the make up of the
audience was a real mix of young families, local people,
older couples, and many visitors who were prepared
to travel long distances to see fantastic productions.
Some of it was considered "highbrow;" others more
entertaining.

We also regularly attend our other local theatre
which includes a very varied programme-
but most is a very high level of quality production;
some in house- other travelling shows.
We need the home grown producing theatres
and the crafts/skills that go with it to keep alive
for future generations.

It's not about appealing to middle class audiences-
it's theatre for everyone, as in Shakespeare's day.
But ticket prices also have to be kept affordable
to attract people and keep them coming.
Also aspects like upkeep of the fabric
of building and paying wages!

In my experience- there is a very large section
of the community who would go the extra mile
to support their local theatre, library,
museum, galleries, green spaces and historic buildings.
These places should be preserved for public use
as their value is immense.

Jo

Its about being in employment, having goals to achieve.

Many people are stuck in jobs that they find soul-destroying. They live for the weekend, and some of them succumb to mild depression. It is this group of people for whom it is much easier to start an artistic activity than suddenly to join a scientific project.

Others are in even more difficult circumstances, trying to keep body and soul together. When depression strikes, even getting out of bed can be a challenge. Taking up an artistic activity can be a useful first step to climbing out of a rut.

Creative activities, for those that are fortunate enough to do them regularly, are among the most pleasant and empowering of positive activities. Many find that they offer a natural "high". Even people in soul-destroying jobs, or those between jobs, can treat themselves to such experiences of "flow". In doing so, they refuse to be crushed by difficult circumstances.

"transferable skills other than playing the instrument"

The self-discipline required to master an instrument is highly transferable. This has proven true in the slums of Venezuela as much as in affluent British suburbs. Besides, young brains are moulded by activities: literally. There is no substitute for learning music. Further, a good ear is transferable to language skills. The ability to see patterns on an instrument is transferable to mathematical and analytical ability. Composing is an activity that creates something out of nothing: the skill is transferable to generating scientific hypotheses that can shift whole paradigms. More than that, mastering an instrument gives a sense of personal competence that is transferable to all of life.

Yes, arts education deserves funding because creativity is a part of being fully human. But we would be selling the arts short if we ignored all the above. Not only that, but we would be preparing a generation of low-skilled wage slaves with limited horizons when the money is mostly in creativity and innovation. That would be bad for people, and bad for the economy.

BigBear2,

t

.....The building should be subsidised by the local authority, it is their place, and is a facility for audiences drawn partly from that area,

That leaves the art on stage which should be funded from box-office income and subsidy.

OK, so the local government funds the maintenance of the public forums ( e.g parks squares theatres galleries). This is NOT subsidy, but a fiscal redistribution legitimated by the populace, to support common spaces for civilised discourse i.e it is the price of Democracy.

Then you ask for public subsidy of the producers of art for these public spaces.

I believe that it is the debate about the legitimacy of such forcible subsidy of ars, that the heart of the debate is to be found. Is it democratic? or is it a species of tyranny?

Tom Morris has produced a wonderful and persuasive speech; advocacy of a high order; rhetoric worthy of Anthony; a triumph of the Oxbridge essayist tradition.

However, it is not poetic; it it not real, and it is not actually true in the Baconian sense.

Tom may need to look behind his own Arras, so to speak, at his fundamental assumptions. He may then discern the outlines of his own deformation professionnelle which judging by the comments so far, is large, and visible to all.

More seriously, Tom may get some idea of the asperity that is stirred by such special pleading by the state- subsidised theatre Pouviour of which he is clearly one .Just to give him a starter-for-ten; could his speech have been given by any circus-organiser of Nero's time?

In plainer terms; Tom needs to address the REAL argument for and against state subsidy /state control .. (or 'nationalisation') of this most political of the arts, then he would be advancing the cause of civilisation, democracy, & co.,etc. .... and theatre itself.

Many people are stuck in jobs that they find soul-destroying. They live for the weekend, and some of them succumb to mild depression. It is this group of people for whom it is much easier to start an artistic activity than suddenly to join a scientific project.

You seem to be adamant that creative arts involvement is beneficial to mental health, when huge scientific studies have found no such link. Soul destroying or not, employment is protective. The following are the strongest predictors of mental ill health (apart from genetics):

Death of a parent before age 12
Long term unemployment
Lack of long term partner

There is no evidence to say that creative arts are superior to other forms of employment. Studies have been done. There was no significant asociation between rates of depression and the type of employment - only that they were employed. Note, the same task without employment was not protective. So how does the theatre prevent depression? Are you seriously arguing that it does, when you have no evidence and are faced with evidence to the contrary?

Others are in even more difficult circumstances, trying to keep body and soul together. When depression strikes, even getting out of bed can be a challenge. Taking up an artistic activity can be a useful first step to climbing out of a rut.

No, it isnt a useful first step at all. Its thinking like this that puts mental health back in this country. just because it helps you (healthy, presumably), doesnt mean it will help a depressed person who is suffering a mental illness. the ONLY things that have been proven to help are CBT, SSRIs, etc. Other therapies, such as exercise, FBT etc etc have produced mixed or negative results. Involvement in recreational activites such sa theatre absolutely does not help (if there are any studies that show this that i have missed, plesae let me know) - indeed it is part of the diagnosis of depression that activities that usually bring joy, happiness etc are now completely incapable of doing so in the depressed person. its called anhedonia. It is pretty much the defining feature of depression, even over and above low mood - it is one of the ICD-10 and DSM major criteria for diagnosis, and is more often present than low mood, espescially in elderly patients.

Please stop advocating therapies for mental illness that do not work - its almost as bad as homeopathy and undermines getting effective help to people.

Creative activities, for those that are fortunate enough to do them regularly, are among the most pleasant and empowering of positive activities. Many find that they offer a natural "high". Even people in soul-destroying jobs, or those between jobs, can treat themselves to such experiences of "flow". In doing so, they refuse to be crushed by difficult circumstances

As explained, a depressed patient is different. They have anhedonia, the creative arts do not help their depression. Im not talking about people who are a bit down, but are in fact clinically depressed.

The self-discipline required to master an instrument is highly transferable. This has proven true in the slums of Venezuela as much as in affluent British suburbs. Besides, young brains are moulded by activities: literally. There is no substitute for learning music. Further, a good ear is transferable to language skills.

Playing a musical instrument has no bearing on acquisition of linguistic skills to my knowledge. Can you show me otherwise? I would even go as foar as to say that while it may be possible to improve accent and intonation because of a trained ear, it does not seem plausible that it would affect language centres,

The ability to see patterns on an instrument is transferable to mathematical and analytical ability. Composing is an activity that creates something out of nothing: the skill is transferable to generating scientific hypotheses that can shift whole paradigms.

I highly doubt that seeing patterns in music/instruments translates to mathematical/analytical ability. Most reserach in this area (of skill transferability) suggest that tasks such as playing games, musical instrumenbts, brain training exercises etc improve the ability to perform that particular task only. I can show you some evidence for this if you want. Can you show me any evidence to the contrary? I will be happy to concede this point if you can.

More than that, mastering an instrument gives a sense of personal competence that is transferable to all of life.

This I can see.

Not only that, but we would be preparing a generation of low-skilled wage slaves with limited horizons when the money is mostly in creativity and innovation. That would be bad for people, and bad for the economy.

Agreed.

Not only that, but we would be preparing a generation of low-skilled wage slaves with limited horizons when the money is mostly in creativity and innovation. That would be bad for people, and bad for the economy.

But just to point out, that creativity and innovation are not the sole domain of the arts, nor does a project that shows these features automatically become an arts project - as your own example of facebook has shown. Though i agree, that the arts contribute to economic output.

If it formed a greater part of the public discourse by placing public support for the arts as a core part of governments' policies rather than as what is seen by many as pointless extras then we could have a proper debate about this.

In transferring some funding into the Lottery this is sidelined and turned into a state supported charity.

I'm sorry that you see this as a form of tyranny, others see it as vital as public libraries, but they are suffering too.

" Im not talking about people who are a bit down, but are in fact clinically depressed."

I am talking about people who are a bit down, and who might start sliding down a slippery slope unless they choose to treat themselves to positive activities. Few activities are more positive and empowering than artistic creativity. An individual who chooses to experience the "flow" and the sense of mastery which such creative activities offer is choosing against "being a bit down". Indeed, they might experience a natural "high" unless they are careful.

That is one of the reasons why arts education of children is so important. A nation of people who can access the natural "high" offered by the practice of the arts will, um, enjoy the practice of the arts.

Practitioners of CBT might be persuaded that their depressed clients should not consider positive activities, in case those clients have permanent "anhedonia". However, positive activities are rarely harmful and the anhedonia might not be permanent.

I like your public library analogy; via the mechanism of democracy, the local public have consented to be taxed on their efforts to fund these buildings, their maintenance, and the purchase of books ....( all at commercial rates on the open market). In essence libraries are public spaces, but the state funding mandate does not extend to subsidising the process of writing books per-se.

If you find it hard to imagine the situation where the state funded the creative process ... then just think of life under Communism.

And on the subject of the tyranny of taxation, just remember that you must pay the taxman before you can even feed your offspring. It follows that those who exist on taxes rank before your nearest and dearest in the distribution of your personal effort. So when people make the case for MORE subsidy of their essentially private creative efforts, in spiritual terms they are inserting themselves at the head of the dinner queue, in front of the smallest child. So in a real sense, even babies are being taxed.

So by all means tax us to provide 'free' public spaces ... but don't tax us to provide 'free' shows.

Hands up who watches the telly?
Hands up who goes to the cinema?
Hands up who goes to an exhibition? Or watches street entertainment? Or performance poetry? Or dance? Or opera? Or listens to music?

So take away the funding and all you'll get is a bunch of white middle class men entertaining you as there won't be subsidies to help women with childcare issues perform, direct, paint, dance, sing, write music. There won't be much ethnic and class diversity as the subsidy won't be there to help pay for the training. We won't have a film industry as we won't have staff coming up through the ranks to compete with the American crews. Levels of literacy and integration, already at cripplingly low levels will go fall further as there won't be outreach programs to help maybe tip the balance not just in deprived neighbourhoods but also in prisons. There won't be that moment in the sun for a mass of disabled children who look forward to performing just once a year on a theatre stage in front of their families and friends. I could go on.

Yeah sure, take away the subsidy and then moan about what you have left to distract you from the shitness of your lives. But then again, the X Factor will always be on.

Curb your sentimentality; it hides an uncivilising anger.

Apologies for not spotting your brilliant parody! Having re-read it when less tired, it really is a very funny p-taking of the new establishment. Bravo!