File spoon-archives/avant-garde.archive/avant-garde_1996/96-09-01.085, message 56


Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 15:30:00 GMT
Subject: Men of Vice
From: jya-AT-pipeline.com (John Young)


   Financial Times, July 4, 1996, p. 11. 
 
   Price of beauty [Editorial] 
 
 
   The moments when emotions are caught by a vision of beauty, 
   when grand harmonies linger in the mind, or when deep 
   currents in our lives are suddenly revealed: these are the 
   business of great art and it seldom comes cheap. The Church 
   has known this for almost 2,000 years. Its paintings and 
   cathedrals, financed ultimately by the labours of the poor, 
   would be hard to justify on modern utilitarian grounds. 
 
   Perhaps a popular vote would have diverted the cost of York 
   Minster into alms houses or bread and circuses. But 
   religious art profoundly affected society and helped to 
   Iffl people's lives out of the mire of poverty. Secular 
   sponsors enabled Shakespeare to play to the groundlings as 
   well as to the grandees, while great patrons bequeathed the 
   beauties of Europe from Venice and the Rhine castles to the 
   palaces of Paris or Blenheim. They were built for the 
   elite, but now delight everyone. 
 
   Today, Church funding has been replaced, perforce, by state 
   subsidy. Private patrons have given way to corporate 
   sponsors. But modern supporters of the arts are constrained 
   by voters and shareholders, many of whom would rather have 
   the money in their pockets than see it spent on "high" 
   culture. The UK government has responded by setting up the 
   National Lottery, which now faces the formidable task of 
   spending its cash wisely. UK corporate sponsors, which have 
   increased their support for the arts eightfold in the last 
   20 years, face a rather different problem. They need to 
   justify increased spending in terms of corporate goals 
   rather than generalised philanthropy. And a vague 
   contribution to the company's prestige may no longer be 
   enough: arts sponsorship must often find a place in the 
   marketing or advertising budget. 
 
   If this is the way to get more money for the arts, it 
   should in principle be welcomed, along with the use of the 
   lottery. But sponsorship sharply focused by corporate goals 
   is likely to have its limitations, especially if company 
   donations are sucked into big high profile lottery-funded 
   projects at the expense of smaller or riskier ventures. 
 
   Western culture was shaped by men of vision supporting 
   artists of genius, a tradition which is hard to continue in 
   popular democracies. In the UK, the corporate sector has 
   played an increasing part, but it is unlikely ever to be a 
   substitute for government funding and, even with the 
   support of the lottery, ministers should resist the 
   temptation to think that it should be more than a useful 
   addition to the duty of the state. 
 
   ----- 
 
 


     --- from list avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005