Arts funding

luckat

Was at an arty party the other night and it was tales of carnage all around - small arts enterprises that had been supported by government funding having their grants slashed by anything from 40% to 100%.

In most cases these grants mainly fund wage bills.

Astonishing that the government is stupid enough to make enemies of the artists, performers and writers!

It also shows the values held by the current administration. <sigh>

mountainyman

luckat wrote: »

Was at an arty party the other night and it was tales of carnage all around - small arts enterprises that had been supported by government funding having their grants slashed by anything from 40% to 100%.

In most cases these grants mainly fund wage bills.

Astonishing that the government is stupid enough to make enemies of the artists, performers and writers!

It also shows the values held by the current administration. <sigh>

Luckat I am strongly Pro Arts and pro givernment spending but Ireland has too many arts administrators for what is an extremely culturally moribund society.

Most of these organisations have no metrics and no way to judge success. The state cannot make art.

Perhaps some of the sacked arts administrators will actually go and make art. Alternatively they could look at the Errigal Festival model which is mostly financed by local merchants.

Irlbo

We dont need funding for arts in any degree at all,we are in dire straits,we need funding for those who need jobs or training to obtain a job,paintings and writings areant going to put dinner on the table,how much does it cost for someone to write a poem of draw a picture??

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

luckat

Iribo, an interesting question: how much does it cost for someone to write a poem or draw a picture?

How much do you think it costs?

K4t

luckat wrote: »

Iribo, an interesting question: how much does it cost for someone to write a poem or draw a picture?

How much do you think it costs?

30cent for a pen and 60c for a copy? Probably cheaper now with the price cuts.

luckat

K4t wrote: »

30cent for a pen and 60c for a copy? Probably cheaper now with the price cuts.

Ah yes; the same price as for writing software.

The Raven.

Irlbo wrote: »

We dont need funding for arts in any degree at all,we are in dire straits,we need funding for those who need jobs or training to obtain a job,paintings and writings areant going to put dinner on the table,how much does it cost for someone to write a poem of draw a picture??

Irlbo, you have a point about government funding for the arts, especially in the current downturn in the economy. However, painters and writers also have to put food on the table, which they do from the sale of their works. It is a little shortsighted to suggest that the value of art is merely the cost of a pencil/pen and paper. Like any other skilled workers, good, experienced, professional artists are generally those who have spent years training at college, and many more years perfecting their art. Their time is of value, like that of the rest of society.

One might argue that art is an unnecessary luxury. However, it is always in demand, very often more so in bad times. Life would be very dull without it.

jimi_t

Irlbo wrote: »

We dont need funding for arts in any degree at all,we are in dire straits,we need funding for those who need jobs or training to obtain a job,paintings and writings areant going to put dinner on the table,how much does it cost for someone to write a poem of draw a picture??

Funding for those who need jobs? Its called the dole
Training to obtain a job? Every alcoholic in the southwest has been doing some 'computer' course for years AND been paid for it. 3rd Level education here is free (unlike most European countries) and of a relatively high standard.

We don't have anymore EU funding and are running at a massive deficit so you can't just artificially 'create' jobs and pay people salaries digging ditches or new roads or whatever.

If anything, we probably need both more investment and a stronger focus on the arts - Tourism/Services is going to be a hugely important sector in the coming years given

(a) Complete lack of natural (mercantible) resources
(b) Terrible infastructure
(c) Massive C.O.L.
(d) Fishing/Farming being shafted by EU/Our own Government
(e) FDI gone
(f) Multinationals going

Now, we're a hugely expensive country to visit in the first place, but we have the nostalgic 'saints and scholars' vibe going for us and a notion of Ireland as a friendly place, full of celtic art and music etc... All that we really have going is our cultural attractions; we take that away and we're far more ****ed than before.

You say 'paintings and writings won't put the dinner on the table' - you don't know how right you are. How many thousands of people do you think depend on governmental arts support, subsidies and grants to support their families, and will end up on the dole without it - making the problem worse tbh. Not everyone can or should be a builder/farmer etc...

Danuogma

jimi_t wrote: »

If anything, we probably need both more investment and a stronger focus on the arts - Tourism/Services is going to be a hugely important sector in the coming years given

No it won't, given that practically every economy in the world is going down the tubes (by design, imo) there will be feckall tourists coming to this country.
The tourism industry is finished, come the end of the summer hotels etc will be closing left right and center.

djpbarry

jimi_t wrote: »

(d) Fishing/Farming being shafted by EU/Our own Government

How so?

The_Minister

The Raven. wrote: »

Like any other skilled workers, good, experienced, professional artists are generally those who have spent years training at college, and many more years perfecting their art. Their time is of value, like that of the rest of society.

Sorry, but bollox.

The best artists have never gotten professional training, or if they did, did it in their spare time.
The idea that you can train artists in big schools and get anything more then hollow, repetitive crap is ridiculous.
Let them get real jobs, and do their work in their spare time.

luckat

The_Minister wrote: »

Sorry, but bollox.

The best artists have never gotten professional training, or if they did, did it in their spare time.
The idea that you can train artists in big schools and get anything more then hollow, repetitive crap is ridiculous.
Let them get real jobs, and do their work in their spare time.

Not correct.

Danuogma

luckat wrote: »

Not correct.

Actually it is, you can't "train" people to become artists, either they have talent or they don't, simple as that. When I was going tho college the art courses were viewed as doss courses, only a few people on them had any talent worth talking about, the rest were there to doss, get high, and get pissed.

jimi_t

djpbarry wrote: »

How so?

Thats not so much a question as a trap - you wouldn't be asking if you didn't have a counter-retort. I'd ask you to read of the last 10 issues of the Marine Times, maybe go to to castletownbere or fenit or dungarvan and talk to some of the fishermen or their families and ask them how they feel about the EU/Present government.

jimi_t

The_Minister wrote: »

The best artists have never gotten professional training, or if they did, did it in their spare time.
The idea that you can train artists in big schools and get anything more then hollow, repetitive crap is ridiculous.

Complete bollacks.

Top 5 artists of all time on artfacts all went to Art college
http://www.artfacts.net/index.php/pageType/ranking/paragraph/4
(Andy Warhol, Pablo Picasso et al.)

I could cite thousands of examples - but Damian Hirst, Sarah Lucas et al. over in England; who formed the artists collective and exhibitioned together after meeting in college would be a good example. Hirst is currently the richest living artist in the world and probably the most financially successful in history. How much do you think his work has directly and indirectly contributed to the governmental coffers in the UK? (Hint:

Loads

)

Danuogma

jimi_t wrote: »

Complete bollacks.

Top 5 artists of all time on artfacts all went to Art college
http://www.artfacts.net/index.php/pageType/ranking/paragraph/4
(Andy Warhol, Pablo Picasso et al.)

So what??, they had talent in the first place, obviously. You can't train people to become artists, they either got artistic talent or have no artistic talent, it is not something you can learn in any collage.

jimi_t

Danuogma wrote: »

So what??, they had talent in the first place, obviously. You can't train people to become artists, they either got artistic talent or have no artistic talent, it is not something you can learn in any collage.

There's a huge different between having a 'talent' for something, and being trained in how to express it in varying mediums. Many of the most talented artists on the planet could have ended up working in banks (or whatever job you do yourself) except for the recognition, encouragement, support and training they received while studying their craft in a formal institution.

In any case, that wasn't the point the post you commented on was refuting - The Minister said "The best artists have never gotten professional training, or if they did, did it in their spare time.". I argued otherwise by saying most of the most famous and talented (albeit an objective quality) artists did.

The Raven.

The benefits of formal training in any branches of fine art such as painting, literature, music etc. is often an elusive concept to the lay person. There are fundamentals that do need to be learned, just as in any other field, in order to develop the individual skills required to become an artist. Success is often measured by fame and money rather than the quality of the work.

A lot of artists teach in order to survive. Some funding is necessary to keep certain areas alive, such as classical/art music, and the theatre. Arts administrators are not necessarily artists. Consequently, some of them will become unemployed due to the cuts.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

phelixoflaherty

I thought all artists we supposed to be starving, **** everything else and do their own thing. Too much of a gravy train, particularly where funding and allocation of resources go and control thereof.
Back to doing things in real time. Slowly

The Raven.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It is irrelevant to the point in question whether or not the artists heading the list on the cited index should be considered in that order of merit. The ranking system would appear to be gauged by current popularity and demand, influenced no doubt by clever marketing and spurious art critics’ opinions etc. The point being addressed was that these artists did receive formal training.

Vincent Van Gogh and Claude Monet also had formal training, and are still widely regarded as major artists. To create a volume of work of such high standard requires full-time devotion. Consequently, both of them suffered severe financial hardship.

phelixoflaherty wrote: »

I thought all artists we supposed to be starving, **** everything else and do their own thing.

To suggest that artists are ‘supposed to be starving’ is beneath contempt.

luckat

Just to make a quick analogy, it's not good sense to suggest that because Bill Gates, say, didn't go to a computer college it's a good idea to scrap all those courses that teach people to work with hardware and software.

Talent is kind of beside the point. Practice and direction are what work.

Of course you can teach the arts. Writing, painting, music, sculpture, etc all have techniques that are teachable.

Yes, you can allow new writers, artists and musicians to stumble blindly along by themselves, and some will achieve what their original talent promised - or perhaps not. But teaching them the technical basis of their art is more sensible.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

luckat

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A rather wild statement!

The ideas that

a) Talent is innate and artists don't need training, and
b) Artists should starve in a garret for the sake of their art

are romantic, but alas unworkable.

The artists who succeed - artistically and, sometimes, financially too - are those who work damn hard.

Even a seemingly typical talented-garret-starver such as John Keats proves to have been an extremely hard worker if you read his letters, which document a life of endless endeavour and dedication.

In fact, the whole concept of 'talent' is quite destructive in general. An interesting psychological study a couple of years ago found that when parents and teachers praised children for "being intelligent" or "having talent" after they successfully completed a task, those children were leery of trying more difficult tasks.

However, children who were praised for "hard work" after they completed the same tasks successfully were eager to take on more difficult tasks later.

Artists do need training - for most of Western history, for instance, painters learned their trade by apprenticeship. Writers have traditionally mentored new writers. Formalising this into a system of artistic education is only sensible.

Of course there are probably crappy courses. There are also crappy science schools and good ones - notice that Cork students won almost all the Young Scientist awards this year: it's not because Cork is a hotbed of science talent, but that there's a network of excellent teachers interacting there.

Ireland is not in a great case artistically right now. 30 years ago there were bunches of small magazines bringing out short stories and poems, illustrated by drawings by Irish artists. Not any more. All gone. So there are too few places for people to learn their trade and make their audience.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Raven.

luckat wrote: »

Just to make a quick analogy, it's not good sense to suggest that because Bill Gates, say, didn't go to a computer college it's a good idea to scrap all those courses that teach people to work with hardware and software.

Talent is kind of beside the point. Practice and direction are what work.

Of course you can teach the arts. Writing, painting, music, sculpture, etc all have techniques that are teachable.

Yes, you can allow new writers, artists and musicians to stumble blindly along by themselves, and some will achieve what their original talent promised - or perhaps not. But teaching them the technical basis of their art is more sensible.

That's a very good post, Luckat.

The Raven.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I’m not sure if you mean the free third level education or what happens after college. I think this needs clarification.

In my view, that system has failed remarkably. State-funded universities award MFAs and similar to anyone who shows up.

I would agree that in practice, the system fails on certain counts. However, I wouldn’t agree that they ‘award MFAs and similar to anyone who shows up.’ The problem starts before the student gets in the door. The selection system, in my experience, is seriously flawed due to the huge volume of entrants. I have seen rejected students with portfolios of work that are superior to those coming out with degrees.

State-funded arts programs pump money into "the arts" without having any real clue what they are funding or why.

I don’t know what’ State-funded arts programs’ you are referring to, but I’m sure that is true of some. The problem there lies in the fact that neither the people controlling the purse strings nor the administrators usually have any art training.

Lacking any real talent, narcissistic artists pursue fame and controversy for their own sake. But they don't, as a rule, produce work of quality or artistic integrity.

Having studied and lectured at colleges for many years, I would say that these types are mostly amateurs, who have done part-time evening courses etc., or have ‘learned’ from watching hideous teach-yourself TV programmes. It is also rife in ‘artists’ not long out of college. Most fully trained artists eventually grow out of this scenario, apart from the 'con-artists' of course.

As for the Turner Prize, I think Turner would turn in his grave :eek:!!(excuse the pun). However, it is privately sponsored and much criticised.

The Raven.

luckat wrote: »

The artists who succeed - artistically and, sometimes, financially too - are those who work damn hard.

The fact that artists have to work ‘damn hard’ is something that seems to escape a lot of non-artists. They seem to think it is some sort of relaxing pastime, rather than something which is usually extremely difficult. This is often reflected in the sort of prices they offer, if any. Would they treat other professionals such as solicitors or doctors in the same way? I think not!

In fact, the whole concept of 'talent' is quite destructive in general.

I agree with you about the concept of 'talent'. It is a much-abused term. Many see it as some sort of magic power that requires no effort to produce good artwork.

The Raven.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

[/quote]

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I gather from your reply that these creative writing courses are not ‘state-funded’, but paid for privately by the students. In any case they wouldn’t lead to an MFA.

For much of Western history, no master painter worth his salt would have taken on an apprentice who displayed no artistic talent. No established writer would have chosen to mentor someone with no literary promise. But now, any talentless hack can sign up for a fine arts course, believing that it will turn him into the next Joyce, Rembrandt, or Mozart—and working writers, painters, and musicians have to play along with the pretence.

Yes unfortunately this is true. It is all part of what is known as life-long learning. These courses are privately paid for and provide supplementary income for professional artists, which is better than being on the dole. Nevertheless, it is extremely frustrating, as these students, mostly beginners, are often given a say in how they should be taught!

It's something of an illusion that Ireland ever nurtured its creative artists. Our greatest writers, poets, and playwrights are world-renowned for battling narrow-minded philistinism and censorship, and for emigrating to escape it.

In an effort to correct this situation, a system developed which has been widely open to abuse by authoritarian, visually illiterate charlatans, who manage to find their way into every nook and cranny of the art world. These are people who have never set foot inside an art college before landing jobs as art educationalists, curators, administrators, art critics etc., jobs that would be denied to most artists for a variety of reasons. However, I understand there is no longer any censorship in the arts, which in turn has generated abuse of a different nature.

phelixoflaherty

Ravenous?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry

jimi_t wrote: »

Thats not so much a question as a trap - you wouldn't be asking if you didn't have a counter-retort.

Suffice it to say that I think it's pushing it a bit to suggest that Irish farmers have been "shafted" by the EU, but it's a matter for another thread really...

turgon

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thats poetry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Maybe the fact that this education and grant system is so prevalents, and so much can be gotten, a system of complacency is introduced. Its like anything, if there are no goals to be striven towards (for example financial gain), the quality of delivery is lowered.

jimi_t

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And do you think an open ended system facilitates artists more or less than a commission based system? This is not far off saying that the state now takes on the role of feeding unwed mothers rather than them begging for the scraps from the priests table - a tad faceitious I admit, but surely you can see the duality of your statement?

In an era of so-called postmodernism we no longer have any coherent standards for what is considered "art." So it's not surprising that the selection process is rather random.

Heh, this really reminds me of

Annie Hall wrote:

ALVY
Photography's interesting, 'cause, you
know, it's-it's a new art form, and a,
uh, a set of aesthetic criteria have
not emerged yet.

ANNIE
Aesthetic criteria? You mean, whether
it's, uh, a good photo or not?

Again, while you may think postmodernism is a load of bollacks (which in a lot of cases I'd agree with you, you could say the same thing about Cubism/Impressionism/Insert yer own flavour here.

Moe: It's po-mo! [blank stares from all] Post-modern! [more staring] Yeah, all right -- weird for the sake of weird

The problem there lies in the fact that neither the people controlling the purse strings nor the administrators usually have any art training.

...Quoted for posteriety - art training used as a positive in an thread overwhelmingly geared towards cutting it

That's true. Moreover, they are so afraid of being considered gauche or uncultured that they rubberstamp way more than they should.

Complete nonsense. Having worked and having several family members working in the upper echelons of arts administration, I'd go so far as to say that the last thing an Arts Administrator outside of Dublin/Galway is afraid of is looking 'gauche' or 'uncultured' when sitting on CoCo. with farming administrators and the like.

Censorship is one kind of problem; utter lack of taste, restraint, and formal awareness is another. One frequently sees young artists competing with one another over the shock value of their so-called art, in an effort to earn notoriety and status. Everyone wants to be the next Damien Hirst. It's all become so sad.

'Everyone' wants to be the next Damien Hirst? I'd go so far as to say less than a quarter of recognised artists in this country focus on installations, and maybe 10% of them do stuff that you wouldn't wholeheartedly bring granny along to view.

Without innovation, sensation and the embracing of new mediums, art becomes stagnant. What do you the current world would be like to live in if Baroque era painting and Greco-Roman sculpture remained the mainstay of the art world? 'Art' impacts a lot more than you think

jimi_t

djpbarry wrote: »

Suffice it to say that I think it's pushing it a bit to suggest that Irish farmers have been "shafted" by the EU, but it's a matter for another thread really...

Really not sure how 'farmers' got in there; even my reply just focused on fishing Apologies

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K4t

Maybe if Cecelia Ahern was made pay taxes the Arts would have some more money to play with

jimi_t

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Are you referring to the arts domestically or internationally? Certainly the concept of the 'arts' in the 50s and 60s in this country is fairly grim and utalitarian

I probably wouldn't make such a statement, personally, because I'd prefer to avoid creating the impression that I believe all experimental art over the past 150 years to be one homogenous morass.

Well its hard to be subjective and find the subtle nuances in statements like

In an era of so-called postmodernism we no longer have any coherent standards for what is considered "art."

to be fair. I can only infer as best I can to facilitate discussion.

Are you familiar with the remainder of Hirst's work?

Fairly extensively - unfortunately in internet forums I tend to see so much of the Daily Mail mentality 'POOR SHARK, DOES IT 'HURST'?'

I personally don't think we've ever seen Greco-Roman sculpture disappear as a mainstay of Western art—do you? And has the influence of Rembrandt, Vermeer, and Caravaggio truly been dissipated by that of Andy Warhol and Tracey Emin?

Mainstay was the wrong word... I was trying to make a point regarding the inherently progressive nature of the arts - I'm not trying to belittle your opinion or prompt anything than further facilitation of what has been a remarkably polite and open ended discussion, but it seems to me that the same arguments about the detrimental nature of post-modernism on modern art have been made about almost every innovative modality within art over the ages.

In relation to your other question, why does new talent and work have to 'dissipate' the established norm? If anything, artists such as Emin or Warhol serve to augment established norms - even by the virtue of revolting against them. There's nothing quite like a nice conformity to kick out against (from the inside) This might only be evident in massively obtuse ways - certainly I can't think of any immediately credible examples - but surely you can see where I'm coming from?

Can you give some examples?

Do I need to? You seem to be perfectly well-versed in cultural matters; we'd only be entering pedantic territory.

Húrin

Hi everyone, I am an art student, graduating next year. Most of the work I do will probably be dependent to some degree on government funding. However this does not justify continuing to fund the arts instead of health education if it must come to that.

To all the people who said that artists need no education, and that they should just rely on their innate talent, I would say: would you expect that people who are born with a great head for maths need no further education to become engineers?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't think that the arts were especially better 40+ years ago. Community art practices didn't exist in Ireland at all. Contemporary art was far more elitist than it is now.

I probably wouldn't make such a statement, personally, because I'd prefer to avoid creating the impression that I believe all experimental art over the past 150 years to be one homogenous morass.

Well most of the last 150 years have not been under the influence of postmodern culture. Remember, postmodernism is not just an art thing. Our entire culture here in Europe is postmodern; however, the art scene is academic enough to openly recognise this fact.

I personally don't think we've ever seen Greco-Roman sculpture disappear as a mainstay of Western art—do you? And has the influence of Rembrandt, Vermeer, and Caravaggio truly been dissipated by that of Andy Warhol and Tracey Emin?

They haven't lost their influence, but they are decidedly history.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Húrin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, almost. I say almost only because it is not mandatory to have an art degree to build a successful art career. However it is much more difficult.

I wouldn't agree that the entire culture in contemporary Europe is postmodern. I see it as having postmodern influences, certainly; but it's quite easy to find traces of modernist and pre-modernist sensibilities. It's easy to find art today that has more in common with nineteenth-century realism than with postimpressionism or the many schools of modern art that followed it.

Of course postmodernism has traces of modernism in it. I see advertising, rock music, as very postmodern indeed these days. They ironise the past as you said, among other characterics of this age, as does much visual art.

djpbarry

Húrin wrote: »

I say almost only because it is not mandatory to have an art degree to build a successful art career. However it is much more difficult.

More difficult than attempting to build a career in engineering without the relevant qualifications?

Húrin

djpbarry wrote: »

More difficult than attempting to build a career in engineering without the relevant qualifications?

No, I think I clearly stated that having an engineering degree is mandatory in order to get anywhere in the field.