In which we agree with @ArtUncut

Art Uncut is founded on this principle, a belief about the kind of societal model that we believe to be better: a society with well-funded arts, well-funded public services, and where there is a certain amount of redistribution so that the gap between rich and poor does not get too wide.


Now define \”well-funded\” and \”too wide\”.

Does well funded imply a grant for every transgressive one legged lesbian dancing group? Or just a bit of cash here and there for, say, community choirs like the one my sister organises? No actual money for anyone, just a bit of help with room hire and the occasional bus fare?

Does well funded mean taxing the dustman to pay for the Duke\’s pleasures or leaving the money in the pockets of the populace to fructify? So that individuals might decide to join and then spend their money on a choir, as with one that my other sister has been known to sing in?

What is \”too wide\” for the gap between poor and rich?

\"\"Mexico? Denmark? And how much trampling upon property rights are you willing to do in order to adjust matters to your desired result?

Until you tell us the answers to these questions you\’re just wibbling.

3 thoughts on “In which we agree with @ArtUncut”

  1. I’m sure they know what they mean Tim, but slimmed down details for brevity. However the real point here is your artistic ideas; when can we see more of these one legged lesbians?

  2. Tim, disappointed to see you calling for public funding, even if just a few quid for a choir.

    Shouldn’t voluntary groups be funded voluntarily?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *