The Public Accounts Committee has reported that Closed arts centres 'cost �19m' and has also reviewed other major Arts Council-funded capital projects.
I have two observations to make: I would like somebody to explain why a National Centre for Popular Music was deemed to be necessary and worthy. Surely, most popular music is ephemeral and commercial, and if there needs to be a 'national centre' surely it is the role of the market to provide that. The popular music that isn't ephemeral - does it really matter what genre it is?
Secondly
The committee also said the Arts Council did not seem to collect information routinely on the backgrounds of audiences. But information given to the MPs indicated that audiences "remain disproportionately drawn from particular sections of society".
To which I reply, so what? I expect the 'particular sections of society' are mainly middle-class aspirational people. So be it. I'm afraid I know too many people who, for example, on a hot summer or warm autumn/spring Sundayafternoon will take their kid to the pub, and express horror/surprise when Jimmy and I say we are off to a park or common. If these people can't even bother to go to an open space ten minutes walk away should I be over-concerned that they're not going to cultural experiences? Well perhaps a little, but in the end people make their choices. I certainly wouldn't recommend dumbing down in the name of accessibility. In I suppose the logical conclusion is the Queen Symphony. I quite like Queen, and I like many symphonies, but without blindly prejudging something I haven't heard, I can't see how this will in any way improve any aspect of my life.
Comments