ARTS DEBATE: In the Church Rooms on Saturday, Alcester met Campden to debate 'This house believes that subsidies for the arts are unjustifiable.'
The Alcester team, John Saunders and Bill Bayley, proposed the motion. After answering the question, what is art? as anything which anybody has ever considered as art and defining the term subsidy as donations by the government, of our money to mainly middle class pursuits, they argued that there is no justification for generating this form of elitism.
The Campden team, led by Kenneth Boardman and seconded by David Raeburn, opposed the motion and said their definition of subsidy did not include the word 'state'. Subsidy can also mean sponsorship. Where would our own music society be without sponsors? It would not exist.
Many of the arts would not exist without subsidies - symphony halls, theatres and museums would be forced to close their doors. The government-backed National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company were examples of the economic benefits to be gained as they continue to attract tourists while ensuring comparatively cheap tickets.
Contributions from the floor favoured the opposition, but the proposition was only narrowly defeated: for 19, against 24.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article