Every so often I read an article and think, “YES. Exactly. That. That my friend is a SCIENCE FACT. Stick a fork in it, this topic is done.” (Or the non-verbal equivalent – I’m never sure to what extent I think in words. How about you?)
Here’s an example of this phenomenon:
A friend linked to it on Twitter, so perhaps I was predisposed to like it, but still. This bit is especially good. The article’s talking about theatre funding, and whether private funding could replace state funding (spoiler: it can’t).
Private money is a welcome “and” but it mustn’t become an “or”. Donors don’t want to fill a gap, they want to be associated with success. At the first sign of lack of “success”, donors can run a mile. Philanthro-capitalism will make theatre more expensive, and more elitist; the working class has no rich mates to put money into stuff made for them. If the funding tail starts wagging the artistic dog, a privately funded theatre won’t stage certain plays for fear of offending its backers. Private funding can make for soft art.
Actually, there is one part that lets it down at the end: A civilisation is judged by its culture. Name me one Ancient Greek accountant.
Separating “culture” from the rest of life is exactly the sort of thing that puts people off art and makes it less accessible. “Culture” IS life, to me. It’s us. It’s how we see our world. It’s how we act – whether on stage or off it. An accountant is not separate from that, unless she’s a hermit.