|
A new report from the UK's Policy Studies Institute says that data on audience attendance is inadequate for decisionmaking.<P><B>Arts bodies called to account over funding</B> <BR> <BR>BY DALYA ALBERGE, ARTS CORRESPONDENT of The Times<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>AUDIENCE figures for ballet and theatre are declining at a time when arts funding is at a record level. <BR>Some £5.5 billion of public money was invested in the sector in 1998-99, at a time when audiences for ballet fell by 14 per cent from the mid-1990s. Audiences for the theatre fell by eight per cent. <P>Contemporary dance, which is attended by only 4 per cent of the population, saw a meagre 1 per cent rise. Even cinema failed to rise by more than 6 per cent between 1986 to 1996, according to the most recent data available. <P>The findings are revealed in the first comprehensive report on arts funding, published yesterday by the Policy Studies Institute, an independent research organisation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><A HREF="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-2001253793,00.html" TARGET=_blank><B>more...</B></A><P> <P><BR><B>The cost of culture</B> <P>Creativity may need freedom, but the taxpayer wants a report <P>A Times leader <P> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>For all that aesthetes like to argue otherwise, culture is closely linked to a country’s economy. For every lone artist who toils in penury in the apocryphal garret, another group will follow the funds needed to bring a project to fruition. <BR>In Britain, more than £5 billion is annually spent on subsidies from the state to the cultural sector. Taxpayers pay for pleasures that enrich and educate — and they do not expect state-controlled art for their cash.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR><A HREF="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,56-2001253901,00.html" TARGET=_blank><B>more...</B></A><P><BR>
|