bradbell.tv

It seems odd to hear people discuss the relative merits of the 'star system' vs 'culture industry' models in film funding in the present context. Merit seems to have little to do with it. It's a simple matter of ideology. This is the Conservative Party's version of arts funding. It is similar to the Conservative Party philosophy of healthcare, which we see in the current privatisation of the NHS. (Humorously, it turns out ex-Goldman Sachs executives can't run the hospitals any better, and have been forced to admit they were wrong about being able to improve care. If they are to take a profit, it has to come from somewhere. Waiting times are now longer. Quality of care has gone down. Profits are up.) It's not Capitalism vs Communism, it's Capitalism vs Milton Friedman's version of de-regulated Capitalism as embraced by  Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Over the last 30 years it has spread throughout the world via the IMF, with 'Neoliberal' policies as conditions of loans. It is responsible for the de-regulation which lead to the collapse of the financial system. Bizarrely, the UK Conservative Party's solution to this problem of Thatcherism is a kind of Super Thatcherism (Or in US parlance, Reaganomics; 'trickle down' economics.) For the record moebius22, the UK is not in dire financial straights. We have household debt comparable to Canada. And government debt comparable to Canada (which, incidentally, didn't deregulate and didn't have a financial collapse). We DO have a lot of banking debt. The banks owe nearly 1000% of GDP! And the primary donor to all our political parties is the financial services industry. This, of course, explains why we have austerity cuts to government services that affect everyone, and subsidies to banks. So we are completely fucked and our children have no hopes for education or jobs - we are rebuilding Great Britain in the 19th century, with a good strong class system and chimney sweeps for all the children -  but we are definitely NOT in "pretty bad financial shape." Graph: [url=http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4edb70a56bb3f7b433000030/debt.jpg]http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4edb70a56bb3f7b433000030/debt.jpg[/url] Personally, I favour the Canadian and EU 'culture industry' approach to arts funding. In the 'star system,' it seems 99% of the artists starve, and 1% get rich in a market controlled by a tiny elite of speculators. In the 'culture industry' approach, no one starves, and your culture becomes a cross section of a diverse set of people making work in the context of a professional discourse. It also seems a more digital, contemporary approach. Stars, of course, suit the mass media and the market, by creating brands and limiting experience and choice. Check this out: Bill Mayher on why the 'socialist' model is better via the profitable NFL (US football) [url=http://vimeo.com/35003246]Bill Maher - Irritable Bowl Syndrome[/url]