Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tom Barrie's avatar

I'm not an expert on theatre at all, so the situation could well be different within the context of producing a play or show, but it strikes me that Ireland and the UK have proportionally small subsidies from their respective governments because they already punch above their weight in the arts, rather than vice versa. There's a global demand for British and Irish actors, musicians, writers, filmmakers and so on – mostly, I think, because we speak English – and we have massive private sector investment in the arts which means we don't *need* the government to fund our artists. There's a huge market for them already.

Compare that to Hungary and Iceland, as mentioned above: can you name a single contemporary Hugarian actor, musician, author, artist, filmmaker who has household name recognition? Iceland is a different case; they regularly produce well-known performers, writers, musicians etc. But it's an extremely homogenous country of less than half a million people; of course they can spend all their money on the arts, because their economy is vastly different to that of larger nations. It has very different needs in terms of infrastructure, healthcare, defence (Iceland literally doesn't have an army). In fact, they probably have to spend more on the arts – they have a much larger public sector workforce proportionally than the UK or Ireland, which is reliant on state spending.

All that said, I am ready to be told that theatre is uniquely reliant on arts funding. If that's the case, then fair enough – spend away. I just don't know that proportion of GDP spend on arts subsidies is a good measure of the cultural health of a nation, necessarily?

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts