Should Public Money Be Paid For No Public Subsidy?

2157 WordsNov 6, 20149 Pages
Arts organisations receiving grants and funding in today 's society is becoming increasingly sparse, as public money is being cut left, right and centre. So why is it still ok that large, seemingly upper class, arts institutions are receiving millions of pounds of funding each year, to put on productions only enjoyed by a tiny minority of the population, while arguably more important organisations are falling further and further into debt? In this essay, I will be discussing the reasons why it is morally wrong for opera to receive large public subsidy. One main reason why public money being used to pay for opera is morally wrong is because the figures aren 't just large, they 're astronomical in some cases. Take for example, the English National Opera (ENO). The ENO began back in 1931, and is one of the principal opera companies in London, and is based in the Coliseum.Being one of the principal opera companies in the country, the ENO gets a large proportion of it 's income through grants from the Arts Council in England. For the year 2012/2013, the ENO received a sum of £17,078,000 from the Arts Council.This is a huge amount of money. On the ENO website, they state that as well as the Arts Council grant, they have some self-generated income that they generate through their ticket sales and donations. They say that “for every pound of subsidy, ENO raises an equivalent amount through these sources: grants (47.5%), ticket sales (25%), fundraising (15%) and exploitation
Open Document