RE: RE: It is better with culture...or not?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: It is better with culture...or not?

Words
286
Reading
2 min
Listen
Play
5y

Well, during the '90s it was really difficult for any public institution dealing with culture to be (well) sponsored by the state. Not only because of the lack of funds to meet even the basic needs, but also because of the general level of interest in culture. There was a degradation of the needs to feed the soul because everyone was rushing to survive and polluted by their hatred of what was happening, the culture was left aside. Ok, out of the rebellion many alternative music groups were born who through the voice of music tried to fight for some human dignity. That was at least positive.

But let's not stay in that one country example. Here in Spain, although probably the government has to spend the money they got from outside for building some nice concert halls and theatres, (they are mostly new in my surroundings), very very few (classical) concerts are actually held. So, why the facilities if no real use of them? Oh, yes, musicians, actors, dancers should be payed for their work, we forgot that part! And of course, the lack of constant audience, as mostly we are surrounded by tourists that are looking for cheap, fast consuming activities.

So, kind of agree with Edje, no demand -no supply, and vice versa, no supply-leading to lowering the focus from culture, so no demand!

Solution? Maybe stepping out from the common form that the cultural events were served until now. Not being just a passive listener in a classical concert, for example, but taking an active part in it, having more interaction and being involved in the creation. Then there would be more interest maybe. Yes, I know, it will never happen 😅