Page 3510 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 22 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Again, what does de Botton say about art? It is interesting. Let us have an intellectual engagement here, minister; it will be interesting to see if you can. He said:
What is the purpose of art? This book argues that the problem is not primarily located in the individual. It lies in the way that art is taught, sold and presented by the art establishment. Since the beginning of the 20th century our relationship with art has been weakened by profound institutional reluctance to address the question of what art is for. This is a question that has quite unfairly come to feel impatient, illegitimate and a little impudent. Because often—
Mr de Botton goes on to say—
the saying “It’s art for art’s sake” specifically rejects the idea that art might for be the sake of anything in particular and therefore leaves the high status of art mysterious and vulnerable. Despite the esteem art enjoys, its importance is too often assumed rather than explained.
He goes on to say:
What if art has a purpose that can be defined and discussed in plain terms? Art can be a tool, and we need to focus more clearly on what kind of tool it is and what good it can do for us.
He goes on to say basically that art is an extender for the mind. It is a tool for the mind. It allows us to address our psychological frailties, as he calls them. The book then looks at the seven functions of art, which he defines as remembering, hope, sorrow, rebalancing, self-understanding, growth and appreciation, not puerile, attention-seeking titles—and that is the problem with this minister. This minister does not actually understand the arts and does not get what they are for; hence this motion today.
With respect to giving $19,000 worth of taxpayers’ money—from very limited money—to a group that have a production called Kill Climate Deniers, I think in the current political worldwide environment urging anybody to kill anything, even in jest, shows bad judgement and bad taste. If it is serious, it is an outrage. If it was a joke, it is just not funny. And that is the problem with this minister. Unfortunately, she is in charge of the arts, and the arts are not doing what they should in this city.
Paragraph (1)(b) of the motion refers to “consenting to a Fringe Festival act, which included a performer in a Nazi uniform and wearing a Hitler mask, who stripped down to her underwear”. In its right place, that might be acceptable. Burlesque has a long tradition, and I do not disavow that tradition. But was it appropriate in a family event?
At 6 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.
MR SMYTH: I am sure the minister would like this debate to end, but we continue—thank God for that. It is a question of where the arts should be held, what the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video