If you were to argue with a Mailite that the Royal Family is a waste of money the chances are you'd be met with the old argument that they bring in a lot of money through visitors. So where's this argument disappeared to for the Olympic Games? And you could point out that at least this is a one off. They've been taking taxpayer money for centuries and will continue to bleed the coffers until kingdom come.
the writer whines about both the cost and apparent unoriginality, but surely the reason behind that is that organisers are largely going for safe bets, things that they know are going to bring visitors an thus visitor money...why a shakespeare interpretation and not an original play? people are far more likely to go see a shakespeare interpretaion. why a giant puppet? most likely because of the massive success of la princesse in liverpool
a few years ago.
he doesn't seem to be against the idea of arts or art funding, but they shouldn't be "pc" (which as mojojojo says, means little in mailand anyway) and they shouldn't be "unoriginal" (he doesn't seem against shakespeare being done sans reinterpretation)... basically leaving the article as little more than "why isn't money being spent on things i personally like and agree with????!!!!"
London 2012 will take the cultural side of the Games to new levels of daftness.
Still, this huge arts project probably can’t turn out worse than the Athens Olympics.
it either will
be a new level of daftness or [probably] won't be as bad as athens, make your mind up.
i have an art blog: http://procrastinationathon.blogspot.com/
and a review blog: http://blindwithwoodenhands.blogspot.com/
double blog! what does it mean?