[Gayle]

I thought I'd start this off rather than debate it on the other thread.

Obviously, I'm going to come out in favour of publicly funded art for a few reasons.

I think it's a training ground for artists to learn their craft. Some artists need public funding to survive for a few years before their business or career takes off. The idea behind giving funding to artists isn't so that they can get some more when that runs out, it's to develop their practice so that they can earn money and a living off it in the long run. And, if they weren't making a living as an artist, what would they be doing - collecting the dole, chasing the last job in the factory, smoking dope to forget that they had nothing to look forward to?

I like using local artists who have a desire to improve the surrounding of the area they live in. I also like the fact that the art that I try to bring into the area also adds to local the economy.

The council simply can't spend money on art because there isn't the money to spare for that sort of thing. It maintains the Haworth but can't really afford to bring new exciting exhibitions there so additional funding is needed, otherwise it would be the same exhibition every time you went and no one would go back again.

It also brings lottery funding into our area. Do you know that Hyndburn is still one of the most underfunded lottery areas in the country? And it's not because they turn us down, but because the applications don't go in in the first place.

If there was no art in our lives we would miss it, it's as simple as that.