Denis Fodor wrote:

>Brembeck concludes in favor of both Vilar and Mortier:"...whoever is
>truly interested in high culture must propagte it--propagate it not only by
>supporting state subsidization, but clamoring for more of it.  This should
>not exclude private sponsoring which, however, is only developing slowly at
>this time in Europe."

This is very much related to some aspects of the debate about the writings
of Norman Lebrecht.  The amount of money artists get is of course related
to the issue of subsidizing the arts.  When you believe that the market
should regulate which artist is getting most, and how much the audience has
to pay, then there is no place for subsidizing.  Behind that is a political
question:  should every member of society have at least a reasonable chance
to take part in public life, or do we accept that some people, because they
are unemployed, or because of low income, are not able to go to concerts,
have access to the new media (like the internet), can read a newspaper etc.
I think there are some very fundamental differences in the approach of
(most) Americans and (most) people from European countries.  I don't think
we should have a political debate here, but it is appropriate to realize
the difference in the approach to the relationship between art and money
in the States and in Europe.  That also explains why many American
contributors to the Lebrecht debate strongly oppose some of his ideas.

Johan van Veen
Utrecht (Netherlands)
[log in to unmask]