from The Guardian
Down with this access pottiness
go to article

When an argument is made in favour of "art-for-art's-sake" by a government minister, no less - no longer being merely justified as a social implement to enhance the quality of life of citizens; nor as a means of social inclusion or forging of a national identity; nor as an economic cash-cow, in the case of the Creative Industries - then it must be recognised as an unmistakable sign of a significant arts policy shift. Yet again, the UK has shown its leadership mantle in the arena of arts and culture.

It is a case of quality being of far, far greater importance than quantity, in the case of arts and culture. Quoting James Fenton in the Guardian article above:

What [Tessa] Jowell [Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport] says in her document, although not precisely in these words, is that there is no point in fetishising access, if access means access to crap. "Access to the substandard is access to disappointment which will translate into an unwillingness to keep paying. It will not inspire or raise levels of aspiration, and in the end is not worthwhile. That is why excellence has to be at the heart of cultural subsidy, and that is what we must insist on."

Hear, hear! Now politicians can go figure.