My tax dollar, which goes to New York State Council on the Arts, is by and large only spent to fund people from the state of New York! And you want to be the cultural capital of the world?
That's the reason support for the National Endowment of the Arts is so important. It enables those ventures that aren't viable commercially to be done.
The National Endowment for the Arts distributes money to all 50 states, and they try to do their best to distribute to rural and suburban areas. It's one of the great things about the program. It raises the awareness of culture throughout the population.
The arts need funding.
London centre has a wealth of creative activity but there are parts of London where there isn't a cinema or where library provision is quite weak.
My generation of director has no illusions that we are going to be fed and cared for by subsidized theater in America.
It is not true that I oppose government funding of the arts.
An artist will starve unless he is near big centers of population. We should create many of these cultural centers right in our own slums.
I have been very lucky, and I think it all goes back to state subsidy for the arts. I gained my training and confidence and credentials in the not-for-profit world, and in England, that does not mean on the fringe of things. It means right at the centre.
As an artist I have an even more abiding interest in the compact between the Arts and Government.
I'd clean house at the National Endowment for the Arts ... the place would be shut down, padlocked and fumigated.
For many years, the government of Canada has massively supported orchestras and the arts in general.
In 1997, the Labour government set out to strengthen funding for the arts - and achieved it.
Must we be put to shame by much smaller and poorer countries, by Ireland, France, Austria or Sweden, who have understood that a nation's support of its arts is a matter of both national pride and cultural survival?
Just as a city cannot protect its manufacturing base without keeping its factories, we cannot have a strong arts sector without studios, rehearsal space, and performance venues.
The arts are an integral part of the city's economic progress.
The success of the arts has come through a mix of public subsidy, substantial private support, and good box-office receipts, but central to Labour's post-1997 programme has been a determination to increase access as much as excellence.
We want artists to stay in London. It's very important culturally and economically, but there are lots of challenges in terms of finding space.
I have written favourably in support of subsidy for the arts since the 1960s, and I continue to believe absolutely in subsidy, as I do in the BBC licence fee.
When you have a community that's strong in the arts, it brings all sorts of attention and different businesses into the community.
We need more theatres, more art and more culture in this country.
The arts are part of the fiber of American society and should get Federal support.
In Bombay, we have a fine concert hall. I think it is high time we built venues in Delhi and Calcutta, not only for western music, but also Indian music. It doesn't matter which party is in power; don't you think the capital of India should have a concert hall?
