A Quote by Richard Eyre

I've always argued, unsuccessfully, that there's no point in giving money to the arts unless you educate people in them. — © Richard Eyre
I've always argued, unsuccessfully, that there's no point in giving money to the arts unless you educate people in them.
If you have children, you cannot feed them forever with flags for breakfast and cartridges for lunch. You need something more substantial. Unless you educate your children and spend less money on conflicts, unless you develop your science, technology and industry, you don't have a future.
When you don't educate the people, you're crippling them. You are, you're not giving them ways to survive.
The elected officials should be working for the voters who elected them. Money corrupts the process. Why would you be giving a candidate money unless you expect something in return?
The future of the United States and the most important election in a generation, and he [Donald Trump] is trying to con people into giving them their vote, just like he conned these people into giving them their money.
It may well be a sign of the decadence of the Church and the failure of Christianity that gifts have to be coaxed out of people, and that often they will not give at all unless they get something for their money in the way of entertainment or of goods. Giving which is real giving has a certain recklessness in it.
I've never argued that humans are massively hot-wired. What I was trying to point out was that you can't understand how we learn unless you identify the learning mechanisms. And these have some genetic basis.
Growing up, all I saw was my parents trying to be the best people they could be, and people coming to them for wisdom, coming to them for guidance, and them not putting themselves on a pedestal, but literally being face-to-face with these people and saying, "I'm no better than you, but the fact that you're coming to me to reach some sort of enlightenment or to shine a light on something, that makes me feel love and gratitude for you." They always give back what people give to them. And sometimes they keep giving and giving and giving.
I've argued for a much less instrumentalist politicized approach, freeing up the arts and enabling them to deliver high-quality projects.
Oftentimes people get it wrong when they say we need to educate voters first and then give them power. I tend to favor giving them power first.
It is always a much easier task to educate uneducated people than to re-educate the mis-educated.
If someone has children, the first thing they want is for them to be happy, and then become someone in life and all that. But the educational system, I mean always, not just now, creates competitive, successful people, and does not educate them to be happy. The problem is that success gives money, not happiness. The eternal problem.
We do take seriously our responsibility, and growing ability, to educate people about healthy eating and giving them greater access to nourishing and affordable fresh food.
I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.
Give the money directly to people who work hard. Instead of taking the money from the business and then filtering it through the horror of government programs, which is essentially giving it to social workers who live in Bethesda so they can drive their minivans and vote Democratic. Give them the money, so that they go and talk to the worker who is washing dishes, and they say, "Well, we want to help you, you see." And it would be better to help them by taking the money from that minivan-driving social worker and giving it directly to the guy who is really working hard by washing dishes.
Most people don't want to work with liars. They'll work with a liar if the liar makes them money and gives them credit, but not if a person's lying extends to not making them money and not giving them credit.
Virgil Thomson, the great classical music critic, who was also a composer, but said that criticism was the only antidote he knew to pay publicity. Critics at their best are independent voices people take seriously their responsibility to see as many things as they can see, put them in the widest possible perspective, educate their readers, I really do think of myself as a teacher. Newspapers that don't carry arts criticism at all while not fulfill this function. And probably their arts journalism will be deprived as a result.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!