Opus Arte

Well, well, well, the Royal Opera House has announced its acquisition of the DVD producer and distributor Opus Arte, for £5.7 million. This figure apparently includes £2 million of debt, which has been refinanced through venture capital. The Arts Council approves the deal and, presumably the city financiers will have done fairly exhaustive due diligence, given the volatility of this market, so we must presume that the enterprise will be glorious and profitable.

The profitability so far as the ROH is concerned doesn't, however, seem destined to fund much in the way of new productions. A figure of $593,000 is quoted by the New York Times as being Opus Arte's latest and Tony Hall, boss of the ROH is signalling that this is the level that he expects to continue. Its not going to go all that far given the squillions that are currently spent at Floral Street, even allowing for the fact that, again presumably, the income per disc will be set for the ROH at a rather higher level than for other third party producers.

This begs the question of why buy into Opus Arte? Hans Petri runs the label efficiently and deserves to be rewarded for his success. But wouldn't it have been easier and a lot more transparent for the ROH simply to start its own label, in the same way that the London Symphony Orchestra did? The LSO and many other organisations such as The Sixteen, have had a good deal of success with these own label ventures - The ROH brand is surely strong enough to be self supporting. Or maybe in this great cacophony of corporate media - speak, (and precious little about the artistic ramifications), I've missed something?

Damien Hirst

Tonight I settled down in front of NewsNight review, having returned from the Holt Bookshop, where the very talented Jeremy Page was signing copies of his debut novel, "Salt". (An evocative and beautifully crafted book, set in north Norfolk - worth buying). News Night revue is always worth a look, although it seems to have been diluted by the absence of people like Germaine Greer, Tony Parsons and their bunch of wonderfully acerbic and often wildly subjective pals.

Tonight's programme consisted of an extended interview with Damien Hirst, gently quizzed by a slightly out of her depth Kirsty Wark - was there a lot of editing, or am I being uncharitable? Mr Hirst speaks very fast, nearly as fast as he earns money from his art, or, to be more accurate, his art factory - the existence of which Mr Hirst cheerfully admits. I don't have the knowledge of visual art to make a judgement about the work, the artist is obviously fiercely intelligent and his success is a rather encouraging poke in the eye to the Establishment.

However, I do wonder if NewsNight were not rather beautifully conned, the new exhibition at the White Cube Gallery will no doubt be attended by all of London's rather nebulous group of movers and groovers, but does it actually reflect art in its broader and more vital sense? I don't subscribe to the view that figurative painting is the acme of artistic endeavour; its like saying that just because Brian Eno doesn't play the piano as well as Stan Tracy his work has no place. In other words, anyone who makes good art has a place - the trick is defining what is good.

My concern is that fourteen million pounds worth of diamond encrusted skull -Mr Hirst's latest work, seems to have caught the imagination of the arts commissars in a rather sordid fashion. , There again, it could be argued that this piece is no different from a Faberge egg - exquisite and destined for the mega rich - and therein lies the rub. Damien Hirst spoke well and sensibly in his interview tonight, but I can't help thinking that there are other creative artists who would have benefited more from thirty minutes of precious screen time - the Hirst empire really doesn't need it.