The value of public funded art

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Less

Lets be honest, if they built it today it wouldn't be allowed unless it also mentioned the Enemies fallen killed by our heroes, because we can't have winners and losers, just P.C.

Quite right.

The vanquished, pictured in the sculpture under the foot of the aggressor, would be deemed offensively jingoistic, if not racist.

Young Tommy, the local arts czar would decide, should be portrayed bent over, supplicant, humbled because of his blood lust, with the tip of a German bayonet firmly up his Ardennes.

There are no winners in war.

Only equal participants.

Some being better at being equal than others, thankfully.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Less

Lets be honest, if they built it today it wouldn't be allowed unless it also mentioned the Enemies fallen killed by our heroes, because we can't have winners and losers, just P.C.

Thinking about it, there isn't a hope that they'd be built today.

Cartainly not without outrage, about the slaughter of certain innocents.

It takes skill, and tact, to organise a welcome home parade, in a batallions' home town. An actual memorial? Not a cat in Hell's chance.

By the way, the noted sculptors whose work is featured on many of our war memorials, and believed to be amongst some of the best cold cast bronzes of the century, was commissioned on a commercial basis.

They didn't let those who weren't really very good, have a go, so they didn't feel left out, as part of some community arts project.

[BERNADETTE]

Originally Posted by Gayle

Interesting argument - what's a worthwhile job? The only things that I would categorise as truly worthwhile jobs are things like firemen, police, nurses, teachers etc.

Are cake makers, t-shirt printers, suit sellers etc worthwhile jobs?

Surely anyone who pays taxes is contributing to society and is therefore worthwhile. These artists who get lottery funded projects have to pay tax like everyone else.

I find it astonishing that you really think that only firemen, police, nurses, teachers etc are the only jobs that can be categorised as "worthwhile". Anybody who is out working in any way shape or form is making some contribution to society in whichever way they are employed. Even voluntary workers contribute in their own way.

Yes cake makers, t-shirt printers, suit sellers etc are worthwhile jobs because they provide the public with goods they want to buy. I find your observations quite offensive.

[Gayle]

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

I find it astonishing that you really think that only firemen, police, nurses, teachers etc are the only jobs that can be categorised as "worthwhile". Anybody who is out working in any way shape or form is making some contribution to society in whichever way they are employed. Even voluntary workers contribute in their own way.

Yes cake makers, t-shirt printers, suit sellers etc are worthwhile jobs because they provide the public with goods they want to buy. I find your observations quite offensive.

I was being ironic. It had been said that artists should go and get worthwhile jobs, so I was asking what they considered a worthwhile job was.

I was pointing out that all jobs including cake makers, t-shirt printers etc were worthwhile if they contributed to society.

Please read my original post again because you completely missed the point of it.

[Gayle]

Originally Posted by Less

Lets be honest, if they built it today it wouldn't be allowed unless it also mentioned the Enemies fallen killed by our heroes, because we can't have winners and losers, just P.C.

And that is NOT true as anyone who lives in Oswaldtwistle can see by the roll of honour for the people of the town who lost their lives in World War 1.

It was only built last year.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Gayle

I was being ironic. It had been said that artists should go and get worthwhile jobs, so I was asking what they considered a worthwhile job was.

In context, that was said about 'artists' who couldn't secure full time employment, or who didn't have a commercial outlet for their work, but instead relied on state funded community art schemes.

If no one is prepared to fork out for their 'art', why should the general public?

You talk about supporting them whilst they learn. That's what further education does.

Afterwards, if there isn't a market for what you're producing, it's probably a good idea to go back to the drawing board, and think again.

Again, my biggest criticism of community art, is most of it isn't very good.

Those who are good are already selling it, because there are people prepared to pay for it, with hard earned dosh.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by garinda

'Pops'?

You mean what I thought of it critically?

Not much, as posted elsewhere. I never mentioned the cost of the thing, in earlier posts, both remaining and vanished.

I just think the film's a bit introspective, and not very vital.

Was it soley funded by the Lotto?

What were the costs of all three projects, and where did the funding come from, now you've brought it up?

As I said, I never mentioned funding until yesterday, and hadn't the foggiest how it was funded.

But since you've raised the issue, were the three projects soley funded by the Lottery? He asked again, hopefully.

[jaysay]

I would agree that the lottery be used for art projects and I do the lottery every week, just as long as the money is distributed fairly I didn't really see anything fair about spending millions on the national opera house, I have never or will ever attend things like the national opera nor the Royal Ballet either, I think that these things should be funded by those people who use them

[Ken Moss]

I once heard it said about museums and churches that no one goes but everyone feels better because they're there.

On the flip side of that coin we basically have a hobby that is funded by other people, not bad if you can get in on it and then use that as a springboard to earning money. Most of us who choose to be self-employed rely on our own mettle and business acumen to find a consumer market and make it successful without any form of subsidy whatsoever. If that is the employment route you choose to go down then you should do a feasibility study like everyone else to see if it is a viable option.

Much as I think that preserving our artistic heritage is important (despite it holding very little interest for me personally), I hardly think that in an age of austerity we should be handing more money out from any public fund which simply enables people to try and convince us of their artistic merit with our own money. Van Gogh was a categorical failure in his own lifetime and we don't even have the museum space to display all the artworks in storage at the moment.

Is this a specific area that really requires more funding, from whatever source?

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

I once heard it said about museums and churches that no one goes but everyone feels better because they're there.

On the flip side of that coin we basically have a hobby that is funded by other people, not bad if you can get in on it and then use that as a springboard to earning money. Most of us who choose to be self-employed rely on our own mettle and business acumen to find a consumer market and make it successful without any form of subsidy whatsoever. If that is the employment route you choose to go down then you should do a feasibility study like everyone else to see if it is a viable option.

Much as I think that preserving our artistic heritage is important (despite it holding very little interest for me personally), I hardly think that in an age of austerity we should be handing more money out from any public fund which simply enables people to try and convince us of their artistic merit with our own money. Van Gogh was a categorical failure in his own lifetime and we don't even have the museum space to display all the artworks in storage at the moment.

Is this a specific area that really requires more funding, from whatever source?

As I've previously said I'm not an arty person, but think that it is important to lots of people, what I can't understand is, as I've previously stated, spending millions on Opera and Ballet, I just wonder how many people on Accy Web who play the lottery have actually visited either the Royal Ballet or The National Opera House, or in fact ever wanted to. I'm the person who, if opera or ballet is on TV, changes the channel

[Less]

Originally Posted by jaysay

As I've previously said I'm not an arty person, but think that it is important to lots of people, what I can't understand is, as I've previously stated, spending millions on Opera and Ballet, I just wonder how many people on Accy Web who play the lottery have actually visited either the Royal Ballet or The National Opera House, or in fact ever wanted to. I'm the person who, if opera or ballet is on TV, changes the channel

I must admit when the Lottery first started up and they said the money would fund worthy causes, I thought they meant such as Cancer Research and other such really worthy causes.

Instead it is used on 'art'. Cancer Research etc. still have to go on the T.V. with their begging bowl.

Maybe I had my priorities wrong?

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Less

I must admit when the Lottery first started up and they said the money would fund worthy causes, I thought they meant such as Cancer Research and other such really worthy causes.

Instead it is used on 'art'. Cancer Research etc. still have to go on the T.V. with their begging bowl.

Maybe I had my priorities wrong?

That kind of thing was my take on good causes too Less

[Gordon Booth]

A small piece of knitted wool done by someone in a couple of minutes after a couple of minutes tuition is Art?
And tying a few of them to a piece of string to hang up is a 'crochet sculpture'.
Gayle, your definition of an artist starts at a very low level.
I saw the photos, colourfull-yes, harmless fun-yes.But Art?

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Less

I must admit when the Lottery first started up and they said the money would fund worthy causes, I thought they meant such as Cancer Research and other such really worthy causes.

Instead it is used on 'art'. Cancer Research etc. still have to go on the T.V. with their begging bowl.

Maybe I had my priorities wrong?

Have a read of this about cancer support

[Less]

Originally Posted by Neil

Have a read of this about cancer support

Very glad to read it Neil, obviously not getting enough though, or are they using the Lottery Funding to employ someone arty farty to run their T.V. advertising Campaign?