The value of public funded art

[shillelagh]

Originally Posted by Less

I thought you took the picture of spugs that he uses as an avatar so you should be able to tell who is whom?

my photos of the spugster arent suitable for a family site ....

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Less

Come on Rindy, it's time you did what you are good at, dress yourself up as a French Queen and let them eat cake.

Old Marie actually suggested the peasants ate brioche, a buttery rich bread, rather than cake.

Although the comparisson, of the cosseted few, spending extravagantly, whilst the majority of people went hungry, I do find rather apt.

I'm sure my interest in this thread will diminish, just as soon as we know all the costs involved, so as to make it easier when deciding on 'the value of publicly funded art'.

Unless another event happens in the future, which might benefit from discussion, in the cost versus value debate, of state funded community art.

In which case it could run forever.

Or at least until my one good typing finger ceases to function.

[DaveinGermany]

Gayle, just give him a price will you ! Look how many pages this has dragged on for, he's like a Terrier after a Rat & he won't give up until he's had an answer. (Admittedly he'll probably rattle on for a couple more pages once he knows, but hey ho ! In the long run it'll be better for everyone )

[garinda]

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany

Gayle, just give him a price will you ! Look how many pages this has dragged on for, he's like a Terrier after a Rat & he won't give up until he's had an answer. (Admittedly he'll probably rattle on for a couple more pages once he knows, but hey ho ! In the long run it'll be better for everyone )

Whoever, and whenever, we eventually get to know the full costings, it will help people decide the value of such art.

I've been informed someone, not me, has asked for the full funding costs under the Freedom of Information Act.

So regardless, the truth will out....eventually.

[Less]

Originally Posted by garinda

I'm sure my interest in this thread will diminish, just as soon as we know all the costs involved, so as to make it easier when deciding on 'the value of publicly funded art'.

Let's be honest, Privately or publicly funded art, I couldn't afford it if it wasn't for people that will have been on the dole sacrificing themselves to gardening rather than look for a proper job, (just a thought, what if you are a gardener out of work for six months? Do you do your trade for free? Or do you complain that somebody has already taken your job?).

Or at least until my one good typing finger ceases to function.

Before you give up on accyweb, I for one will call and make sure you keep annoying folk on the web, (have I sent you my fees, or are you going to go down the grant route?).

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Less

Let's be honest, Privately or publicly funded art, I couldn't afford it...

Whether it's affordable or not, or even if it's good or bad, regarding publicly funded art, apparently the tax payer has sadly no say on whether they want to fund it or not.

On your last point, don't worry.

When my last good typing finger no longer does as I want it to, I'll sellotape an old biro to my forehead, and I'll carry on tapping away.

Carry on tapping out, what I believe to be the truth. That being that the majority of people don't agree that their hard earned taxes are spent on such fripperies as 'community art'. More so, when the country is in the dire straits it currently is.

Financially, and morally, the vanity of state funded art is unaffordable.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by garinda

Whether it's affordable or not, or even if it's good or bad, regarding publicly funded art, apparently the tax payer has sadly no say on whether they want to fund it or not.

On your last point, don't worry.

When my last good typing finger no longer does as I want it to, I'll sellotape an old biro to my forehead, and I'll carry on tapping away.

Carry on tapping out, what I believe to be the truth. That being that the majority of people don't agree that their hard earned taxes are spent on such fripperies as 'community art'. More so, when the country is in the dire straits it currently is.

Financially, and morally, the vanity of state funded art is unaffordable.

Affordable or unaffordable, it don't make much difference to me, anything that is classed as a leisure pursuit should be funded by those who use or are interested in it. I would imagine that 80% of the general public have never given a fig for art of any kind, I'm in that category

[garinda]

Originally Posted by jaysay

Affordable or unaffordable, it don't make much difference to me, anything that is classed as a leisure pursuit should be funded by those who use or are interested in it. I would imagine that 80% of the general public have never given a fig for art of any kind, I'm in that category

I don't really understand what you're saying.

Doesn't it make a difference to you, even though you say art isn't of interest to you, that you're funding it, regardless as to whether you want to, or not?

If someone was struggling to keep a roof over their familys' heads, and hard to find money to keep them warm and fed, they'd be pretty stupid spending money having the front door painted.

State funded art schemes seem unwanted, by the vast majority of people, who see very little value and worth in them, both finacially and artistically.

Still, it's only 'two bob' of your money...or £2,000.00, to be more precise, if you want to teach the next generation of Banksys to pefect their tag in an Accrington park, before sharing their graffiti with us on a lager scale.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by garinda

I don't really understand what you're saying.

Doesn't it make a difference to you, even though you say art isn't of interest to you, that you're funding it, regardless as to whether you want to, or not?

If someone was struggling to keep a roof over their familys' heads, and hard to find money to keep them warm and fed, they'd be pretty stupid spending money having the front door painted.

State funded art schemes seem unwanted, by the vast majority of people, who see very little value and worth in them, both finacially and artistically.

Still, it's only 'two bob' of your money...or £2,000.00, to be more precise, if you want to teach the next generation of Banksys to pefect their tag in an Accrington park, before sharing their graffiti with us on a lager scale.

If two grand helps to stimulate the minds of some young people and gives them an interest other than wrecking parks and standing on street corners making a complete nuisance of themselves, then its money well spent, because it will save money in the long run

[garinda]

Originally Posted by jaysay

If two grand helps to stimulate the minds of some young people and gives them an interest other than wrecking parks and standing on street corners making a complete nuisance of themselves, then its money well spent, because it will save money in the long run

Ok, we'll have to differ on the value of that two grand.



Perhaps we should also be applying for funding for those young people who have an interest in knives, mugging, and nicking cars, so they can have a more creative outlet, other than that already supplied by schools, youth groups etc.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by garinda

Ok, we'll have to differ on the value of that two grand.



Perhaps we should also be applying for funding for those young people who have an interest in knives, mugging, and nicking cars, so they can have a more creative outlet, other than that already supplied by schools, youth groups etc.

Oh come on G now your just being pedantic, I actually called in the Ossy Youth Centre the other week, and had a long chat with the centre manager Martin, but for the efforts of himself and his staff there would be far more unruly youths on our streets, some projects are art based, to me its striking a happy medium that's beneficial to both the recipient of the support and the tax payer

[garinda]

Originally Posted by jaysay

If two grand helps to stimulate the minds of some young people and gives them an interest other than wrecking parks and standing on street corners making a complete nuisance of themselves, then its money well spent, because it will save money in the long run

Besides, young people already have more material goods, and access to education and existing youth leisure schemes, than at any other time in this country's history.

In the the late twenties and early nineteen thirties young people also stood on street corners. Mainly because there was no jobs, and they were hungry.

They didn't 'wreck parks', or need state funding to stimulate their creativity, and keep them out of trouble.

They needed state funding to put some food in the bellies.

They didn't need a bribe, to make them behave in a civilised fashion.

Throwing money at a problem, doesn't necessarily solve it.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by garinda

Besides, young people already have more material goods, and access to education and existing youth leisure schemes, than at any other time in this country's history.

In the the late twenties and early nineteen thirties young people also stood on street corners. Mainly because there was no jobs, and they were hungry.

They didn't 'wreck parks', or need state funding to stimulate their creativity, and keep them out of trouble.

They needed state funding to put some food in the bellies.

They didn't need a bribe, to make them behave in a civilised fashion.

Throwing money at a problem, doesn't necessarily solve it.

That maybe so but not giving a toss is just as bad, if that's the case lets shut all the youth centres and other youth projects and turn the clock back to the 1930s and not give young people any support other than school, like the good old days

[garinda]

Originally Posted by jaysay

Oh come on G now your just being pedantic, I actually called in the Ossy Youth Centre the other week, and had a long chat with the centre manager Martin, but for the efforts of himself and his staff there would be far more unruly youths on our streets, some projects are art based, to me its striking a happy medium that's beneficial to both the recipient of the support and the tax payer

Good for them.

Genuinely.

However there are many youth groups who receive no funding, other than that they raise themselves.

My dad ran one for many years.

I also attended one myself.

I'll say again, throwing money at something doesn't always mean that that is the answer.

Paying some one two thousand pounds to organise graffiti being sprayed on a wall in Oak Hill Park, is utterly ludicrous.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by jaysay

That maybe so but not giving a toss is just as bad, if that's the case lets shut all the youth centres and other youth projects and turn the clock back to the 1930s and not give young people any support other than school, like the good old days

There's never been as much support.

Nor have young people ever had as much materially.

If there's still anti-social behaviour, something's wrong.

Probably due chanelling tax payers' money into brain dead, community art schemes.