The value of public funded art

Gayle · 20-10-2010, 18:29

I thought I'd start this off rather than debate it on the other thread.

Obviously, I'm going to come out in favour of publicly funded art for a few reasons.

I think it's a training ground for artists to learn their craft. Some artists need public funding to survive for a few years before their business or career takes off. The idea behind giving funding to artists isn't so that they can get some more when that runs out, it's to develop their practice so that they can earn money and a living off it in the long run. And, if they weren't making a living as an artist, what would they be doing - collecting the dole, chasing the last job in the factory, smoking dope to forget that they had nothing to look forward to?

I like using local artists who have a desire to improve the surrounding of the area they live in. I also like the fact that the art that I try to bring into the area also adds to local the economy.

The council simply can't spend money on art because there isn't the money to spare for that sort of thing. It maintains the Haworth but can't really afford to bring new exciting exhibitions there so additional funding is needed, otherwise it would be the same exhibition every time you went and no one would go back again.

It also brings lottery funding into our area. Do you know that Hyndburn is still one of the most underfunded lottery areas in the country? And it's not because they turn us down, but because the applications don't go in in the first place.

If there was no art in our lives we would miss it, it's as simple as that.

garinda · 20-10-2010, 18:57

Tracey Emin's sculpture of a bird, at Liverpool's Anglican cathedral.

Commissioned in 2005, when she was already a commercially successful artist.

Cost?

£60,000.00

Funded by the B.B.C., and therefore the tax payers of Britain who purchase a television licence.

Should public funds be spent on this?

No, in my opinion.

Hisorically art has been commissioned, going right back, pre-Renaissance even.

If art is good, someone is prepared to purchase and fund it commercially.

If no one wants it, and the artist is percieved as having no merit, they starve.

Supply and demand, as in any other economic business.

State funded art only really became a reality under the soviet system, especially Stalin.

Today what was produced might have a certain kitsch appeal, but no art critic of any merit would consider what was produced as great art. Many would be hard pushed to give it the tag of 'art' at all.

Am I in favour of state funded art?

No, because in my opinionm the result has very little artistic integrity.

I'd go as far as saying most of it should be relabelled craft, and practiced in people's own homes, whilst watching the telly. Rather than being funded from the public pure, under the misapprehension that it has any worth in an artistic sense.

Tax payers' money allowing dross to believe it is an art form.

Neil · 20-10-2010, 19:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Funded by the B.B.C., and therefore the tax payers of Britain who purchase a television licence.

I don't agree with that because the BBC should be producing TV and Radio programmes not giving our money away

garinda · 20-10-2010, 19:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

I don't agree with that because the BBC should be producing TV and Radio programmes not giving our money away

...and governments should be governing.

Not funding the construction of wooly caterpillars, to hang in Market Halls.

I spent five years purely studying art.

The best of my fellow students were snapped up by employers, or achieved their own commercial success because of their talents.

Those who weren't very good, the failures, all tried to secure placements on community 'art' schemes.

Neil · 20-10-2010, 19:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Those who weren't very good, the failures, all tried to secure placements on community 'art' schemes.

They had a lucky escape from the dole queue then

garinda · 20-10-2010, 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

They had a lucky escape from the dole queue then

Or earning a living, by doing a worthwhile job.

garinda · 20-10-2010, 19:14

By the way, I have absolutely no beef with art being funded by the lottery.

As I choose not to play.

Sadly we have no choice about paying tax, unless the Diddy Men are your accountants.

Gayle · 20-10-2010, 19:19

No, I don't think this should have been funded by the BBC. But, I think the argument with using a 'name' is that it brings in the publicity. However, I personally don't think that one was worth the money.

But, I think we're talking about two very different things.

I'm talking about publicly funded work for community art and for community artists. Tracey Emin is a 'fine' artist and therefore is selling art for the sake of art.

Community art is more about the communal experience and supports young artists and those starting out.

I don't think publicly funded fine art is value for money but I do think that publicly funded grass roots art is.

I also don't think tax payers money should be spent on it and I have never said it should - I have always advocated lottery funding.

garinda · 20-10-2010, 19:19

Makes interesting reading, regarding just one city's wasteful approach to art, funded by the tax payer.

ConservativeHome's Local Government Blog: Newcastle Council arts project £2.7 million over budget

Gayle · 20-10-2010, 19:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Or earning a living, by doing a worthwhile job.

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.

garinda · 20-10-2010, 19:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

No, I don't think this should have been funded by the BBC. But, I think the argument with using a 'name' is that it brings in the publicity. However, I personally don't think that one was worth the money.

But, I think we're talking about two very different things.

I'm talking about publicly funded work for community art and for community artists. Tracey Emin is a 'fine' artist and therefore is selling art for the sake of art.

Community art is more about the communal experience and supports young artists and those starting out.

I don't think publicly funded fine art is value for money but I do think that publicly funded grass roots art is.

I also don't think tax payers money should be spent on it and I have never said it should - I have always advocated lottery funding.

If people want to participate in 'community arts' projects, then they have every right to do so, but it should be self-financing, just as other hobby groups are, such as model train enthusiasts.

The tax payer doesn't fund people who want to pretend to be butchers.

If they are any good, they'll find work as a butcher.

I'm still waiting for a list of critically acclaimed art, which was state funded.

garinda · 20-10-2010, 19:28

Quote:

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.

Something worthwhile is something that sits easily on the supply and demand chain.

If the art is any good, and people want it, then it will survive after state funding is withdrawn.

If it doesn't, and no one wants it, then it will stop.

Artifically pretending it serves a need is pointless, and in the long run cruel, to the deluded individuals who class themselves as 'artists'.

odders · 20-10-2010, 19:29

If you are an artist you should, make your own way. As have the greats and not so's, whether it be in life or later. Money does not buy creativity, It is already there.

Gayle · 20-10-2010, 19:31

It's not artificial in any way.

For example, the artists who did the film have been asked to an interview for a commission for a local business. This job has allowed them to explore their creativity and given them a platform to get going in the more cut throat world.

And, poor artists will soon find the publicly funded route dries up if they can't deliver quality.

garinda · 20-10-2010, 19:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

And, poor artists will soon find the publicly funded route dries up if they can't deliver quality.

So until that reality kicks in, you think tax payers' money should be there to cushion them from the actual world of economics?

I don't.