lil_angel Posted May 25, 2007 Report Share Posted May 25, 2007 I've never started a thread in this section before but something recently has really got my goat so im gonna let off steam in here On the radio earlier this week I heard that they had decided on an art project to be displayed by the second Severn Bridge for people to seeing when they enter Wales. Its going to be a red cloud made of flying people. Im not an arty person and that doesnt appeal to me but its not the idea that bugs me. Its the £13 million pounds they are bidding on to get from the National Lottery fund. Now personally with the state of the NHS and deprived areas etc i think that 13 million pounds could be better spent that a daft modern art sculpture. Would like to hear other people's views Here is an article about it:- South Wales Argus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sef's Mum Posted May 25, 2007 Report Share Posted May 25, 2007 You're not wrong. I like art and I think it has it's place but the lottery money should be divided proportionately according to need. Did you know that hospitals have to designate part of their budgets to have art projects. Our 2 local hospitals are having to decide which one of them is going to keep their maternity unit open but both have arts budgets. Unbeleivable. Ali Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathyw Posted May 25, 2007 Report Share Posted May 25, 2007 Totally agree. One that mad me see red was when the council demolished a whole block of houses then let the land grass over. They then gave a local twit £40,000.00 for his depiction of a house. It was made of paper/plastic etc. It stood for a while, won a prize and then was pulled down. This was in the late seventies and £40,000.00 was an awful lot of money. The 'artist' laughed all the way to and from the bank. Disgraceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kats inc Posted May 26, 2007 Report Share Posted May 26, 2007 No I don't understand why we pay for bits of art in town centres that most people totally ignore and then find our councils can't pay for better policing or are talking about closing fire stations. I can appreciate art but if I want to see it I can go to an art gallery etc or an exhibition somewhere.I don't see it as something which is a must have when I'm popping into town to do some shopping.It doesn't really enhance my shopping experience or anything really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyMalc Posted May 26, 2007 Report Share Posted May 26, 2007 I'm not at all an art person, the only artists I really like are Dali and Gaudi. They created beautiful paintings and architecture (and sculptures), but I wanna bet they didn't get millions of lottery/government funding for this. I think it's a total disgrace to spend so much money on something that we can obviously do without while there's never enough money for social care Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mum24dog Posted May 27, 2007 Report Share Posted May 27, 2007 Did you know that hospitals have to designate part of their budgets to have art projects. Our hospital has a £30k stained glass window. I don't think it's anywhere many people would see it - I certainly haven't. I was told about it by a friend who is a consultant there and presumably knows something about the budget. pam No I don't understand why we pay for bits of art in town centres that most people totally ignore and then find our councils can't pay for better policing or are talking about closing fire stations. I don't mind the "art" being there (except the monstrosity outside our local high school) but I do mind my tax/Council Tax paying for it. If a council wants to put something up it ought to be by public subscription. Pam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merledogs Posted May 27, 2007 Report Share Posted May 27, 2007 I don't mind the "art" being there (except the monstrosity outside our local high school) but I do mind my tax/Council Tax paying for it.If a council wants to put something up it ought to be by public subscription. Hear hear! Or else some lesser known artist could donate a sculpture in order to get some recognition/publicity? I certainly would not want my hard earned money spent on it when there are so many worthy causes out there, some of them life threatening, which are screaming out for funding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murtle Posted May 27, 2007 Report Share Posted May 27, 2007 I don't agree with the art projects that get the £millions from the lottery, however, I also don't think the lottery money should be used to fund the NHS. I think our taxes should be better managed to pay for things like the NHS and the government shouldn't be able to shirk responsibility of it. I do think that organisations should be able to request lottery funding for things that actually give something back. i.e. youth groups, animal sanctuaries, sport, sponsorship matching for smaller organisations etc. x x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted May 27, 2007 Report Share Posted May 27, 2007 (edited) There's talk of something similar around the Humber Bridge. Cant recall the figure involved but I was generally of a similar opinion to you - waste of money & so many better things it could be spent upon. Though it's status as the worlds longest single span bridge has I think now gone the bridge is still one of the best known things in this area. One of the hospitals on the other hand is begging for Charity money to build a cancer centre. Although it's got a lot of popular support personally I believe that Government not Charity should fund hospitals & if that means a bit less "art" (if I cant clearly see what it is then it isn't art to me) then so be it. Edited May 27, 2007 by Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ailsas mum Posted May 28, 2007 Report Share Posted May 28, 2007 I don't get art myself never been interested in it. To spend millions on a bit of canvas and some paint that had been done by someone who snuffed it years ago seems obscene to me, fine if it's your own money but don't go spending public money on it. There is only one painting that I truly like and that's it, apart from the ones that the kids did when they were young. Terri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kats inc Posted May 28, 2007 Report Share Posted May 28, 2007 Let's be honest about the art in hospitals thing anyway.Who's it actually for? The patients? They're all ill and stuck in bed on a ward so not really likely to see it or much care that it's there. The visitors? They're all stressed because they're visiting someone ill and probably not really taking in their surroundings at all. The staff? Too busy to see it as they're stuck on their ward too short staffed to take a break or to overworked and knackered to care much. So why? When I was training we had some artists in painting all the walls with murals,very pretty but pointless.Actually to my shame I did point this out in quite a loud voice on the way to the canteen only to find said artist was on the next floor down painting away Only place it was of any benefit was the paediatric ward where it was nice to have pics on the walls for the children. Other than that a waste of money and the money would have been better spent on equipment for patient care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murtle Posted May 28, 2007 Report Share Posted May 28, 2007 I don't see why hospitals can't be paid to exhibit art for local/new artists....or at least if they aren't paid, not to have to pay to have it done.... You get it in some small restaurants where they will exhibit local aritists work...saves them money for buying art....and if it's good, their diners don't have to look at the same picture each time they visit.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merledogs Posted June 1, 2007 Report Share Posted June 1, 2007 I think THIS is feckin ridiculous. It cost £10m to make and is being sold for £50m. That is obscene when you think about how many lives could be saved using that money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycas Posted June 1, 2007 Report Share Posted June 1, 2007 I agree that lottery money shouldn't be used to fund essential services. Those shouldn't depend on people deciding they have enough spare cash to buy a lottery ticket: they should be funded properly. And if someone has £50 million of their own cash and choses to spend it on a diamond skull, then OK, I think they are mad, but it's their money. I can also see the argument that well looked after areas with statues and fountains and things tend to give people pride in their local area and discourage graffiti and vandalism. That said, I totally agree about most of the projects mentioned here: they are just silly and ludicrously overpriced. If the National Lottery wants to fund something that isn't a core life-saving service, but would enhance the lives, happiness and health of the whole population, they should work on creating wonderful new parks and gardens, and funding the maintenance and care of our public open spaces into the future. That would cheer everyone up, provide vital exercise opportunities, and make our towns and cities genuinely richer and more beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSDFan Posted June 1, 2007 Report Share Posted June 1, 2007 I think art is really important and I don't think it should be confined to galleries and museums. Some of the art which is out in public I don't like, some I do. I don't really see why the lottery shouldn't fund some of it, it is no less worthy than some other things they fund. I like art such as murals in hospitals and I do look at them. I LOVE the Damien Hurst skull, if I had that sort of money I'd buy it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts