Millions Spent On 'art' Is It Worth It?

[Angel155]

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.

I take it you have been to Plymouth and have seen the many occasions that washing up liquid and dye have been put into the sundial water (near Disney store) and in the fountain (at end of Royal Parade). A lot of vandals just see new statues etc as a new canvas for their art.

[Kats inc]

I take it you have been to Plymouth and have seen the many occasions that washing up liquid and dye have been put into the sundial water (near Disney store) and in the fountain (at end of Royal Parade). A lot of vandals just see new statues etc as a new canvas for their art.

 

Sounds a bit like the fountain in the middle of Portsmouth,it was constantly a massive pile of bubbles most weekends for a while.I think they had to put something in the water in the end to stop it.It used to be so funny though.I think they spoilt the fun when they added the non-bubbly additive.

[cycas]

I have (they do the same thing in Barnstaple). I must say though, it doesn't strike me as particularly terrible. I'd rather see a fountain full of pink bubbles than an empty square with the walls covered in spray graffitti.

 

This isn't just my opinion (about well maintained areas deterring vandals) I am pretty sure that this has been researched. People are much more likely to vandalise things that already look like nobody cares. Not saying that nice things never do get vandalised, they do, of course - but I believe the statistics show that it happens a lot less.

[mooandboo]

A world without art, inside or out would be a very sad place The problem with art is that it is subjective & will never please everyone. I do agree that the money involved is absurd in some cases and that some *artists* and their *art* are equally absurd - again the trouble is that my view will differ from others'. Perhaps there should be a cap on how much can be spent per individual piece of art bought with public money, lottery or otherwise.

 

As for art in hospitals - aren't they grim enough without making them places of sensual deprivation as well?

[Angel155]

As for art in hospitals - aren't they grim enough without making them places of sensual deprivation as well?

I think the point is though, the fact that hospitals have an art budget. Surely the money could be better spent on equipment that is lacking in many hospitals. I like Murtle's idea of artists paying the hosptials to display their work.

[mooandboo]

I think the point is though, the fact that hospitals have an art budget. Surely the money could be better spent on equipment that is lacking in many hospitals. I like Murtle's idea of artists paying the hosptials to display their work.

The point to me is that the hospital isn't just about equipment, it's the whole thing, surroundings, comfort etc - surely art is part of that? Surroundings have been proven to affect the way that people feel & can benefit recovery.

 

I agree that artists paying to exhibit sounds like a good idea but it wouldn't be without it's costs - who would organise it, process the payments, who would be involved in the selection process, who would put the art in place? Surely if artists were paying to exhibit their work it would constantly be changing & their work would have to be insured, who by? And if the artists themselves had to insure as well as exhibit their work it would exclude those artists who couldn't afford both.

 

I see nothing wrong with an art budget, art prints are relatively cheap and as long as the budget is economical & not based on original works I don't think it can be seen as extravagant & wouldn't make that much of an impression if it was removed & added to the equipment budget (which would bring problems in itself of agreeing where is it most needed). Art is a part of life & I think stripping everywhere to it's bare bones wouldn't solve the problems which exist, it would cause more - just my opinion though.

 

If my experience in colleges is anything to go by, money allocated to one area is very rarely added to another if it is removed - it's usually removed completely to reduce the overall expenditure. Not that I believe that is the way it should be.

Edited June 2, 2007 by mooandboo

[Richard (The Sane)]

I've got a couple of views on this. If public money is to be spent on art then all well and good. But the art should be reasonably prices not some 10+ thousand pount bit of junk (as has happneed often). If the people deciding what to buy are sensible than much good art can be purchased within a reasonable budget.

 

Now, what does pee me off is when you hear people saying 'I don't believe somebody (a private individual) spent x hundreds of thousands/millions on that piece of art. Imagine what that money could have done for poverty/nhs/schoold etc. "

I stongly believe that what somone spends thier own money on is their business (within legal bounds) and i do get quite annoyed when I hear people saying stuff like that.

[Cafferysmum]

My husband is a professional artist!!!!!! and he says of course

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

its not worth that much... Im terrible i go round lots of exhibitions and end up peeing myself at some of the work saying a five year old could do better..

 

He has spent a life time working and if some numpty wants to pay us 13 million, please feel free to pm us... then i can donate it all to rescues and buy myself a farm...

[KathyM]

Got to say I really love that skull - not sure it constitutes my vision of "art" but I do like it a lot. Not enough to pay £50m for it though (pah - pocket change!).

 

As for art, I agree that it's very important. If I loved a painting/sculpture I would pay what it was worth to get it (dependent on how much money I had). I think it's hard to put a paint/paper/canvas "worth" on good art, it's worth what it's worth to whoever wants it.

 

I also agree that it's really important to get art out of the galleries and into the community. I'm not sure how I feel about the funding of that, I would say it would depend on the cost and the value of what good it will bring.

 

Everyone screamed about the Gateshead Angel when it first came out - I was one of them that moaned to be honest. Now I don't live in Newcastle, and when I travel up, it's as much a sign that I'm coming home as the Scotswood Bridge and the Penshaw Monument. Odd as it is, it's now very important to me. I get a very strong feeling of coming home when we travel past it - so to me it's worth a lot.