Money for art

Andy From Sligo

Just watching a thing on BBC2 about the new Tate Art Gallery in the UK - £58million pounds of UK Tax Payers money used in the project? - what do you think about using tax payers money to fund something like this?

Would the Irish tax payers put up with something like this if a similar project wanted to go ahead?

Do you think art and art projects should be funded with public tax payers money or should the money be raised in other ways or by entrance fee or by the artists themselves or people just interested in art only?

failinis

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

or by the artists themselves

Hey, I am a plumber, I will pay for all the parts for your broken toilet myself no bother.

Andy From Sligo

failinis wrote: »

Hey, I am a plumber, I will pay for all the parts for your broken toilet myself no bother.

well in all fairness art people want to show off their .... er ... art,

failinis

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

well in all fairness art people want to show off their .... er ... art,

So you do not think a person should be paid for their skill and years of training?
Just because their work will be in the public eye?

Andy From Sligo

£58 million of tax payers money in austerity times! - cut backs everywhere else health, and other areas but can use tax payers money in this way - mad!

osarusan

As a percentage of the 533.4 billion pounds sterling Her Majesty collected in tax, it's pretty small.

stoplooklisten

Car bumpers suspended by 4km of hair....no thanks,

BorneTobyWilde

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

well in all fairness art people want to show off their .... er ... art,

True and the Plumber wants to show off his crack.

failinis

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

£58 million of tax payers money in austerity times! - cut backs everywhere else health, and other areas but can use tax payers money in this way - mad!

To be fair I was answering your end question of "in future" - the Tate has had an extension which adds about 60% extra space, double the space, so quite a lot of this work was on the building it self, not directly on the art.
Yes its high but not over all in terms of tax. Though can anyone find a disclosure form on what was spent where (I had a quick google and none up).

The idea of making artists pay to do any work is ridiculous.

Andy From Sligo

failinis wrote: »

So you do not think a person should be paid for their skill and years of training?
Just because their work will be in the public eye?

art (well this kind of art) in these modern galleries is a dodgy one. Any artist can say their piece is art .... but for someone viewing it might just say its an unmade bed or food on a table or ... just a space with bricks in it !

If thats skill and years of training , then i think its a load of bollix!

BorneTobyWilde

I think every dime that everyone earns should go straight to the Government and in return everyone gets taking cared of .
NO more homeless, no more mortgages, no more bills.
Free energy, free food, free cars,free fuel.

Bored_lad

I've have no problem with this and I personally think that the arts are underfunded here in Ireland.

failinis

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

art (well this kind of art) in these modern galleries is a dodgy one. Any artist can say their piece is art .... but for someone viewing it might just say its an unmade bed or food on a table or ... just a space with bricks in it !

If thats skill and years of training , then i think its a load of bollix!

If people are willing to pay silly amounts, it is their pockets (generally) unless a museum eventually buys up (and in a lot cases its donated).
The idea of penalising one "type" of art from others is not the way to go, people should be paid for their services regardless.

4068ac1elhodqr

In contex £58m out of the culture & arts money pot is just pennies.

- £350m (gross) per week also goes to the EU.
- 'Replacing Trident' may cost at least £205 billion, (£205,000,000,000).
- £12 billion, 0.7 per cent of their gross national income goes to 'foreign aid', am sure countries like NK would enjoy some nice pictures to look at (if they'd accept them), rather than just murals of burgerboy.

Andy From Sligo

at least its free to get into the Tate (apart from special exhibits) --- just googled it , good job because if there was an entrance fee I would have give out more!

bodice ripper

We already pay for art

http://www.publicart.ie/main/commissioning/funding/per-cent-for-art/

timthumbni

Re the building extension itself I think its absolutely rank rotten. The brickwork at the end spoils it imo though each to their own.

It seems to attract a lot of visitors though so I imagine that's the argument.

Seeing someone's dirty bedroom wouldn't be my idea of fun or art and it appears the artists are taking the piss at times.

There was something a while back I think when some supposed modern art exhibit that was just basically rubbish on the floor. A security guard/cleaner spotted it and got his dustpan and brush out and tidied the place up disposing of the rubbish (or the exhibit)in the bin. When your art is pieces of litter on the floor then it deserves to go in the bin.

lazybones32

A lot of the stuff called modern and post-modern art shouldn't be subsidised or patronised from the Public purse. I can't recall if it's an urban legend or not but was a monkey's doodling given to art critics for examination and some of them came out with elaborate hokey about what the artist was impressing/conveying? Also, that 'artist' who paints by squirting liquids from his rectum onto canvass...

Architecture - yes; sculptures - yes; colours on a canvass - no. A painting/picture of a tin of soup is not art!

Andy From Sligo

timthumbni wrote: »

Re the building extension itself I think its absolutely rank rotten. The brickwork at the end spoils it imo though each to their own.

It seems to attract a lot of visitors though so I imagine that's the argument.

Seeing someone's dirty bedroom wouldn't be my idea of fun or art and it appears the artists are taking the piss at times.

There was something a while back I think when some supposed modern art exhibit that was just basically rubbish on the floor. A security guard/cleaner spotted it and got his dustpan and brush out and tidied the place up disposing of the rubbish (or the exhibit)in the bin. When your art is pieces of litter on the floor then it deserves to go in the bin.

this made me

Robsweezie

There is someone out there who will buy a canvas full of diarrhoea violently splattered out someone's hole, because it's art.

Andy From Sligo

Robsweezie wrote: »

There is someone out there who will buy a canvas full of diarrhoea violently splattered out someone's hole, because it's art.

emporers new clothes LOL

The J Stands for Jay

Jerome Nutritious Snake wrote: »

'Replacing Trident' may cost at least £205 billion, (£205,000,000,000).

This would bother me more. £205 billion to pretend you're relevant on the world stage. Why do they need to replace trident? It's still going to blow **** up.

4068ac1elhodqr

McGaggs wrote: »

This would bother me more. £205 billion to pretend you're relevant on the world stage. Why do they need to replace trident? It's still going to blow **** up.

Agree, their latest 1bn ships wont operate properly in warm waters and need retrofitted. Trident costing £1/2 trillion wouldn't be a big surprise.

You could probably colonise Mars with that sort of budget, which might be a very good idea in the event of a ww3 anyhow.

Art is a human necessity, if it wasn't sure everyone would be happy to drive grey cars, or whatever putrid colour is the cheapest to throw on over metal & plastic.

percy212

Thank God for the British and their commitment to the arts and culture. We pay a lot of lip service to the arts here but they aren't properly funded.

kowloon

Art is a legit store of value, a lot of large companies have art collections. If the state owns the collections it might not be money wasted.

Shint0

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

art (well this kind of art) in these modern galleries is a dodgy one. Any artist can say their piece is art .... but for someone viewing it might just say its an unmade bed or food on a table or ... just a space with bricks in it !

If thats skill and years of training , then i think its a load of bollix!

In order to engage the rational side of the brain we have to utilise the creative side. The two are not mutually exclusive or discrete entities nor exists a hierarchy on either level. A painting such as Jack Pollock's Alchemy, for example, might appear as splatters on a canvas to you but it is much more than that. The splashes are carefully structured and patterened, and represent the fusion of the rational and creative transforming chaos into order.

As someone who went through an obsessive phase many years ago of thinking in terms of binary oppositions and if only I could find a way to meld all opposing concepts physically and metaphysically I would have cracked the code to existence and ultimately healed the disordered chaos in my own brain. So I tried to seek out all works of literature, music, art etc. such as Pollock's Alchemy to help me in my mission. It fuelled the anguish further but had a particular resonance and meaning for me at that time.

I went back to see the original last week. I looked at it. I appreciated it from a distance but it didn't evoke the same feelings in me because I am in a different place now. My life may not be perfect but I don't fall down that black hole anymore. It now has taken on a new meaning - my life and the painting - and for that I am at least thankful.

Bit surprised at the OP to be honest.

Andy From Sligo

Whoosh! - well that all went right over my (uneducated) head! .....

Shint0

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

Whoosh! - well that all went right over my (uneducated) head! .....

Well I tend to live by the mantra "Don't criticise what you can't understand" or how about 'don't mock the afflicted because it might come knocking on your own door one day'

XR3i

hecha par fuera

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

IvyTheTerrible

So OP do you think artists shouldn't be paid for their work? What about photographers? Should people just use their photos without credit and without paying?

Frostybrew

What's really shocking about this thread is the fact that the UK spends more on a single art gallery than the Irish Arts Council's entire yearly budget.

muddypaws

Andy, you live in Sligo, how many visitors go to Drumcliffe each year because of the Yeats connection? How much money do they then spend in the local area? They don't just fly in, get a bus to Drumcliffe, bus back to the airport and go home, they stay around, injecting money into the local and national economy.

Whether you like modern art or not is irrelevant, other people do, and people travel from around the world to visit the Tate Modern, and then put money into the London and English economy. So the government then get VAT back, income tax from people employed directly by the gallery and in peripheral jobs.

timthumbni

I know someone earlier mentioned about a monkey doodle being passed off as modern art. I didn't know that but wouldn't be surprised.

I watched something where they they got a group of nursery school kids to just slap paint around at the school, then submitted these to some art critics as being from adults and the amount of crap and nonsense the critics came out with regarding what the "artist" was saying was unbelievable.

It's why anytime I hear anyone on tv discussing modern art I laugh. You know the worlds gone mad when some drunken girls skiddy Knicks are considered to be saying something aside from get a shower and get the wash on..

MRnotlob606

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

£58 million of tax payers money in austerity times! - cut backs everywhere else health, and other areas but can use tax payers money in this way - mad!

Actually Art is the first thing to be cut back on times of Austerity.

LunarSea

If AndyFromSligo would prefer, it seems some enterprising individual can "do art" for oh say the price of a pair of glasses

Ack, I'm a new user so can't post links, so just Google "glasses on floor art".

The guy deep in thought with the bin is priceless

maryishere

percy212 wrote: »

Thank God for the British and their commitment to the arts and culture. We pay a lot of lip service to the arts here but they aren't properly funded.

I do not know about the arts in Britain but the arts here are overfunded by the hard pressed taxpayer. Money would be better spent on infrastructure eg having had the 2 ends of the LUAS linked up properly, or on education or health ( not on teachers or doctors salaries). I know some people here funded by the arts council and they do not really provide a service to the public. Waste of money.

genericguy

Bored_lad wrote: »

I've have no problem with this and I personally think that the arts are underfunded here in Ireland.

Sorry but when we can't run hospitals, transport, a justice system, schools etc, funding for pictures of the sea can **** off and get in line.

ToddyDoody

I remember seeing this. £60,000 for a mural. Irregardless of politics, that's steep but great if you can get it.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/belfast-loyalist-district-to-unveil-st-patrick-mural-34516912.html

HensVassal

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

Just watching a thing on BBC2 about the new Tate Art Gallery in the UK - £58million pounds of UK Tax Payers money used in the project? - what do you think about using tax payers money to fund something like this?

Would the Irish tax payers put up with something like this if a similar project wanted to go ahead?

Do you think art and art projects should be funded with public tax payers money or should the money be raised in other ways or by entrance fee or by the artists themselves or people just interested in art only?

Art is beautiful and people enjoy it.

Public money should not just be spent on the necessities but also on the little extras like libraries, parks, playgrounds, concert halls AND art galleries.

maryishere

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

So OP do you think artists shouldn't be paid for their work? What about photographers? Should people just use their photos without credit and without paying?

Photographers can get paid by people who like the photos enough to buy the newspapers, magazines etc they are printed in.

Being paid by the hard pressed taxpayer as well just puts up all our taxes. We have enough to pay for already, without a ****** army of failed actors, artists, sculptors, poets, writers, philosophers etc..

Frostybrew

maryishere wrote: »

I do not know about the arts in Britain but the arts here are overfunded by the hard pressed taxpayer. Money would be better spent on infrastructure eg having had the 2 ends of the LUAS linked up properly, or on education or health ( not on teachers or doctors salaries). I know some people here funded by the arts council and they do not really provide a service to the public. Waste of money.

The arts in Ireland is actually chronically underfunded. On a GDP per capita basis, it's about a fifth of the EU average. The UK, per capita, spends about twice what Ireland does.

It's ironic that you mention the LUAS, as cost over runs on the original lines would have funded current arts council spending for several years.

If anything, increased funding would yield a net gain to the exchequer, by making the country more attractive to overseas visitors; and diversifying what we have to offer.

maryishere

Frostybrew wrote: »

The arts in Ireland is actually chronically underfunded. On a GDP per capita basis, it's about a fifth of the EU average. The UK, per capita, spends about twice what Ireland does.

We should not have left the UK so, should we, is the obvious logic.;)

Seriously though, there are other priorities in this bankrupt little country.

Frostybrew

maryishere wrote: »

We should not have left the UK so, should we, is the obvious logic.;)

Seriously though, there are other priorities in this bankrupt little country.

Yes, like investing in areas like the arts that will yield a net gain to the exchequer.

As an example look at our film, television, and animation industries. Struggling ten years ago, now worth hundreds of millions.

Andy From Sligo

Ok how about this angle dont fund art (especially so called modern art baloney) at all with tax payers money. If people like it and want to buy it or pay an entrance fee to look at it , all well and good. There is some really good art out there worthy of gaking breath away.... but on the other end of the scale there is a lot of pure and utter rubbish that pretentious people try to make out what it is or what the artist was thinking of at the time. By funding art like this with what seems to be funded by tax payers whether they want to or not , means that artists can literally put a load of rubbish out there and get funding for it, whereas if it wasn't funded and people had to pay entry to view an exhibition this would give an idea of what is good and what is bad art .... and hopefully weed out all the rubbish from the good and get back to the quality of art before all this modern art crap started with unmade beds, bricks and rubble on a floor, glasses on a floor, etc etc... back to nice paintings and portraits and clever art which involves skill from the artist to produce something clever as an end result. Im sorry to say in my book arranging some of this modern art rubbish such as what i have described above, theres no skill or experience put into that its just someone chancing their arm at an attempt of art and getting paid or getting it tl be shown in an art gallery funded by tax payers money. Priorities all wrong, especially these days when the money could be better spent.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

Mellor

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

Ok how about this angle dont fund art (especially so called modern art baloney) at all with tax payers money. If people like it and want to buy it or pay an entrance fee to look at it , all well and good.

Well said Andy. If it was worth it, people would pay to see it. Cut the funding.

While were at it, cut the funding and grants for small businesses. If it was a worth wile business they be'd making money.
Science and education can shag off too, no education hand outs. If it doesn't make them money why are they learning it. Dumbasses.

And farmers too, no more grant and subsidies for them. If they can't make a profit with their stocks, they shouldn't have grown them. Maybe if they didn't insist on living on massive properties they's get by on less.

And sports funding, that can go too. Why should the government fund athletes going to the Olympics for nonsense sports. If they did a proper sport they'd be able to make millions in england or america.
If there no money in amateur sports, just go pro.

Obviously that means no government funding for local GAA clubs, they'll just have to charge to watch the games on the weekend, if they're good enough the whole parish will turn out.
The GAA should have never got that $100m funding for Croke Park, then they have the cheek to charge for tickets.
The soccer and Rugby are as bad, $200m for Aviva, and they charge for tickets too.

We need more lads like Andy From Sligo in charge, not these arty farty money wasters. Their fault we've in this mess.
If all that funding money was put into a Post Office saving account the country would be loaded by now.

lazybones32

lazybones32 wrote: »

I can't recall if it's an urban legend or not but was a monkey's doodling given to art critics for examination and some of them came out with elaborate hokey about what the artist was impressing/conveying?

I don't see any great controversy there.

Who makes modern/ abstract art?

The artist, acting on spontaneity and emotion?
Or the viewer, who imposes his own subjective emotion and life-experience onto an abstract vision?

I'd never claim that the artist's intention is irrelevant to the aesthetic value of a piece, but it's definitely not as important as the viewer's own interpretation, in my view.

Any time I go to see an abstract art installation, I'm first guided by my own interpretation of the material, and am only residually interested in the artist's (hypothetical) intention, if any.

Jackson Pollock is a great example. A lot of what he painted looks like the amateurish splatterings of a four-year-old. I really don't care about the artistic 'authenticity' underpinning Number 4, or even whether a four-year-old painted it. I feel a minor throb of excitement at the intellectual and personal freedom (I believe) Pollock felt in creating Number 4, and whether or not he authentically felt that, or whether it is the work of a four-year old, is utterly irrelevant.

Abstract art is personal experience, with only a passing nod to the artist's intention. It is fundamentally existentialist.

When it comes to abstract art, there is no such thing as truth to be swallowed whole, which is why it can be both liberating and maddening.

failinis

I have to admit I seldom like a lot of contemp. and modern art.
Of course I can't say I out right hate it as some installations I have really enjoyed.

Does that mean I want funding cut?
No, because some people do like it.
The vistor numbers to the Tate show this side of Europes interest.
My small city even has 2 modern art galleries among 4 (now only 1 due to lack of money) traditional galleries.

If I do not like something it should not mean blocking those who do enjoy it.
No such thing as degenerate art.

And I echo Mellors post.

Shint0

Mellor wrote: »

We need more lads like Andy From Sligo in charge, not these arty farty money wasters. Their fault we've in this mess.
If all that funding money was put into a Post Office saving account the country would be loaded by now.

While we're at it, we could set up a Ministry of Truth and put the OP in charge. Wipe out our artistic, cultural and literary heritage. Who would even notice. It's not as if we have had any global impact.

Tabnabs

So artists get to be paid what is essentially a government grant for putting ink/oil/water to canvas? Who gets to decide what is art and what is graffiti, flower arranging, etc.? Does photography not count as art, can a photograph not be seen as a stunning and worthwhile piece of art? If a piece of canvas or a sculpture is art and should be funded by the state, why not music? Why is a band not able to get funding to play their music?

Public funding means forcing every individual tax payer to pay for some elitist's idea of art. Why?