nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?

Find more posts tagged with

art

gallery

tate

tax payers

government funding

Quick Links

Comments

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?