What I don't understand is why it matters that it's a fake?
It's still (presumably) a nice picture, more or less the same picture anyway, and a work of art in it's own right, so what's the problem?
:01:
Printable View
What I don't understand is why it matters that it's a fake?
It's still (presumably) a nice picture, more or less the same picture anyway, and a work of art in it's own right, so what's the problem?
:01:
Damn, barbie-Quote:
Originally posted by barbarossa@2 March 2004 - 07:46
What I don't understand is why it matters that it's a fake?
It's still (presumably) a nice picture, more or less the same picture anyway, and a work of art in it's own right, so what's the problem?
:01:
That's a fine question. ;)
Quote:
Originally posted by barbarossa@2 March 2004 - 02:46
What I don't understand is why it matters that it's a fake?
It's still (presumably) a nice picture, more or less the same picture anyway, and a work of art in it's own right, so what's the problem?
:01:
Indeed, it is.Quote:
Damn, barbie-
That's a fine question.
The brouhaha is symptomatic of the decline of "art for art's sake" and perfectly illuminates the problem with "art as commerce".
The painting is exactly as it was 6 months ago.
Our perception of it has been altered by it's apparent decline in value.
Sad, really, but not surprising.
There are certainly plenty of crappy Picasso's and Vermeer's whose value is tied to the name attached rather than the aesthetic superiority achieved....
Quote:
Originally posted by clocker+2 March 2004 - 13:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 2 March 2004 - 13:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-barbarossa@2 March 2004 - 02:46
What I don't understand is why it matters that it's a fake?
It's still (presumably) a nice picture, more or less the same picture anyway, and a work of art in it's own right, so what's the problem?
:01:
Indeed, it is.Quote:
Damn, barbie-
That's a fine question.
The brouhaha is symptomatic of the decline of "art for art's sake" and perfectly illuminates the problem with "art as commerce".
The painting is exactly as it was 6 months ago.
Our perception of it has been altered by it's apparent decline in value.
Sad, really, but not surprising.
There are certainly plenty of crappy Picasso's and Vermeer's whose value is tied to the name attached rather than the aesthetic superiority achieved....[/b][/quote]
Wow.
You're good! :lol:
I know what you mean, though.
I once bought a Vermeer just for a lark, only to decide I hated it.
Couldn't give the fucking thing away, so I burnt it. <_<
Whoa! I have to take exception at that - the arts have to be supported by the government. Your reasoning of "user pays" is very damaging, socially. It is vital that citizens of any country have affordable access to public services and entertainment if you want a healthy society.Quote:
Originally posted by Alex H+23 February 2004 - 03:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alex H @ 23 February 2004 - 03:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@21 February 2004 - 18:04
I have nothing against the arts...however i think they should be financed by those that actually go, not the taxpayer.
Its hardly essential.
Heres why:
I noticed a few other people in this thread mentioned transport and education as worthy subjects for public funding. Government transport, such as trains and busses, run at a loss. So the taxpayer is subsidising them, even if they never use them. If bus and train fares were brought in line with the actual costs of the services there would be a massive increase in price (Sydney trains fares for example would go up over 320%).
Personally I only catch the train once every few weeks, so my tax dollar is subsidising all the city suits who use them every day. While this may seem unfair on me, I do appreciate the fact that the trains are there if I need them.
Public libraries are another example. They don't make any money at all, so sould we class them as a burden to the tax-payer and get rid of them? Of course not! They are important services to the community and are available to anyone who needs them.
The police don't make a profit either. Sould we adopt a user-pays system to that you have to pay $500 to get the cops out looking for your DVD player that some junkie ripped off?
Look at counties that have adopted a two-tier publice heath care system. Health care costs a huge amount so countries like the US tried to make it "fairer" by only really charging people who use the service. Unfortunatly, the greatest number of people in need of care are the ones who can least afford it, so there are THOUSANDS of people who are sick but can't afford to take a day off work to get better. So while they could have taken the day off and come back in to work fit and healthy, in reality they work at half pace for a week and infect their workmates which eventually costs their tax-paying employer money. Now THAT is unfair.
The arts are important in creating and maintaining a cultural identity, and reflect the historical and current values of society. If there were no art galleries, opera houses, theatres, public performaces, concerts and festivals, what would you do for entertainment? Go to the movies and watch the latest batch of crappy American romantic comedies?
Without public subsidy of the arts we would be at the mercy of the advertisers and spin doctors and we would loose our cultural heritage.
(BTW - Perhaps they could have paid for a bit of research on the painting before forking out for it? - $41 mil could have paid for LOTS more paintings, theatre productions etc, and created a lot of employment for people working in thoses industries.)
edit - typos [/b][/quote]
People need education, health, transportation etc etc etc I have no problem with Government paying to help support the country infrastructure...
They do not need to visit an Art Gallery or an Opera.
Indeed most of the ones vsiting the Opera are the ones with money to start with...they were brought up that way.
When the Government starts giving grants to Eminem at the local Concert Hall maybe i will change my mind, however the "Arts" is the taxpayer subsidising those that can most afford it, in general.
We have plenty of museums in our area that "Break-Even", and also theatres and Galleries, with no Government handout....why should I help keep the costs of the Opera in London down to a mere £50- £100 a ticket?
Even if i wished to go, its still well out of my price range....and well inside the price range of that do go. Those that have 6 figure salaries or dont need to work <_< <_<
The arts may be a luxury, however they are a luxury we cannot do without. I include all art in this, whether it be popular culture, ballet, paintings or whatever. It is part of what defines our culture and who we are. Without it we are little more than automatons, going about our daily grind, for what ? just to be another part of the hive. I choose life.
It is a moot point whether The National Gallery or the like should pay this sort of money, however consider. If a painting were to be bought into a private collection, how many would see it ? If it were done so as an investment, then there is every likelihood it would be sealed away from the light. Unfortunately if there is a going rate for a piece of work, then that has to be paid. If this is the only way to make sure that we can see it (if we choose to ) then it is the only way.
wouldn't that lead to art and culture basically being available only to those who can afford it, i had you pegged as more socialist than this RF. I can see the attraction of charging foreigners, (especially in london ) but charging everybody automatically makes it less desirable to those who are already struggling financially.
& what about all those starving artists who need inspiration? :rolleyes:
Perhaps he would leave us with bread and circuses, there is that tradition.Quote:
Originally posted by ilw@2 March 2004 - 20:32
wouldn't that lead to art and culture basically being available only to those who can afford it, i had you pegged as more socialist than this RF. I can see the attraction of charging foreigners, (especially in london ) but charging everybody automatically makes it less desirable to those who are already struggling financially.
& what about all those starving artists who need inspiration? :rolleyes:
$41 million dollar art is not necessary.
There are lots more pressing issues than $41 million dollar art like putting food on the table, helping the homeless, etc.
This was some uppity crap the rich mostly supported. I know in America lottery money is earmarked for specific things. Was this the case in the UK for it to be earmarked to buy A painting :lol: :lol: ?
What a joke.
In my area there is a push to have legalized slot machines and earmark the money for education for public schools.
btw, I leave symbols for the symbol-minded <_<
There's a coincidence, I do the same with narrows.Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@2 March 2004 - 21:25
btw, I leave symbols for the symbol-minded <_<