Museum's $41 Million Raphael Painting A Fake

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:

---

I dont believe paying huge salaries to Directors and Actors is helping the "Arts"

Like i said, most Museums and Galleries everywhere else in the country outside London manage without huge grants from the Government.


Theatres show plays, which i go to, without these Grants.

Its amazing that all these places without the Grants not only pay there own way, but are:

a/ Cheaper to go to, in general

b/ More community orientated and as such involve the public much more in the "Arts" than the national ones do.....and that is, afterall, why they get the money?


Let me make it clear... I am not against the "arts". I just dont think the Government should be involved in spending my money to make it cheaper for some millionaire to go to the Opera or see a Painting.

I may change my mind if they suddenly make it cheaper for me to go and see a concert that myself, and my peers would be interested to see.

Saying that popular music pays for itself anyway doesnt cut it. So would the Opera if it wasnt so "select" an audiance with the performers/directors getting paid a lot of money....a lot more per year than most popular performers (not all are superstars with money dripping off them)



Although i mentioned Musuems above, I do not class these as "arts".

A Museum is, in my opinion, as much an educational institution as it is an entertainment facility. I have no objetion to public money being spent on these for that reason.


@ Junkyardking

Yes i read the article.

In the case of "Donations from the public" I have no problem with that...they are the ones that wish to see it.

The National Lottery money could be spent better in my opinion. A lot of good causes get nothing, and others dont get enough...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@2 March 2004 - 18:22
In the case of "Donations from the public" I have no problem with that...they are the ones that wish to see it.

The National Lottery money could be spent better in my opinion. A lot of good causes get nothing, and others dont get enough...

---

I totally agree.

I also have nothing against the arts because I love to make music. However, art is not in the forefront of necessities of living and therefore emphasis, a la money, should take a backseat where art is involved.

Personally i think 40 million for 1 painting is a bit excessive, as you say the money could be better spent, however, the money may not really be being squandered/spent as the painting becomes an asset, one which, chances are, will not depreciate with time.

Quote:

---

I may change my mind if they suddenly make it cheaper for me to go and see a concert that myself, and my peers would be interested to see.

---

even if you have no interest in something, it seems a bit harsh to deny the oppurtunity to those who do want to take advantage of the excellent cultural facilities this country provides (and would otherwise be unable to afford). Obviously it would be nice to make everything nice and fair and have means tested admission prices, but thats impractical. I personally don't see much of a difference between galleries and historical museums, i think they are both educational.
The government & lottery commision funds lots of other things that you probably enjoy, and would suffer without funds. For example i'm under the impression that most athletes & sportspeople are funded in the uk. however, athletes & sportspeople imo contribute far less to the country than galleries or museums. Why not cut the funding from there first?

How much does it cost to go to Old Trafford, with your son and watch Manchester United play Arsenal in a football match. I would venture around £50 (total) just to get in, if you can get 2 tickets at all, which is at best unlikely. That ignores travelling and other costs. For a one off game.

Are we saying that watching 22 men kicking a ball about for an hour and a half, trying to get it into a net more often than the other team is in some way virtuous. Is it in some way a better way to spend your disposable income than watching a decent Opera, or Ballet. Or funding a gallery to display a painting which enriches the spirit. For our country to own that painting forever.

I suspect that visiting Saint James' is not a lot cheaper, however it is rarely empty. No matter the level of employment in the North of England. I would have more sympathy with the social arguments if less people were able to go and watch football on a regular basis.

Why is the painting worth $41 million to begin with?

Classic art is described as priceless, which description can be interpreted a couple of ways, I think.

It would seem though that the figure of $41 mill is the result of private interest in owning such a piece, however speculative the process by which such absurd valuations are arrived at. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@2 March 2004 - 12:12
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.

---

opera ticket prices are too expensive. fair enough. as are the prices to see a top ranking professional sports team.

i think it'd be an unfair generalization though, to say that lower class people as a rule only enjoy pop culture and upper class people are the only ones who enjoy fine art. heck, millions of people prolly own copies of paintings by van gogh, warhol, etc if only because they bought a calendar or coffee mug bearing the image. the multi-million dollar price tags and stuffy gallery environments have a lot more to do with alienating the masses from fine art, than the actual art does, i think.

if gov'ts are going to spend money on art/culture/music projects though, they certainly could stand to devote some of it to things that appeal more directly to the masses. if gov'ts were to give money to independent pop culture projects, like a talented garage band that nobody's ever heard of, the same charges of elitism would prolly still be made anyway... just because the money isn't reaching the absolute lowest common denominator, and it's funding some esoteric or experimental form of pop music that joe average doesn't necessarily understand (at least not yet, since commercial interests do have a habit of taking underground, experimental forms of art & music and turning it into something that's more digestible for the masses).

This type of art collecting is just another colonial manefestation, 'If we get all the precious pieces of art and put them in our galleries we look good', i see it as an ego booster for british culture. The only reason a picture like this is worth so much is so it can be showed of as another british aquisition, it is not relevant whether the painting is nice or not. I think that people need entertainment and that the arts are one option, albeit an expensive option, without entertainment people would and are starting to go crazy, admissions to mental hospitals are at an all time high, simply because our society is shaped for this to happen. We come on this board for entertainment, if i had to pay i wouldn't, but many london galleries are free.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@3 March 2004 - 08:34
i think it'd be an unfair generalization though, to say that lower class people as a rule only enjoy pop culture and upper class people are the only ones who enjoy fine art. heck, millions of people prolly own copies of paintings by van gogh, warhol, etc if only because they bought a calendar or coffee mug bearing the image. the multi-million dollar price tags and stuffy gallery environments have a lot more to do with alienating the masses from fine art, than the actual art does, i think.

if gov'ts are going to spend money on art/culture/music projects though, they certainly could stand to devote some of it to things that appeal more directly to the masses. if gov'ts were to give money to independent pop culture projects, like a talented garage band that nobody's ever heard of, the same charges of elitism would prolly still be made anyway... just because the money isn't reaching the absolute lowest common denominator, and it's funding some esoteric or experimental form of pop music that joe average doesn't necessarily understand (at least not yet, since commercial interests do have a habit of taking underground, experimental forms of art & music and turning it into something that's more digestible for the masses).

---

I have lots of posters of paintings and have a scrolling desktop of Caravaggio paintings. If the Catholic church (and other insitutions) had not funded him, Caravaggio would have never painted many of his pictures, which are now considered masterpieces and have influenced millions of people and many schools of art.

I've also worked in a lot of "fringe" theatre, and seen some fantastic plays. If some of the writers I've worked with had beed given $5000 to take time out of their day jobs to focus on their writing, they would be turing out scripts that would be still be performed in 50 years time (and would no doubt be considerd early 21st century classics). It would also give many REALLY good actors the chance to practice their craft, and perhaps go on to bigger and better things.

Ah, fond memories of working with Geoffrey Rush when he was working at Belvoir St Theatre before he went to Hollywood...

Quote:

---

I've also worked in a lot of "fringe" theatre, and seen some fantastic plays. If some of the writers I've worked with had beed given $5000 to take time out of their day jobs to focus on their writing, they would be turing out scripts that would be still be performed in 50 years time (and would no doubt be considerd early 21st century classics). It would also give many REALLY good actors the chance to practice their craft, and perhaps go on to bigger and better things.

---

That is my basic point.

The Grants given to the arts mainly go to projects like The National Theatre and not to the Community projects that stimulate arts.

The National Theatre, as an example, is a freehold property, they have no extortionate rents..and they are subsidiced. Yet the ticket Price is higher by quite a margin than the Provintial City Theatres that receive no funding from the Government (although they do sometimes operate in partnership with Local Councils)....even if to see the same show.

These local Theatres still break even... so where is the money going?

Quote:

---

How much does it cost to go to Old Trafford, with your son and watch Manchester United play Arsenal in a football match. I would venture around £50 (total) just to get in, if you can get 2 tickets at all, which is at best unlikely. That ignores travelling and other costs. For a one off game.

Are we saying that watching 22 men kicking a ball about for an hour and a half, trying to get it into a net more often than the other team is in some way virtuous. Is it in some way a better way to spend your disposable income than watching a decent Opera, or Ballet. Or funding a gallery to display a painting which enriches the spirit. For our country to own that painting forever.

I suspect that visiting Saint James' is not a lot cheaper, however it is rarely empty. No matter the level of employment in the North of England. I would have more sympathy with the social arguments if less people were able to go and watch football on a regular basis.

---

Thats a spurious argument as premiership football is not subsidized.

In fact it demonstrates the opposite...if people want to go, they will go.. irrespective of price.

I have no objection to Opera, its just not to my taste. However, to take your argument to the logical conclusion..Why should i subsidise your Opera if your not doing the same for my football?

The state of English Football (and sport in general) shows that they need the money more than the Royal Shakespear Company, which is arguably the best Theatre Troop in the world :P (and Scotland need it even more :ph34r: )