Is Art a waste of money?

Former Member

http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKL0170229020070301?src=030107_1332_DOUBLEFEATURE_other_news

Personally I can't see why paintings like this are worth so much money - I can think of a lot more things I'd rather spend £6 million on.

I also don't see why the UK government has the right to stop it's owner taking it out of the country, I don't see how it's any of their business.

Former Member

Hmmmm ... I think its part of our cultural heritage and ought to stay. Hence why I feel the Elgin Marbles ought to go back to Greece ..

Former Member

Some things are more important than how many baby incubators or nurses you can buy.

It's an important part of this country's heritage, and should remain here as such.

Former Member

Save it by donations, fine. Spend tax money on it, not fine at all.

Former Member

The reason paintings get so expensive is because of speculation, if you think it's going to be worth £10,000,000 next year, then you'll pay £5,000,000 for it this year. Same if it was some obscure rock. I think art lovers tend to appreciate the painting more than it's worth, the 'value' is completely determined by the free market, speculation etc.

I think it's nice that some British work is being kept here. Though we've still got the British Museum, so we're hypocrits really.

Former Member

I guess I can see pictures of these on the internet pretty easily?

basically any use of taxpayers money to keep art in the UK is subsidy for people that go to art galleries.

So the question to ask is, are people who go to art galleries a group that should be subsidised so that there leisure time is cheaper/more enjoyable?

I for one would say not........

Former Member

I think it's more complicated than that Toadborg, but I haven't got the will to get into a long discussion about why. Basically if someone said we want to advertise some rubbish thing on the side of the houses of parliament you'd be shocked if we did even if it meant we got tonnes of money for it. It's similar in a way, keeping the defining bits of this country together.

Former Member

Picasso is shit. I wouldn't pay £10 for one of his God-awful paintings.

The more people want it, the more valuable it is. Just the way it works.

Former Member

ShyBoy wrote: »

I think it's more complicated than that Toadborg, but I haven't got the will to get into a long discussion about why. Basically if someone said we want to advertise some rubbish thing on the side of the houses of parliament you'd be shocked if we did even if it meant we got tonnes of money for it. It's similar in a way, keeping the defining bits of this country together.

It isn't more complicated than that.

Here is an appropriate comparison:

David Beckham is considered a 'national treasure' someone who is important to the 'national culture'. Because of this the govt matches what LA Galaxy are paying for him and install him at Man Utd (the most popular football club as compared to tate modern, the most popular art gallery presumably)

Does that sound reasonable to you?

Former Member

I wouldn't say David Beckham is a national treasure . It's slightly different, because although he's an arguably talented player, he's just a man. Whereas this is a piece of our cultural background, and a part of our history.

Former Member

Is Art a waste of money?

i might spend a tenner on a pretty picture to stick on my wall, but the only reason id buy an old piece of artwork or any other antique is i might make a few bob in a few years.

i find it strange, cos thing like that are only valuble because there are other rich people who want it. and they probably only want it because other rich people want it.

imo, the antique world is similar to the fashion world.

Former Member

It's hard for the government to cut off the edge of your painting and tax it.

Generally, richer people like to have a lot of assets that can grow in value with/above inflation and not be taxed as much. As far as I know anyway.

Former Member

The only question in my opinion is, will they make £6m back for the economy in it's lifetime? I've got no doubt that a single painting won't obviously, but does having a complete collection of all the great works of art from this country bring in the tourists? I reckon it does somehow. Obviously the price is up for discussion (and I think a large portion of it was funded privately or by charity donations) but I don't think you can dismiss things like this as just a painting and put a photocopy up in the art gallery instead. Having said that, to me personally, no it's not worth a penny. Well if it was in a nice frame, I might give them a tenner.

Former Member

drumbeat wrote: »

i find it strange, cos thing like that are only valuble because there are other rich people who want it. and they probably only want it because other rich people want it.

imo, the antique world is similar to the fashion world.

Tbh, I'd much rather see rich people investing in antiques and art, and ripping off other rich people, rather than investing in housing and ripping off poor people who then can't afford their own place to live.

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

Tbh, I'd much rather see rich people investing in antiques and art, and ripping off other rich people, rather than investing in housing and ripping off poor people who then can't afford their own place to live.

damn right.

Former Member

Toadborg wrote: »

It isn't more complicated than that.

Here is an appropriate comparison:

David Beckham is considered a 'national treasure' someone who is important to the 'national culture'. Because of this the govt matches what LA Galaxy are paying for him and install him at Man Utd (the most popular football club as compared to tate modern, the most popular art gallery presumably)

Does that sound reasonable to you?

What has Beckham got to do with art?

Former Member

There seems to be two different points -

Should the government pay so much for a painting?

and

Is art a waste of money?

The first question is relevant to what most people seem to be saying here but most people's comments don't seem to have anything to do with the original question.

If you think something is beautiful, if you believe you want to own it, or be able to hang it, if it moves you in a way nothing else ever can, if you want to own the version that actually looks good, want to have that link with something that so moves your soul in a way nothing else can - then why not pay for it?

And whilst we are on the subject-

http://vbulletin.thesite.org/showthread.php?t=48247

Former Member

Art is not a waste of money but it's a shame art has to be about money.

Art makes people think, it brings pleasure. But I don't think millions of public money should necessarily be spent on it. Especially when much of it is hidden away in private council rooms/government buildings/10 Downing Street (at a guess) where the public cannot even see it.

Former Member

ShyBoy wrote: »

I wouldn't say David Beckham is a national treasure . It's slightly different, because although he's an arguably talented player, he's just a man. Whereas this is a piece of our cultural background, and a part of our history.

David Beckham is a million more time important to what 'British culture' is than that painting.

A part of 'our' history?

It ain't a part of my history, I had never heard of it and will likely never see it, yet you are asking me to pay for it.

Why should I?

Former Member

Toadborg wrote: »

David Beckham is a million more time important to what 'British culture' is than that painting.

Saddo.

Former Member

Perhaps people should ask themselves what kind of country they would like to live in: one where everything is for sale, where money is the one and only concern and priority and where national heritage and treasures are sold off one by one and let go forever... or one where money isn't everything.

I certainly know which one I'd prefer.

Former Member

Blagsta wrote: »

What has Beckham got to do with art?

http://uk.ask.com/reference/dictionary/wordnetuk/6616/analogy

Hope I can help you out with this

Former Member

Toadborg wrote: »

David Beckham is a million more time important to what 'British culture' is than that painting.

A part of 'our' history?

It ain't a part of my history, I had never heard of it and will likely never see it, yet you are asking me to pay for it.

Why should I?

Will anyone know who Beckham was in 200 years time?

I doubt it.

Former Member

Toadborg wrote: »

It ain't a part of my history, I had never heard of it and will likely never see it, yet you are asking me to pay for it.

It is a part of your history. As to never having heard of Turner? :eek:

Former Member

Toadborg wrote: »

http://uk.ask.com/reference/dictionary/wordnetuk/6616/analogy

Hope I can help you out with this

It's not a very good analogy as the two things have no similarities at all.

Former Member

What has 200 years time got to do with it, it being paid for now, by us. I do not care especially about people in 200 years time.

Incidentally, i would imaigne that people will know who David Beckham was in 200 years time.

There are after all many mnay more serious football fans than art fans.......

Former Member

Blagsta wrote: »

It is a part of your history. As to never having heard of Turner? :eek:

Yes I have heard of him.

I also have heard of many other people who have had no discernible impact on me.

What is your point?

Former Member

Toadborg wrote: »

What has 200 years time got to do with it, it being paid for now, by us. I do not care especially about people in 200 years time.

You really can't work out what I mean? :eek:

Toadborg wrote: »

Incidentally, i would imaigne that people will know who David Beckham was in 200 years time.

There are after all many mnay more serious football fans than art fans.......

Can you name any footballers from 200 years ago?

Former Member

Toadborg wrote: »

Yes I have heard of him.

I also have heard of many other people who have had no discernible impact on me.

What is your point?

My point is that you're not very well educated.

Former Member

I think we can avoid slipping into insults can't we? After all Blagsta, you're the one looking uneducated with that comment.

Former Member

Blagsta wrote: »

It is a part of your history. As to never having heard of Turner? :eek:

Who's history? :razz: