Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Is Art a waste of money?

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ahh Lunar eclipse tomorrow - I'm going to assume everyone was kept awake by the giant spotlight in the sky and that's why their ratty
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    I think we can avoid slipping into insults can't we? After all Blagsta, you're the one looking uneducated with that comment.

    Errrr...what? How am I looking uneducated? Explain please.

    Oh, and I wasn't insulting anyone. Turner is a very well known English artist. To not have heard of him implies a lack of education.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Remind me, is turner the one who did loads of misty ones of London, or am I thinking of someone else?

    I personally think that value of art is an entirely individual property (you can tell I've had a day of lectures) i personally don't think any painting is worth several million even if the guy who did them is dead. Saying that if it were pay millions or see it destroyed I'd probably pay (if it were a classic like this, though obviously there'd be some general disagreement about what should be included in this bracket of great art), because based on my experience art is always more impressive when you see the real thing.

    Has anyone brought up the film industry? harry potter is hardly a classic invention, in fact I personally don't consider the style of the books worth the fuss, and the collection any more significant that the little miss and mr man set by Hargrave, but each of those films has taken millions. Why are they worth more than this picture?

    ETA: Having looked at several images on the net, I want to see the real thing, because a picture on my monitor is never going to do it justice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Errrr...what? How am I looking uneducated? Explain please.

    Oh, and I wasn't insulting anyone. Turner is a very well known English artist. To not have heard of him implies a lack of education.

    No, it implies that someone just happens to not know a particular fact, it doesn't imply a lack of education at all. David Cameron didn't know what a pink pussy was. Does that imply a lack of education too? Or is that particular fact not considered by you to qualify someone as "educated" but knowing about a particular artist is?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Can you name any footballers from 200 years ago?

    There were know footballers 200 years ago that were heavily in the public eye (in fact professional football didn't even exist). But yes, we can name people who were in the public consciousness 200 years ago.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, it implies that someone just happens to not know a particular fact, it doesn't imply a lack of education at all.?

    Having a little bit of knowledge about art is part of being educated.
    David Cameron didn't know what a pink pussy was. Does that imply a lack of education too?
    Or is that particular fact not considered by you to qualify someone as "educated" but knowing about a particular artist is?

    I have no idea what you are on about here.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    I have no idea what you are on about here.
    I'm asking who decided which facts do you have to know to be considered educated? Or did you just make it up? What makes knowing who a particular artist is any more valid than any other fact? In short, how can that single fact give you enough insight into someone's education to be able to label them as ill-educated?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If anyone bothered to read what I said in the first place:

    "I had never heard of it "

    Refering to the specific piece of art, not the artist.

    Blagsta, you look uneducated because you sound like a child.

    Please tell me why the majority of people who have little or no interest in art should subsidise the minority who do? Do you believe that art-lovers are a group who are particularly worthy of government aid?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "The majority who have no interest in art", now that's bollocks
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why didn't you quote me properly?

    Your post is directly below mine so you were hardly going to get away with it were you?

    "the majority of people who have little or no interest in art "

    In the context of this thread, being an art enthusiast would involve going to art galleries regulalry, and in particular the Tate in London.

    The majority of people do not do this......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is completely irrelevant whether it's no interest or little interest in art, because you're still talking bollocks.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    I think we can avoid slipping into insults can't we?


    :wave:

    Care to elaborate your point fiend?

    Do you have evidence that the majority of this countries population will be visiting tate in London anytime soon?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm asking who decided which facts do you have to know to be considered educated? Or did you just make it up? What makes knowing who a particular artist is any more valid than any other fact? In short, how can that single fact give you enough insight into someone's education to be able to label them as ill-educated?

    Having a little knowledge of art is generally accepted as part of a good education. Same as having a little knowledge of literature, Greek and Roman myth etc is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote: »
    If anyone bothered to read what I said in the first place:

    "I had never heard of it "

    Refering to the specific piece of art, not the artist.

    Blagsta, you look uneducated because you sound like a child.

    I sound like a child because I point out that your comparison of Beckham and Turner is a fatuous one?

    Run that by me again, I've missed something :confused:
    Toadborg wrote: »
    Please tell me why the majority of people who have little or no interest in art should subsidise the minority who do? Do you believe that art-lovers are a group who are particularly worthy of government aid?

    Most people like art. Whether it be Turner, Banksy or lads doing a piece on their estate, art is an activity that most humans partake in.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote: »
    :wave:

    Care to elaborate your point fiend?

    Do you have evidence that the majority of this countries population will be visiting tate in London anytime soon?

    Why do you think the Tate is the be all and end all of art?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Please try and keep up. Maybe if you took a little longer to think about your posts you would do better?

    The specific painting we are discussing will be in the Tate, thus only people who visit the Tate will benefit from it.

    So in fact I could have been more specific earlier and ask if it was justified for tax that is raised from the whole of the British populace be used to benefit the small % of the populace that will be seeing that painting at the Tate?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, I'm well aware that the painting will be in The Tate. However, the discussion has been about the role of art generally.

    "the majority of people who have little or no interest in art"

    See?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes I do see, which is why I had corrected myself in the post DIRECTLY ABOVE YOURS?

    What is it with people today? You really aren't keeping up at all!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're not making much sense Toady.
Sign In or Register to comment.