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 ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
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.
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.
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?
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.
Having a little bit of knowledge about art is part of being educated.
I have no idea what you are on about here.
"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?
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......
: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?
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.
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
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.
Why do you think the Tate is the be all and end all of art?
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?
"the majority of people who have little or no interest in art"
See?
What is it with people today? You really aren't keeping up at all!