View Single Post
Old 28-10-2010, 08:15   #126
Ken Moss
Common Sense Member

 
Ken Moss's Avatar
 

Re: The value of public funded art

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrie Yates View Post
I see art in many things - what is art?

To me, art is beauty and beauty is art. A piece of machinery that has been made by man, A beautiful woman, a painting or sculpture by one of the great old masters and some of the newer ones, a bir'd wing, a flower, even an aeroplane - but a dirty unmade bed, a sheep in formaldehyde, a pile of rubble, absolutely no way and no way should things like that, or the "training" to produce such garbage, be funded either by our taxes or Camelot.
Like many others, I thought that Camelot was going to subscribe to worthwhile causes - once again i got it wrong:-(((
Great post.

A great many of the masterpieces of yesteryear weren't subsidised so why should any modern day works be funded, with a public entry fee charged in the galleries on top? I see it as paying people to have a hobby, although perhaps my vision is skewed by not having the same benefits as a real ale researcher.

I have a great love for steam engines (something my wife really couldn't care less about) but the East Lancashire Railway which preserves old engines operates as a business and if it ever runs out of money then that's that. It's a part of our industrial heritage, particularly in Lancashire, and something I consider to be very beautiful craftsmanship, but it isn't subsidised and is expected to be self-sufficient to survive.
__________________
http://rishtonfirst.blogspot.co.uk/ - Updates from the Rishton Councillors

http://hyndburn-labour.blogspot.co.uk/ - Updates from the Hyndburn Labour Group
Ken Moss is offline   Reply With Quote