Originally Posted by Less (Post 859490)

I thought you took the picture of spugs that he uses as an avatar so you should be able to tell who is whom?
;)

Originally Posted by Less (Post 859538)

Come on Rindy, it's time you did what you are good at, dress yourself up as a French Queen and let them eat cake.:)

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany (Post 859553)

Gayle, just give him a price will you ! Look how many pages this has dragged on for, he's like a Terrier after a Rat & he won't give up until he's had an answer. (Admittedly he'll probably rattle on for a couple more pages once he knows, but hey ho ! In the long run it'll be better for everyone :D)

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 859545)

I'm sure my interest in this thread will diminish, just as soon as we know all the costs involved, so as to make it easier when deciding on 'the value of publicly funded art'.

;)

Originally Posted by Less (Post 859589)

Let's be honest, Privately or publicly funded art, I couldn't afford it...

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 859614)

Whether it's affordable or not, or even if it's good or bad, regarding publicly funded art, apparently the tax payer has sadly no say on whether they want to fund it or not.

On your last point, don't worry.

When my last good typing finger no longer does as I want it to, I'll sellotape an old biro to my forehead, and I'll carry on tapping away.

Carry on tapping out, what I believe to be the truth. That being that the majority of people don't agree that their hard earned taxes are spent on such fripperies as 'community art'. More so, when the country is in the dire straits it currently is.

Financially, and morally, the vanity of state funded art is unaffordable.

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 859701)

Affordable or unaffordable, it don't make much difference to me, anything that is classed as a leisure pursuit should be funded by those who use or are interested in it. I would imagine that 80% of the general public have never given a fig for art of any kind, I'm in that category

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 859709)

I don't really understand what you're saying.

Doesn't it make a difference to you, even though you say art isn't of interest to you, that you're funding it, regardless as to whether you want to, or not?

If someone was struggling to keep a roof over their familys' heads, and hard to find money to keep them warm and fed, they'd be pretty stupid spending money having the front door painted.

State funded art schemes seem unwanted, by the vast majority of people, who see very little value and worth in them, both finacially and artistically.

Still, it's only 'two bob' of your money...or £2,000.00, to be more precise, if you want to teach the next generation of Banksys to pefect their tag in an Accrington park, before sharing their graffiti with us on a lager scale.

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 859713)

If two grand helps to stimulate the minds of some young people and gives them an interest other than wrecking parks and standing on street corners making a complete nuisance of themselves, then its money well spent, because it will save money in the long run

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 859717)

Ok, we'll have to differ on the value of that two grand.

:rolleyes:

Perhaps we should also be applying for funding for those young people who have an interest in knives, mugging, and nicking cars, so they can have a more creative outlet, other than that already supplied by schools, youth groups etc.

:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 859713)

If two grand helps to stimulate the minds of some young people and gives them an interest other than wrecking parks and standing on street corners making a complete nuisance of themselves, then its money well spent, because it will save money in the long run

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 859719)

Besides, young people already have more material goods, and access to education and existing youth leisure schemes, than at any other time in this country's history.

In the the late twenties and early nineteen thirties young people also stood on street corners. Mainly because there was no jobs, and they were hungry.

They didn't 'wreck parks', or need state funding to stimulate their creativity, and keep them out of trouble.

They needed state funding to put some food in the bellies.

They didn't need a bribe, to make them behave in a civilised fashion.

Throwing money at a problem, doesn't necessarily solve it.

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 859718)

Oh come on G now your just being pedantic, I actually called in the Ossy Youth Centre the other week, and had a long chat with the centre manager Martin, but for the efforts of himself and his staff there would be far more unruly youths on our streets, some projects are art based, to me its striking a happy medium that's beneficial to both the recipient of the support and the tax payer

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 859721)

That maybe so but not giving a toss is just as bad, if that's the case lets shut all the youth centres and other youth projects and turn the clock back to the 1930s and not give young people any support other than school, like the good old days;)