Re: The value of public funded art
 

Thank you.

A little more illuminating, now we have some figures to ponder, and the knowledge that the Lottery funded (about) three quarters of the money, and the tax payer the remaining 25%.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

I shall continue not to buy lottery tickets.

Not being convinced that their worthwhile cause are very worthy.

Sadly there isn't an option to withold tax.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

No matter what figure you put up Gayle .. it will be too much for some people.

See the film has now had 1,777 hits.. :)

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Some will appreciate the artistic, and monetary worth, of a Salford 'artist', whilst others don't.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Not like you to throw up Red Herrings, Garinda. :rolleyes:

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Is that what it's called?

I'll be going round all the autumn fairs, telling the ladies they haven't made wooly tea cosies, teddies, toilet roll holders, etc., but works of art, which deserve gallery space, rather than being exhibited on trestle tables in draughty church halls.

;)

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Well some bints dirty bed won the Turner prize the other year:rolleyes:

Re: The value of public funded art
 

...and someone bought it.

Thankfully not with tax payers' money, and therefore I couldn't care less.

;)

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Well you know what they say G, a fool and his money are soon parted;)

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Yes, and in some cases, so is the tax payer.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

yep those people who see it as a waste of taxpayers money!;) aint knocking the film, as i said previous, but how many hits do ya think it would have if it actually cost to view? the number of views yah quote, could also be deemed a red herring.:D

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Now, if someone was given a pitch in the Market Hall, and two and a half thousand quid, in fivers, and instructions that they have three months to eat the money, that might have caused a stir in the art world, rather than a ripple on the Guardian's woolcraft page.

Though I'd still question the use of funding via the tax payer.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

I heard a heartbreaking story today.

A child was very recently diagnosed with a extremly rare disease. There are less than five suffers in the U.K. If left untreated, there's a real chance they will die, in a few, short years.

Happily there is a treatment which could offer the chance of total recovery.

Sadly this treatment is only available in the U.S.

The N.H.S don't offer the treatment because it's too expensive.

I know this thread is about the value of public funded art, but when it comes down to tax payers' money, I know damned well where I'd be happier having my taxes being syphoned.

It genuinely grieves me that life and suffering are deemed less worthy than wool creations hanging in our town, and yes I know, these funds were earmarked for 'arts' projects, and N.H.S. funding is entirely a different issue, but ultimatley both are funded, to a greater or lesser extent, by our taxes.

The society we've created, sometimes stinks so much, I could weep.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

That just sums up attitudes in life these days rindy, priorities all to cock.:mad:

Re: The value of public funded art
 

That's an absolutely insane connection - no one, the government nor I, for one minute has suggested that wool sculptures are more important than this young girls life.

But if you do want to make connections about injustices in the NHS - what about the money that they spend fixing broken bones of all the drunks that go in there after a fight on a Saturday night, or what about the injustices of the amount that the NHS have to spend on smoking related illnesses or obesity.

If they didn't have to fund all of that, then perhaps the money would be there to save the girls life.