Re: The value of public funded art
 

the fact that money goes to art etc n not to things like this is whats insane, no matter who suggests what, n i have no axe to grind, my son being n artist, its as i said PRIORITIES are all to cock. simple as.:(

Re: The value of public funded art
 

As I've stated repeatedly, if community art projects are soley funded from the profits that are earmarked for 'worthy causes', from private companies like Camelot, then I have absolutely no complaint. People have the choice not to play, if they so wish.

However, when life saving health care is being witheld from a toddler, due to lack of funds, and tax payers' hard earned money is being spent on projects like Crocheting Accy, then there is a very real correlation between the two items, as they are both reliant on funds from the public purse.

If people want to create knitted sculptures, there are plenty of places where they can go and pay to carry out their hobby.

It should NOT be funded by the tax payer.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Again, as posted earlier, when I first mentioned the crocheting project in the Market Hall, when told about it by some stall holders, whilst shopping in there, incidentally if Rachael Elwell had integrated herself more with the community in the building, the stall holders mightn't have been so disparaging about the project, and spreading misinformation as to who was funding it, I had honestly no knowledge Gayle was involved.

She'd posted her salary and job title, that as creative director of the Civic arts centre in Oswaldtwistle.

That's all I knew.

It would be interesting to know if, and how, that role might have changed.

Again forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe Gayle once posted that she takes a fee when securing Lottery funding, which is common practice for professional fund seekers, as I'm sure it takes a lot of time and effort, but it would be interesting to know how this co-exists with her job as creative director of the arts centre, and if she's now responsible for all arts projects in the borough.

I believe the job was never advertised, as far as I know, or what suitable qualifications would be deemed necessary if it had been. A degree in arts management I'd have thought, at the very least.

I certainly didn't see it advertised in Monday's Guardian.

Anymore information, to set the record straight, I'm sure we'd all find most illuminating.

As for crochet, do I think it has the slightest artistic merit?

No.

Do I think it was a good use of tax payers' money?

Certainly not.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

I've already posted what I get paid from HBC. Technically I only work part time for HBC but in reality it's a full time job so at the moment I'm not doing any projects outside of my core work for HBC.

As I am the only person working for HBC who is managing arts projects then yes, I am responsible for arts development across the borough.

Yes, I posted that I get paid for securing lottery funding however, I do not get paid any extra when that lottery funding is part of my core work for HBC. So, for example I'm also working on a couple of projects that are connected to the Cultural Olympics - I got those projects as part of my core work and therefore, don't get paid again for them.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

For community art projects soley financed from the pot of gold, that companies like Camelot's worthy cause fund provide, I have absolutely no problem with. More power to you, and your efforts, in securing those funds. Although I'd question the artistic merit, and indeed worthiness, when the projects are brought to our attention, and therefore for discussion, on a public forum.

I maintain that it is an outrage that tax payers' money is spent on such projects.

Not everyone will agree, it's just my opinion.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Surely the crux of the problem lies in the way that lottery money is distributed? The difference between taxpayer funded and lottery funded is merely a moot point. The lottery fund is no more than a government quango and while you can argue that people do not have to pay the lottery, an awful lot of people do not pay direct taxes.

Would it not therefore be better to get rid of the lottery fund bureaucracy altogether and simply distribute directly to local councils on a proportionate basis of the amounts staked in any locality? This way you avoid the obscenity’s of vast amounts of money going to mega projects in London while the provinces are relatively starved. It would probably also avoid the some of the crazy payments that have gone into Hyndburn, such as the 250K for an Islamic club up Springhill in the last few weeks and the 400K paid for pregnant Asian school girls some years ago. It should not be too difficult to ring fence the money and then let local organisations compete to get funding.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Gayle, what are CULTURAL Olympics-that sounds interesting.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Cultural Olympiad | London 2012

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Thanks Less, most interesting.
Now, shall we start counting down from 10?

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Oh Dear ! With you on this one Gordon, think there might be a few choice comments made about this very soon. :rolleyes:

Re: The value of public funded art
 

As some one who has played the lottery from day one, I can see and agree with you about huge amounts of money being spent in London i.e. The Opera House and the Ballet. But to scrap the lottery would cut funding to other worthwhile causes which have no chance off central government funding and never will have, although even this funding needs to be fairer distributed than it is now

Re: The value of public funded art
 

I'm not saying cut the lottery. There are two parts to the lottery. First, the company that puts the terminals in the shops, does the advertising and collects the dosh. After taking it's cut and paying out the prizes, it then pays out the 'good cause' money to the quango then distributes it.

It is this second part that needs abolishing and the money should then go direct to the cities, towns & villages according to how much has been spent in the first instance.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

I can't think of a cause more worthy of wasting, sorry spending, billions of lottery and taxpayers' money on.;)

Re: The value of public funded art
 

'Twelve projects have won commissions totalling £5.4 million to create new works of art across the UK.'

South West
nowhereisland, Alex Hartley
Alex Hartley will bring an island he discovered in the High Arctic in 2004 to the South West of England. The island will navigate the coast accompanied by a travelling embassy, exploring issues of climate change and land ownership.

http://www.london2012.com/images/eve...ex-hartley.jpg
'nowhereisland in the South West is one of the 12 commissions of Artists Taking the Lead.'

Artists Taking the Lead | Major projects | London 2012




Nice work....if you can get it. :rolleyes:

Re: The value of public funded art
 

And here's me working for a living.

Who's the bigger fool?