The value of public funded art
 

I thought I'd start this off rather than debate it on the other thread.

Obviously, I'm going to come out in favour of publicly funded art for a few reasons.

I think it's a training ground for artists to learn their craft. Some artists need public funding to survive for a few years before their business or career takes off. The idea behind giving funding to artists isn't so that they can get some more when that runs out, it's to develop their practice so that they can earn money and a living off it in the long run. And, if they weren't making a living as an artist, what would they be doing - collecting the dole, chasing the last job in the factory, smoking dope to forget that they had nothing to look forward to?

I like using local artists who have a desire to improve the surrounding of the area they live in. I also like the fact that the art that I try to bring into the area also adds to local the economy.

The council simply can't spend money on art because there isn't the money to spare for that sort of thing. It maintains the Haworth but can't really afford to bring new exciting exhibitions there so additional funding is needed, otherwise it would be the same exhibition every time you went and no one would go back again.

It also brings lottery funding into our area. Do you know that Hyndburn is still one of the most underfunded lottery areas in the country? And it's not because they turn us down, but because the applications don't go in in the first place.

If there was no art in our lives we would miss it, it's as simple as that.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Tracey Emin's sculpture of a bird, at Liverpool's Anglican cathedral.

Commissioned in 2005, when she was already a commercially successful artist.

Cost?

£60,000.00

Funded by the B.B.C., and therefore the tax payers of Britain who purchase a television licence.

http://www.hilaryburrage.com/Liverpo...66%202455a.jpg

Should public funds be spent on this?

No, in my opinion.

Hisorically art has been commissioned, going right back, pre-Renaissance even.

If art is good, someone is prepared to purchase and fund it commercially.

If no one wants it, and the artist is percieved as having no merit, they starve.

Supply and demand, as in any other economic business.

State funded art only really became a reality under the soviet system, especially Stalin.

Today what was produced might have a certain kitsch appeal, but no art critic of any merit would consider what was produced as great art. Many would be hard pushed to give it the tag of 'art' at all.

Am I in favour of state funded art?

No, because in my opinionm the result has very little artistic integrity.

I'd go as far as saying most of it should be relabelled craft, and practiced in people's own homes, whilst watching the telly. Rather than being funded from the public pure, under the misapprehension that it has any worth in an artistic sense.

Tax payers' money allowing dross to believe it is an art form.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

I don't agree with that because the BBC should be producing TV and Radio programmes not giving our money away

Re: The value of public funded art
 

...and governments should be governing.

Not funding the construction of wooly caterpillars, to hang in Market Halls.

I spent five years purely studying art.

The best of my fellow students were snapped up by employers, or achieved their own commercial success because of their talents.

Those who weren't very good, the failures, all tried to secure placements on community 'art' schemes.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

They had a lucky escape from the dole queue then ;)

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Or earning a living, by doing a worthwhile job.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

By the way, I have absolutely no beef with art being funded by the lottery.

As I choose not to play.

Sadly we have no choice about paying tax, unless the Diddy Men are your accountants.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

No, I don't think this should have been funded by the BBC. But, I think the argument with using a 'name' is that it brings in the publicity. However, I personally don't think that one was worth the money.

But, I think we're talking about two very different things.

I'm talking about publicly funded work for community art and for community artists. Tracey Emin is a 'fine' artist and therefore is selling art for the sake of art.

Community art is more about the communal experience and supports young artists and those starting out.

I don't think publicly funded fine art is value for money but I do think that publicly funded grass roots art is.

I also don't think tax payers money should be spent on it and I have never said it should - I have always advocated lottery funding.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Makes interesting reading, regarding just one city's wasteful approach to art, funded by the tax payer.


ConservativeHome's Local Government Blog: Newcastle Council arts project £2.7 million over budget

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Interesting argument - what's a worthwhile job? The only things that I would categorise as truly worthwhile jobs are things like firemen, police, nurses, teachers etc.

Are cake makers, t-shirt printers, suit sellers etc worthwhile jobs?

Surely anyone who pays taxes is contributing to society and is therefore worthwhile. These artists who get lottery funded projects have to pay tax like everyone else.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

If people want to participate in 'community arts' projects, then they have every right to do so, but it should be self-financing, just as other hobby groups are, such as model train enthusiasts.

The tax payer doesn't fund people who want to pretend to be butchers.

If they are any good, they'll find work as a butcher.

I'm still waiting for a list of critically acclaimed art, which was state funded.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Something worthwhile is something that sits easily on the supply and demand chain.

If the art is any good, and people want it, then it will survive after state funding is withdrawn.

If it doesn't, and no one wants it, then it will stop.

Artifically pretending it serves a need is pointless, and in the long run cruel, to the deluded individuals who class themselves as 'artists'.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

If you are an artist you should, make your own way. As have the greats and not so's, whether it be in life or later. Money does not buy creativity, It is already there.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

It's not artificial in any way.

For example, the artists who did the film have been asked to an interview for a commission for a local business. This job has allowed them to explore their creativity and given them a platform to get going in the more cut throat world.

And, poor artists will soon find the publicly funded route dries up if they can't deliver quality.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

So until that reality kicks in, you think tax payers' money should be there to cushion them from the actual world of economics?

I don't.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Lottery funding is not the answer. I personally would rather see lotto funds going to, sports centres,keeping kids fit and healthy, and care for the frail,disabled and elderly folk.

If you are so artistic you make your own way:cool:

Re: The value of public funded art
 

But can it be knitted?

Let's try and make some 'creativity' out of this wool, I've just bought with my government subsidy.

:rolleyes::D

Re: The value of public funded art
 

A question I often ask myself :D

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Ok already, you don't like the crotchet, I get it! :D

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Sport is not for everyone. You've got to keep minds fit and healthy as well.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

No it has to be spun, just like the cause for " Public Funded Art ".;)

Re: The value of public funded art
 

A stated, I don't personally care what lottery funding gets sprent on.

I'd argue that many recipients aren't 'worthy causes' in my opinion.

Therefore I refuse to buy tickets.

My argument is that governments shouldn't be spending revenue, raised from tax payers, to fund art.

Mainly because most 'art' produced this way is dross.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

It can be done with sport ! :D

Elderly can jog their way to mental fitness - News - The Independent

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Fit and healthy kids = better educated children. Whereby education about being healthy doesn't actually mean taking part in a recreation.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Crocheting caterpillars keeps Mr. Dementia from your mind's door?

Fair enough, if that's what you believe, but it isn't art, and they should be buying their own wool.

Quite amusing really, one of these art projects being crochet, as most of the arguments for state funded arts seem very wooly.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

I agree with you on every one of those points.

But if you don't care about what lottery funding is spent on, why do you continue to keep making pops at the film and crotcheting?

Re: The value of public funded art
 

I Think minds of many, many, people young middle aged and those close to retirement would be fitter and healthier if monies were invested in worthwhile jobs within the community.
Without the Chemists producing the Materials to make his paints or yarns, (if we MUST crochet a point), without the engineers designing and producing the machines to make his brushes and twist his yarns, the artist would be nowhere. Invest in the do-ers of this Country, the Artisans, give them the skills and the chance to produce beautiful materials to sell to the World, and the riches produced can then be used in part to commission worthwhile artists with worthwhile talents. Re-open the mills and get all those that would be craft workers doing a 12 hour shift weaving, they'll soon tire of their pretentious ideas and leave art to the people that can really do it and do it well.
:)

Re: The value of public funded art
 

'Pops'?

You mean what I thought of it critically?

Not much, as posted elsewhere. I never mentioned the cost of the thing, in earlier posts, both remaining and vanished.

I just think the film's a bit introspective, and not very vital.

Was it soley funded by the Lotto?

What were the costs of all three projects, and where did the funding come from, now you've brought it up?

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Seems to be quite a lot of interest.

Could we attach a poll, to see how we think these project are (were) funded?

1/Do you think community arts projects should receive funding from central or local government?

2/Do you think community art projects should benefit as one are of the Lotto's worthy causes?

etc...

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Anyway, off to watch The Apprentice now.

Or as it's commonly known, You're Fired.

:D

Re: The value of public funded art
 

It shouldn't be funded by anyone, if they want to be an artist then make something, if its any good it will sell, can agree with a grant or something to get them started but thats about it.
Most of its just junk and worth a few quid not 1000's

Re: The value of public funded art
 

So would I, fill a form in and away you go.

Was I a little harsh? Sorry if I was but I am fed up hearing people moan about what lottery money should and should not be spent on and then do nothing about it.

Gayle played a major part in securing £100,000 for Rhyddings Park. No not for arty stuff but for a multi use games area to give the teenagers somewhere safe to go and hopefully keep a few more off the streets.

Is that ok?

Re: The value of public funded art
 

The grant is not so they can make something though as I see it.
It is so a community group (or however secured the funding) can employ the artist to do a job that the group want doing. Not just for the sake of art.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Who paid for Ossy War Memorial? The one in Oak Hill Park? Gatty Park? Excepting the Tiffany Collection, those are our best artworks in Hyndburn.....none of which were paid by government funding.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Firstly, I've never mentioned the costs involved with producing the film. I simply didn't like it as a piece, as I posted.

Secondy, the crotcheting.

I first mentioned it many weeks ago, in the Market Hall thread, after it was pointed out to me by the traders in the Market Hall, whilst shopping in there.

I was dismissive of it as 'art', but my main beef was because of it's situation in there in the first place. A place, up until recently take up by londstanding market stalls, prior to the two million pound 'refurbishment'.

People traditionally go in the Market Hall to buy produce, not take part in community art projects.

In all honesty I had no idea where the funding came from, and still don't. Nor did I know you had any involvement with it. I knew you were running the new arts centre in Oswaldtwistle Town Hall, nothing else. So any criticism wasn't aimed at you, mainly because of ignorance on my part.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Exactly. The film was rubbish and there is no apparent purpose. As for the crotcheting - I am totally puzzled. Why? Surely there are people with a little bit if imagination who could have come up with something better than this waste of money in order to attract people into the market hall?

A Town Cryer would be fun, probably cost neutral and someone yelling out the local news and the market attractions ,with a bit of ceremony a couple of days a week, would surely make a better attraction than this nonsense.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Don't know about the others, but the War Memorial in Oswaldtwistle, widely believed to be one of the most beautiful in the country, was constucted soley from public subscription, raised by the townsfolk.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

We don't fund models, pop singers, or other fame wannabes, certainly not after further education, so they can 'live the dream', funded via the public purse, if no one wants their talents on a commercial footing.

Artists should be no different

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Yeah...it was the same with them all.

No doubt if the arts bureaucrats had been around in 1919/20 the Ossy War Memorial would have been a couple of stone slabs pulled out the Tinker Brook, set in concrete with a crotcheted wool tea cosy bunged on the top, paid for by the taxpayer.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Is lottery funding the public purse?
I don't think so

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Lottery funding.

Couldn't give two hoots.

I have a choice not to participate, and therefore my money doesn't go to their worthy causes.

Fund as many ethnic, one legged wimmins' morris dancing troupes as you want.

Good luck to them, because they aren't getting my cash.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

No.

I quite clearly stated it isn't.

This thread is about state funding of the arts.

I have no idea where the funds came from to commission the three recents works locally.

The market traders said 'the council', but I have no idea, and until today never mentioned funding.

My observations were based purely on artistic mertit, or lack of it.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Sounds a bit gung ho, and a gloryfication of mans' inhumanity to man.

More likely to be different coloured stones from around the world, linked in a circle by living ivy, to symbolise peaceful humanity...with a tea-cosy in the middle.

;)

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Yeah, with probably the names of 50 German war dead engraved down the side.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Lets be honest, if they built it today it wouldn't be allowed unless it also mentioned the Enemies fallen killed by our heroes, because we can't have winners and losers, just P.C.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Quite right.

The vanquished, pictured in the sculpture under the foot of the aggressor, would be deemed offensively jingoistic, if not racist.

Young Tommy, the local arts czar would decide, should be portrayed bent over, supplicant, humbled because of his blood lust, with the tip of a German bayonet firmly up his Ardennes.

There are no winners in war.

Only equal participants.

Some being better at being equal than others, thankfully.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Thinking about it, there isn't a hope that they'd be built today.

Cartainly not without outrage, about the slaughter of certain innocents.

It takes skill, and tact, to organise a welcome home parade, in a batallions' home town. An actual memorial? Not a cat in Hell's chance.

By the way, the noted sculptors whose work is featured on many of our war memorials, and believed to be amongst some of the best cold cast bronzes of the century, was commissioned on a commercial basis.

They didn't let those who weren't really very good, have a go, so they didn't feel left out, as part of some community arts project.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

I find it astonishing that you really think that only firemen, police, nurses, teachers etc are the only jobs that can be categorised as "worthwhile". Anybody who is out working in any way shape or form is making some contribution to society in whichever way they are employed. Even voluntary workers contribute in their own way.

Yes cake makers, t-shirt printers, suit sellers etc are worthwhile jobs because they provide the public with goods they want to buy. I find your observations quite offensive.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

I was being ironic. It had been said that artists should go and get worthwhile jobs, so I was asking what they considered a worthwhile job was.

I was pointing out that all jobs including cake makers, t-shirt printers etc were worthwhile if they contributed to society.

Please read my original post again because you completely missed the point of it.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

And that is NOT true as anyone who lives in Oswaldtwistle can see by the roll of honour for the people of the town who lost their lives in World War 1.

It was only built last year.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

In context, that was said about 'artists' who couldn't secure full time employment, or who didn't have a commercial outlet for their work, but instead relied on state funded community art schemes.

If no one is prepared to fork out for their 'art', why should the general public?

You talk about supporting them whilst they learn. That's what further education does.

Afterwards, if there isn't a market for what you're producing, it's probably a good idea to go back to the drawing board, and think again.

Again, my biggest criticism of community art, is most of it isn't very good.

Those who are good are already selling it, because there are people prepared to pay for it, with hard earned dosh.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

As I said, I never mentioned funding until yesterday, and hadn't the foggiest how it was funded.

But since you've raised the issue, were the three projects soley funded by the Lottery? He asked again, hopefully.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

I would agree that the lottery be used for art projects and I do the lottery every week, just as long as the money is distributed fairly I didn't really see anything fair about spending millions on the national opera house, I have never or will ever attend things like the national opera nor the Royal Ballet either, I think that these things should be funded by those people who use them

Re: The value of public funded art
 

I once heard it said about museums and churches that no one goes but everyone feels better because they're there.

On the flip side of that coin we basically have a hobby that is funded by other people, not bad if you can get in on it and then use that as a springboard to earning money. Most of us who choose to be self-employed rely on our own mettle and business acumen to find a consumer market and make it successful without any form of subsidy whatsoever. If that is the employment route you choose to go down then you should do a feasibility study like everyone else to see if it is a viable option.

Much as I think that preserving our artistic heritage is important (despite it holding very little interest for me personally), I hardly think that in an age of austerity we should be handing more money out from any public fund which simply enables people to try and convince us of their artistic merit with our own money. Van Gogh was a categorical failure in his own lifetime and we don't even have the museum space to display all the artworks in storage at the moment.

Is this a specific area that really requires more funding, from whatever source?

Re: The value of public funded art
 

As I've previously said I'm not an arty person, but think that it is important to lots of people, what I can't understand is, as I've previously stated, spending millions on Opera and Ballet, I just wonder how many people on Accy Web who play the lottery have actually visited either the Royal Ballet or The National Opera House, or in fact ever wanted to. I'm the person who, if opera or ballet is on TV, changes the channel ;)

Re: The value of public funded art
 

I must admit when the Lottery first started up and they said the money would fund worthy causes, I thought they meant such as Cancer Research and other such really worthy causes.

Instead it is used on 'art'. Cancer Research etc. still have to go on the T.V. with their begging bowl.

Maybe I had my priorities wrong?
:(

Re: The value of public funded art
 

That kind of thing was my take on good causes too Less

Re: The value of public funded art
 

A small piece of knitted wool done by someone in a couple of minutes after a couple of minutes tuition is Art?
And tying a few of them to a piece of string to hang up is a 'crochet sculpture'.
Gayle, your definition of an artist starts at a very low level.
I saw the photos, colourfull-yes, harmless fun-yes.But Art?

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Have a read of this about cancer support

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Very glad to read it Neil, obviously not getting enough though, or are they using the Lottery Funding to employ someone arty farty to run their T.V. advertising Campaign?
:D

Re: The value of public funded art
 

In my opinion they are wasting it all on the Olympics :mad:

All that money for a couple of weeks, scandalous

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Totally against public funded artists.:thepint::cheers::hehetable :D:D

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Your not being fair to Mancie Beni:D:D:D:D

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Jay put your glasses on mate, he said "Public funded artists" not "Pish artists" :D I know at times he performs a bit, but he does that for free !

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Were we come from Pish artists are all you get mate:D

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Try again.

Even though my crtique was about artistic merit, and no mention was made as to costs, you've now piqued my interest, and surely it would help people evaluate the value of something's worth, if they knew the monetary cost? Especially as we now have a thread about the value of public funded art.

Third time luck.

What were the costs of the three recent local projects, and were they soley funded by the Lottery? If not where did any other funding come from?

Re: The value of public funded art
 

S'cuse me, could I ask if this public purse everyone is going on about is crotcheted? And if it is, could that be the reason why so much public money seems to leak from it?

Re: The value of public funded art
 

I have a knitting pattern for a pig's ear, if that's any good.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Bet your a gas at making silk purses:D

Re: The value of public funded art
 

True.

Though sadly not out of knitted pig's ears.

;)

Re: The value of public funded art
 

ohhhhhhhh:ohmy8:

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Wait until you see my next piece of community artistry.

Then you'll gasp.

I've applied for funds to turn a mountain into a molehill.

;)

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Oh so your trying to work hand in hand with Ken Moss then:rolleyes:

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Community art projects bring all sorts of people together.

Apparently.

;)

Re: The value of public funded art
 

You won't be allowed. You're only allowed to make a mountain out of a molehill on here.:rolleyes::rolleyes::D

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Um so they say:cool:

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Were the three recent local projects funded soley by the Lotto?

If not, where were the additional funds from, and what were the costings?

Personally I didn't originally care, but since we now have a thread about the value of public funded art, it will make it easier for us, Joe Public, to evaluate the worth.

We'll wait, patiently.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

'Cake makers' -
Well as Master Bun the baker's son (and grandson, and brother), even though it's hard work, you can earn an honest crust. As well as employing hundreds of people, in the sixty five years my family's been making cakes in the area.

'T-shirt printers' -
Can't really comment. Though I did do some hand painted shirts for Kevin Horkin's Accrington boutique in the eighties, which I believe sold quite well.

'Suit sellers' -
Again, can't really comment. Even though an article in the Lancashire Telegraph wrongly printed a report that I was creative director for a suit company in Saville Row. It was actually a shirt company in Jermyn Street I worked for, as well as various other commercial concerns, who employed me as a consultant. Still you can't always believe what you read.

I, and many others, still look forward to finding out the costs of these community art projects, and who funded them. Which will let us, the general public, try and evaluate the value of this sort of art, and if we then consider them to be worthwhile.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Good to see from the above post solidarity for the common, (though essential worker), I have a feeling that she may have added me to her list of useless jobs if she knew my trade.
It is Electronics Engineer Gayle in case you wish to add to your earlier Faux Pas, no more nor any less of importance to life than your own job, (we all do them to put bread on the table), however I consider the guy that sweeps the road to be as good if not better than me, he is prepared to turn up and clear the mess you and your 'public' leave behind you.:o

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Perhaps this sort of 'art' is priceless?

Priceless.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

BBC News - Former MPs 'beheaded' by artist for Body Politic show
Now this is art I can subscribe too:D:D:D

Re: The value of public funded art
 

I have been away so thank you for being patient.

I have been visiting some publicly funded art galleries which wouldn't exist if they weren't funded by the government. I suspect that if there was a move to charge an entrance fee at the Haworth there would be outcry.

This project was funded mostly by Lottery funding. About a quarter was funded from a Government pot which was set aside purely for creative projects.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

My point about 'worthwhile' jobs which you have chosen to misinterpret, was that ALL jobs are worthwhile if they contribute to society.

Garinda brought up the point about getting a 'worthwhile' job. I responded to that by discussing what was considered a 'worthwhile' job. I clearly stated that they all were.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

I do wish people would refrain from using the term Government Pot and Government Funding and substitute the word Government for Taxpayers.:mad:

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Art in the community, funded by the taxpayer is like going to the pictures when you have no food in the cupboard, and no money to pay the rent.
Art is not essential, emptying the bins is.

Ok, Art may enhance local suroundings, but it may not be to the taste of everyone.
One persons art is another persons eyesore.

As for local artists having to learn their trade...well, that may be the case, but don't let's spend public money on it when other thin gs are more important.
I am of the opinion that if an artist is good, then people will want to buy their work...if not, then they had better have a plan B up their sleeve.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Might be n idea to ask the taxpayers, what areas this government pot should be directed at, after all they fund it............... suppose thats just a dream though, never been sod all to do wi those who pay it.:rolleyes:

Re: The value of public funded art
 

It's not just the Cavalier that's laughing.:D:D

Re: The value of public funded art
 

The majority of tax payers don't know what's good for them, they haven't had the benefit of a University Education, simple little souls.
:rolleyes:

Re: The value of public funded art
 

Thank you.

I'm sure it will now be a little easier for Joe and Josephine Bloggs to evaluate the worth of such community art projects, now we know what percentages were funded by the players of the Lotto, and what percentage was funded by the tax payer.

Perhaps, in the interest of fairness, we could now be informed what the actual costs were, and what funds each of the local projects received. Since we now have a thread, specifically to discuss 'the value of public funded art'.

I didn't choose to misinterpret anything. I was merely trying to qualify the three trades you chose to give as examples, and which raised more than my own eyebrows.

I stand by my original comment. If, after years of state funding to study art, people can't find anyone to fund their works commercially, perhaps they need to rethink, and maybe ponder another career option, rather than rely on state funded grants, which are in turn are funded by the hard working tax payer.

If they truly believe they have a talent, and no one wants their skills, they could always continue to work in some freezing garratt. If they starve it's their own decision, to suffer for art.

I'm sure lots of people will be interested to read just how much each project, the map, crocheting, and film cost, when trying to decide whether these things are 'worthwhile'.

Unless it's a secret.

Re: The value of public funded art
 

It's not really a secret - there's no reason why it should be. As has been pointed out Freedom of Information could easily find it out. It has to be accounted for and evaluated. When the final evaluation is completed I will happily share the report with you. I won't be doing the evaluation by the way, it's done independently.

Film makers were paid £3,700 - this included workshops with young people to design characters, workshops with writing groups and other groups to write scripts, interviews with local people and then producing the film. They worked on it for approximately two months, with two people involved.

Crochet artist was paid £2,500 - this was for workshops held in various places including, the library, Haworth Art Gallery and the market, then the completed sculptures. Again, she was working on it for about two months.

Map artist was paid about the same (can't remember exactly and the file is at work). He spent time researching it, talking to people about their favourite places that should be included and then drawing and designing the map.

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.