£50m on a painting

Originally Posted by CoolGirl

Tut, tut Ed - I thought you were more cultured and rounded than that. It's a beautiful and important piece and I'm glad it's staying.

Try thinking about it the other way - as part of a package of attractions, people go to Paris to visit the Louvre, to Rome for the Vatican, to New York for the Met, MoMA, Frick and Guggenheim. Speaking of which, look what the Guggenheim's done for tourism to Bilbao - no one bothered going there before.

How many people would stop visiting Scotland if the painting were to go to the Paul Getty Museum?

At a time when every public service is feeling the pinch - surely there are more important priorities for public money.

[flymo]

Originally Posted by Ed

£50m. 50 million quid. Most of it public money.

On a bloody painting. An elitist painting that not many will get to see. Why the hell am I supposed to traipse down to London to see the damn thing. To make one of Scotland's richest men - if not the UK's richest men - even wealthier.

The world has gone stark raving bonkers.

It stinks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/7863635.stm

+1

The whole thing is ridiculous.

[ogden]

This whole thread is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Ed

How many people would stop visiting Scotland if the painting were to go to the Paul Getty Museum?

At a time when every public service is feeling the pinch - surely there are more important priorities for public money.

The main reason the British Museum won't give the 'Elgin' Marbles back to the Greeks is because they are such a draw (rather spookily, Northwind and I had a lengthy discussion about this whilst in the Elgin Gallery). But visiting the British Museum is free. As are the National Galleries, which will share display of the Titians on a 5-year rotation in order to give more people an opportunity to see them. Many, many more people have been able to access our museums and gallieries since they became free, and I'm sure people will be looking for free stuff to do during the downturn.

If that painting/collection was truly worth £50million a year in total revenue from related sources, they wouldn't have any issue at all securing the £50million required to retain it. There'd be private investors queuing up to contribute (or bid) too probably, not pleas for public donations.

I doubt the revenue from it is anything close to that.

I'm not an "arty person", a painting is only worth as much as the pleasure you get from looking at it. Age, name and history are only talking points and bragging rights, and I don't care about that, they're only paintings.

[Biker Biggles]

I suppose this boils down to a "Can we afford it"question.With the country teetering on the brink of bankruptcy is it right to spend taxpayers money on a work of art when we could be blowing money on bank bailouts and paying foriegn companies bribes to not sack British workers and close factories.If I thought for one moment our great leaders were doing a good job of re-structuring our economy I would oppose the buying of this painting,but I think the painting might actually be a better bet.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by Ablazze

p.s in 4 yrs he wants another 50 mill or hes flogging the rest...

Nah, that's just completely wrong- the 4 years is for the partner of the pair, not for the rest of the collection, the 50 million has already secured the collection for 21 years.

Originally Posted by ogden

This whole thread is ridiculous.

So what motivates you, smartar$e?

Originally Posted by northwind

Nah, that's just completely wrong- the 4 years is for the partner of the pair, not for the rest of the collection, the 50 million has already secured the collection for 21 years.

WOW!!!!!! 21 yrs, your right its a bargain.....



Jas...