£50m on a painting

[Stingo]

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.

I think Ed your still looking negatively. As coolgirl points out, people will go to see the painting. If the painting were to be relocated, people will still go to Scotland - the numbers visiting will only be reduced by those not going specifically for the painting. In other words, the painting is an attraction - bringing more people in to spend money on Whisky laced shortbread, yards of tartan and packets of fresh haggis etc.

At leat I think that what she means!

Whilst I sympathise somewhat with what your initial premise is, the problem is that 'there is always something better' to spend money on. If we don't spend money on 'trivial' things that may only be enjoyed by a minority then eventually you'll have a load of little minorities who are all brain dead and somewhat pi$$ed off who collectively actually make up the majority.

I think that's what I mean anyhoo...

Originally Posted by Ablazze

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

I don't understand this either - the £50million is just to RENT the painting(s)? And the Lord chap still owns it whilst it appreciates in value?

Where's the smilie for 'goverment and public get screwed over'!

[ogden]

Originally Posted by Ed

So what motivates you, smartar$e?

It's not about motivation. It's about perspective.

Consider these numbers:

£50m is the amount of money paid in benefits to dead people every year
£50m is the amount of government waste run up in under 9 hours
£50m is less than 1% of the cost of the utterly pointless war in Iraq
£50m is less than 0.07% of the cost of renewing the UK's nuclear arsenal

But you choose to grumble about the same money being spent on something that can actually enrich people's lives and bring them pleasure.

That's why this whole thread is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by ogden

It's not about motivation. It's about perspective.

Consider these numbers:

£50m is the amount of money paid in benefits to dead people every year
£50m is the amount of government waste run up in under 9 hours
£50m is less than 1% of the cost of the utterly pointless war in Iraq
£50m is less than 0.07% of the cost of renewing the UK's nuclear arsenal

But you choose to grumble about the same money being spent on something that can actually enrich people's lives and bring them pleasure.

That's why this whole thread is ridiculous.

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall you posting on any of these issues previously. Perhaps you don't really find them that interesting. I have opinions and I'm not afraid to express them. So what have I done - I raised it on here and also I e-mailed my MP about what I perceive as a waste of public money. You might be happy to invest in this picture, but I am not. Unless people complain, unless people highlight issues of concern, then nothing will get done and Government will continue acting as it likes.

As I've said on here before, you cannot build a different world with indifferent people.

Im with Ed on this one.

But..at least it is a painting which reflects some element of artistic skill. It would much worse if it was "modern art" i.e. putting a pickled shark in a fish-tank. Or putting a few dots on a piece of paper. Anyone can do that...!

ArtyLady - your pictures are really good!

[ogden]

Originally Posted by Miss Alpinestarhero

at least it is a painting which reflects some element of artistic skill. It would much worse if it was "modern art" i.e. putting a pickled shark in a fish-tank. Or putting a few dots on a piece of paper. Anyone can do that...!

You're comprehensively missing the point of conceptual art.

Maybe anyone *can* do that, but not everyone will *think* of doing it in the first place.

If you think Hirst pickled his own shark, you're barking up the wrong tree.

[Messie]

AFAIK not much of the 50 mil is actually public money

[northwind]

Originally Posted by Ablazze

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

It means if it brings in even 1/20th of the income they claim, then yes, it's a bargain. Will it? Don't know. Assuming they get image rights then it most likely will, that's where the money is for the museums and galleries- prints, mouse mats, etc.

Originally Posted by ogden

You're comprehensively missing the point of conceptual art.

Maybe anyone *can* do that, but not everyone will *think* of doing it in the first place.

If you think Hirst pickled his own shark, you're barking up the wrong tree.

The problem with conceptual art is that most is not self explanatory, the focus is on the explanation as to the "why" rather than the merits of the art.

Some modern art is fantastic others not so much, some just plain wrong.


At least with the classic paintings you couldn't fake being a good painter, with some modern art you just need a novel idea and over rate it and boom suddenly my bedroom is art aka T.E

[northwind]

Originally Posted by cartwrim

I don't understand this either - the £50million is just to RENT the painting(s)? And the Lord chap still owns it whilst it appreciates in value?

Again, completely wrong. The 50 million buys the painting, full stop. As a sweetener to the deal, the purchase also secured the rest of the collection for the next 21 years- so the loan was secured as a result of the purchase.