Public art ... valid or a waste of taxpayer's money?

Public art ... valid or a waste of taxpayer's money?

  • I like it, don't always understand it but agree it should be there.

    Votes: 88 75.2%

  • I think it's a waste of money that could be spent on more important infrastructures.

    Votes: 20 17.1%

  • I'm indifferent and have no opinion.

    Votes: 9 7.7%
  • Total voters
    117
We ought to distinguish between government encouragement of the arts and the actual commissioning and purchase of art by the government. The former can be accomplished in a variety of way, including expenditures. Zoning and education policies also can play a role. In addition, when towns decide to build sports arenas, for example, they can ensure the buildings can also be used for staged theater and musical productions. Appropriate zoning can provide residence and studio space in buildings that might otherwise be abandoned or torn down.
 
quote
Our state government recently paid some clown $3M to come and play golf!


Called to his wife ` see ya honey i`m just off to play a round' as he left home
 
memphis said:
I am not sure of the politics involved - they wanted the space for the ball park - the space that was the parking lot - also think they wanted to prevent anyone but the political network from profiting off condo development near the park - had my father been able to hold on to it, it would have made a great hipster nightclub / bar / art gallery -
Click to expand...

Perhaps he could have built it up high enough to sell his own seats to every game! They have that here in Chicago speaking of graft and screwing people over. Both High Rise buildings that over look Wrigley Field and our share of graft and such.

B2 (;->
 
i just received a A$2000 community arts grant for an exhibition of nudes in march and june next year in melbourne. works for me.

-dd
 
Beemermark said:
To me it's not about liking art. To me it's not something that should be funded with money forcibly taken from one worker to give to another.
Click to expand...
It would likely be educational for people to take a deeper look at the things our beloved tax dollars pay for, and which most of us, regardless of political affiliation, would agree are an abject waste. I happen to believe the arts don't make that list, even though I've seen some works that made me roll my eyes and have the occasional second thought.

There will also be enough rich people to fund art. It just who gets to decide what art is, a government bureaucrat or some rich dude.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah...the Gummint, or Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Henry Kravis, David Geffen? Not that I inherently distrust the taste of any of those guys, but I don't necessarily think they'd do a better job than Uncle Sugar.

And, you're paying for this art anyway, one way or another, just like you're helping pay down Tiger Woods' endorsement fee when you buy something from Nike, Tag-Heuer or the like (not to pile on to Woods right now, but his name did come up first). We don't get the chance to choose who gets those bucks, either.

And, in public art, as with many other things in the public sphere, we tend to remember the misfires more vividly than the successes.


- Barrett
 
Roger Hicks said:
Opera: waste of money. Anyone who can afford £100 for a ticket doesn't need my subsidy for an alien art form. Just check how much money goes on opera compared with anything else, especially in the UK. If they'll work for Equity min, no problem. Anything else is a complete waste of taxpaters' money.

Everything else: fair do's.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
Well Roger, I happen to love opera, have been a subscriber here in Adelaide for decades. Both my wife and a I are taxpayers, probably contributing far above what we get back from the Govt. and well above the average. Are we entitled to get some back through govt. subsidy of the a Arts? Of course not, user pays I proclaim. So on that basis, lets shut museums, art galleries, libraries, they all cost huge amounts of taxpayers money. Lets face it, most people going to these institutions are only doing so because they are free. Let 'em pay I say!!!!!
 
chippy said:
could disagree more Alan, if we as society can afford it, then i would hate to think that all the poorer sectors of our city and society could not enjoy our Art gallery etc..it is a sad world that (or extreme capitalism) that will only let those that can afford art to even view it

our art gallery, libiary and so forth along North Terrace was built there with e full intention to be free to it states citizens that do work and pay taxes, and anyone visiting our state..not much of welcome if we ask them to pay
Click to expand...

Mate, of course I agree with you, I was only playing the Devils advocate. My argument is why shouldn't Govt. subsidy extend to art forms like opera. Why can't so called wealthier segments of society get some of their taxes back in support of the things they enjoy.
 
Sparrow said:
Ah, NYC now I see … I know it’s a difficult concept but the world is actually larger than NYC, much larger, and perhaps even more tricky is the idea that not everyone feels the need to follow its' fashions
Click to expand...


......................:D
 
The stuff I'm involved with Fred is mostly smallish budget stuff between $20000.00 and 120000.00

Actually a fair few of the projects I've been lucky enough to have had work with are paid for by developers. The current piece we're doing has a budget of $120000.00 and is being paid for by Watpac who are developing the area around the now heritage listed Boggo Road prison in Brisbane into an urban science village. I don't know the nuts and bolts of it but I think these big companies get a hefty tax break for spending X amount of money on public art when doing these big developments.

To be perfectly honest Fred I couldn't have given a toss about public art until I became personally involved with it and now it absolutely fascinates me ... go figure! :D
 
discussing and viewing particulars helps to establish the context of the art in public places and its subsequent relevance. out of context the concept is easier to argue a negative generalisation.

and keith, i'm impressed by your fortitude on this topic. g'donya for starting this thread, it helps to establish mindsets and social parameters as well as degrees of understanding which i think come from cultural education as much as exposure to a wide range of art forms throughout one's life...especially cultural comparatives.

if the argument were funding for sport i wonder which tack it would take...

-dd
 
how about showing some examples of what you are talking about, what are taxpayers spending money on where you are?
Click to expand...

That's not a bad idea at all :)

Luben Boykov in St. John's, NL, airport:
http://www.sculpturebyluben.com/pages/sculptur/scul 01to15/scul06a.html

John Hooper in my previous home of Saint John, NB:
http://www.sheilahughmackay.com/en/awards__.asp?DocumentID=48

And when I went to school in Calgary, I always thought that only Calgary could have a piece of public art dedicated to two fat, white businessmen, but there you have it- William Hodd McElcheran's Conversation:
http://www.waymarking.com/gallery/image.aspx?f=1&guid=b361c651-b622-4e12-9e4a-2d1d8b19ca82&gid=3

And Ivan Mestrovic's Well of Life, one of my favourites from the old country:
http://openphoto.net/gallery/image.html?image_id=21533

Bojan
 
x-ray said:
If the work is good enough the public will buy it and if it's not good then the artist needs to get a job and work on his hobby after work.
Click to expand...

And so we get Thomas Kinkade. Vincent should have just become a minister and paint on the side and Gauguin should have remind stockbroker- much more honorable position than a lowly painter ;) Mass market is not the best way to support the arts.

Bojan
 
dan denmark said:
discussing and viewing particulars helps to establish the context of the art in public places and its subsequent relevance. out of context the concept is easier to argue a negative generalisation.

and keith, i'm impressed by your fortitude on this topic. g'donya for starting this thread, it helps to establish mindsets and social parameters as well as degrees of understanding which i think come from cultural education as much as exposure to a wide range of art forms throughout one's life...especially cultural comparatives.

if the argument were funding for sport i wonder which tack it would take...

-dd
Click to expand...

there you go,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Burghers_of_Calais

or here’s the commercial alternative

http://bronzedirect.stores.yahoo.net/burgherscalais.html

sorry :D
 
chippy said:
why be offended at all, and why the rude (previous) comment...i am afraid i see no reason for it

because he gave an example that involved NYC? crikey !...globalisation may well be on the increase but the seeds are sown in each of our own back yards..it takes a very large ego (or self appointed expert) to dismiss another's comment because they ventured to make example or illustrate something by discussing the concept that is known to them foremost locally (deserves public flogging no doubt), which happens to be a part of the larger world....i can just imagine how the experts would all sit in a room and discuss this concept without bringing up examples from various Provence's...indeed the room would be silent!

before governments, kings and queens took the taxes for public art works, it was also a symbol of there stature/culture in the world and the great religious organisations did the same...nowadays its our local and federal governments that make those decisions, we can agree or vote them out
Click to expand...

Rude to whom? New York?

I was conscious that the OP is Australian and of the tendency for the forum to frame all questions in the context of the USA and I wanted to resist that in this instance
 
personally, i think a lot of people are afraid of contemporary art in public places because it does not reflect, in many cases, the directness of conventional conservativism...social and domestic hide-ism. by art in public places people are confronted with a redirection of understanding of all things 'normal' and often made to think outside of the box they feel safest in. art is there to stimulate emotion and cerebral constructivism as well as challenge safe boundaries. government funding of public art is all part of the broadening of the parameters of peoples' narrowness and sometimes lack of or inaccessability to things otherwise 'foreign.' and things foreign stimulate the 'shoot first, ask questions later' mentality of thinking, 'i don't understand it therefore i don't like it.' ...and therefore it must be bad.

-dd
 
In many ways I agree, however I think it’s possible to fund poor work in many different ways but some of the large scale or expensive stuff is all but impossible without some form of collective patronage, doesn’t make it good just makes it doable
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom