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
that's what we call 'plonk art.' not really recognised amongst the throngs of traditionalists and design-based art makers (integration art is congruous art). however 'plonk art' is there to justify the incongruities of art and space, anomolies and dichotomies of object and landscape.

we have a language.
 
Last edited:
alan davus said:
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!!!!!
Click to expand...

Dear Alan,

My point was that PUBLIC art should be PUBLIC, i.e. free or very cheap to see or hear or whatever. By subsidizing an art which few peope can afford to patronize, you are stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

As I said in my earlier post, if everyone works for Equity min because they love opera, it's another matter, but spending huge sums of public money on opera 'stars' strikes me as indefensible in the extreme.

Frances has two degrees in theatre and has worked in theatre administration, and it was she who pointed out to me the possibility of opera at equity minima. Bring the cost of an opera seat down to the price of a cinema ticket, without spending more than (say) 10% of the total arts budget on opera, and I'll back it.

Cheers,

R.
 
dan denmark said:
that's what we call 'plonk art.' not really recognised amongst the throngs of traditionalists and design-based art makers (integration art is congruous art). however 'plonk art' is there to justify the incongruities of art and space, anomolies and dichotomies of object and landscape.

we have a language.
Click to expand...

yep, this type of thing

http://www.flickr.com/photos/19217760@N05/3631822548/in/set-72157612811344223/

my local council paid for this one, well .. I suppose I actually paid for it, however some stuff do make the transition from that to the real thing, I’m thinking of Anthony Gormley's Another Place and Angle of the North here in the UK, there must be other examples elsewhere in the world
 
Fred points out one of the best parts of NYC, the volume of everything and the fact that there is something GREAT you can find to do at just about every price point. All you need to do is walk with your eyes open and do a bit of reading/research.

B2 (;->
 
Bob Michaels said:
I am a financial supporter of several art organizations on a voluntary personal basis.

I wish the government organizations would stop taking our money on an involuntary basis (i.e. taxes) to distribute to those organizations and individuals that they see fit. That would leave more for us to contribute voluntarily to those we choose.
Click to expand...

Well said.

I like art, but don't like it when bureaucrats collect our money and then commission the type of art prefer. I don't particularly care for they choose as art these days: twisted pieces of metal or an white canvas with an orange stripe down the middle.


Just because government may be wasting money in other areas, doesn't justify wasting it in "art" as well
 
charjohncarter said:
Publically owned football, basketball and baseball stadiums are a waste of taxpayers money for these art forms.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Unless they are open to amateurs, children's teams, etc., they promote the consumption of sport, rather than its production.

At least the authorities don't subsidize the performers as well. Though from what I understand, the price of a ticket to a professional football game is in the same class as an opera ticket.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
I couldn't agree more. Unless they are open to amateurs, children's teams, etc., they promote the consumption of sport, rather than its production.

At least the authorities don't subsidize the performers as well. Though from what I understand, the price of a ticket to a professional football game is in the same class as an opera ticket.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I’d love to agree, but if I argue for some collective and social funding in art in general I have to be consistent and include opera, as much as it leaves a nasty taste to subsidise the rich with the proletariats’ money.

However on one point I have changed my mind over the years, at one time I would have lumped the ballet in with opera but having learned more about dance in recent years (my daughter is at elementary level in classical) I can appreciate it a lot more now. Which begs the question is it opera or my ignorance of opera that I’m having a problem with.
 
Sparrow said:
I’d love to agree, but if I argue for some collective and social funding in art in general I have to be consistent and include opera, as much as it leaves a nasty taste to subsidise the rich with the proletariats’ money.

However on one point I have changed my mind over the years, at one time I would have lumped the ballet in with opera but having learned more about dance in recent years (my daughter is at elementary level in classical) I can appreciate it a lot more now. Which begs the question is it opera or my ignorance of opera that I’m having a problem with.
Click to expand...
Dear Stewart,

Why?

Also, as I've said, my real complaint is the insane expense of opera, and the fact that it is seen by almost no-one, which removes it (in my book) from beng 'public' art. Compare the Royal Opera House with all the money spent on (for example) photography, or poetry. Or indeed dance!

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Stewart,

Why?

Also, as I've said, my real complaint is the insane expense of opera, and the fact that it is seen by almost no-one, which removes it (in my book) from beng 'public' art. Compare the Royal Opera House with all the money spent on (for example) photography, or poetry. Or indeed dance!

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

yes, as I say I would love to agree completely, but then if we were having this conversation four thousand years back about the elitist waste of national resources going into Kufumo’s new fangled pyramid thing we would be coming to a spectacularly wrong conclusion; yes?

PS It's a bit like music, I know some genres very well, so I can say some pretty derogatory things about, say Martin Carthy's part in the 1970s folk revival, or Pink Floyd's contribution to the advertising industry with some credibility.

Whereas with jazz, something I find impenetrable I have to be guided by others and not simply spout my own view that it's complete rubbish after about 1945, opera is the same I would need to understand it better in order to condemn it
 
Last edited:
I think it's a non-starter in a political sense. If it was of importance, there would some "anti-art" politician running with the platform of abolishing donations to the arts community.

I think that such a politician would simply sound like a philistine, and not be appealing to anybody. He might say "if I'm elected, I will chop funding to the parasites in the local orchestra, opera house, ballet, and art gallery." I don't think he would get many votes.

Maybe people understand that there's more to culture than steroid jocks, Britney Spears, and Thomas Kinkade.
 
antiquark said:
...

He might say "if I'm elected, I will chop funding to the parasites in the local orchestra, opera house, ballet, and art gallery." I don't think he would get many votes.

...
Click to expand...

Just another (perhaps interesting) perspective: When school funding gets tight, at least in Norther Virginia in the USA, one of the first things administrators decide to cut is music instruction in all levels of school. There is then a huge outcry and gathering of support from parents and teachers. The calls for cuts then usually dies down and the funding continues.

I have yet to hear a call for funding cuts for sports. Yet the number is students in music studies vs sports has to be at least equal, if not weighted on the side of music. Go figure.
 
Opera shmopera ... a friend of mine paid $400 for two tickets to the up coming ACDC concert here in Brisbane and had to part with the money about six months ago to get them!

Personally I like opera ... a girlfriend bought me a ticket for a birthday present about fifteen years ago to see Turandot and I came away with a very different attitude to the somewhat sceptical one I'd had prior to the experience.
 
Keith said:
At the time I found the sur-titles running above the stage a bit distracting but due to my lack of Italian comprehension I looked for a while ... then realised you don't need to understand the language to enjoy the experience and concentrated fully on what was happening on stage.

Gilbert and Sullivan made it all so easy I guess ... unless you're Italian of course! 😛
Click to expand...

I too have got a little list, I've got a little list ...

We have a company, English National Opera, that sing in English so if I do go to one I'll go there and read up the story beforehand, not sure if that would help.

I did see Evita last year and thoroughly enjoyed it and I also like The Umbrellas of Cherbourg which is as close as one can get without a fat lady I suppose
 
charjohncarter said:
Publically owned football, basketball and baseball stadiums are a waste of taxpayers money for these art forms.
Click to expand...

Wholely agree. The city funds the stadium, the owner keeps all profits derived from the stadium (food sales, etc), and the owner keeps the revenue derived from the naming rights. The mayor and city government pushes it on the people because they get to go sit in the nice new box seats and go to all the opening ceremonies, meet the players, etc.

When the people reject the initiative the govenment keeps putting on the ballot and finding creative ways to funding it (such as a 20% tax on hotels)

What really burns me is that the recent wave of stadiums are built to replace stadiums that are no older than 30 years old. The real driver is the old stadiums don't have all corporate boxes. Owners can sell the corporate boxes... and the city gets nothing.

I like capitalism but I dislike crony capitalism.


Whew, this was a troll post! It sure worked.....
 
Roger, State Opera here in South Australia has put on two Wagner Ring Cycles in the last 10 years. For those who don't know opera Wagner's Ring is the biggest thing in opera. Our local company has 6 full time employees so for Adelaide to stage the Ring would be tantamount to Botswana hosting the Olympic Games. There's no way we could do it with out Govt. subsidy More than 75% of all people who saw the productions came from interstate or overseas and they pumped a huge amount into the local economy. I don't buy the argument that the proleteriat are subsidising the rich. The wealthy subsidise the poor (and rightly so) through the tax system and not the other way around. And most people who bag opera do so out of ignorance as they have never been to see a production. So to opera I say "VINCERA,VINCERA".
 
chris00nj said:
Wholely agree. The city funds the stadium, the owner keeps all profits derived from the stadium (food sales, etc), and the owner keeps the revenue derived from the naming rights. The mayor and city government pushes it on the people because they get to go sit in the nice new box seats and go to all the opening ceremonies, meet the players, etc.

When the people reject the initiative the govenment keeps putting on the ballot and finding creative ways to funding it (such as a 20% tax on hotels)

What really burns me is that the recent wave of stadiums are built to replace stadiums that are no older than 30 years old. The real driver is the old stadiums don't have all corporate boxes. Owners can sell the corporate boxes... and the city gets nothing.

I like capitalism but I dislike crony capitalism.


Whew, this was a troll post! It sure worked.....
Click to expand...

Come to Oakland, 160 million for a state of the art ADDITION to the stadium: last week the Raiders drew 30 thou. There are just some forms of art that do not need to be subsidized. Now photography that is a different story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom