Money for art

Dolbert

Tabnabs wrote: »

If a piece of canvas or a sculpture is art and should be funded by the state, why not music? Why is a band not able to get funding to play their music?

Musicians can absolutely get funding. The Arts Council and local authorities always have grants allocated to recording and music, usually around March. I was granted funding towards CD duplication this year from the county council, the only stipulation is that I have to have the work completed and submitted by October.

maudgonner

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

And why hasnt the O2 say in London been paid with tax payers money as the extension (and I dare say some of the main building ) of the Tate has?

The O2 Building (I presume) not paid with Tax Payers Money?
The Tate modern Art Gallery extension paid with tax payers money?

You're joking, right?

The O2 London is the Millennium Dome, one of the most legendary white elephants in UK history. It absolutely was built with public money, from the UK's millennium fund. It was poorly conceived, attracted far fewer visitors than planned and made massive losses. It was then leased out, at a huge discount, to be redeveloped as an entertainment & concert venue.

failinis

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

why funding though? - why not loan the money (even interest free loan) to the art galleries or funding of art? ... if successful and has a lot of visitors (paying) then by rights if it gets the interest of the public it deserves the 'loan' can be paid back into the kitty (of tax payers money).

By using tax money from the public and making it free to everyone to visit/view the powers that be are presuming *everyone* loves art and agrees to support it, so why not use the tax payers money but let them and non tax payers can view it for 'free' - no, this is not on... i bet everyone that visits the Tate or other galleries are not all interested in art, its free to get in , its something for them to do.... get out of the rain for an hour...... "i will have a look and see if it does interest me" .... schoolkids brought by their teachers to wander around when a lot of the kids might would much rather be doing other things or more interested in other things.

As a test these art galleries that open up free to the public should try charging for a while and see how much footfall will go through the door - I dunno, I might be proven wrong, but I am thinking visitor numbers would fall ... but then again at least you would get 'genuine' visitors / people who really are interested in art to go to them.

Just going on NI as thats where I am so can't speak for mainland/ROI.
NI spends 0.1% of their budget on the arts, which has been further cut since last year.
Is that really a lot considering it brings in 714 mill to the local economy and 1.95 mill to business?
From 0.1% of the budget?
Further info in link http://comartspartner.org/news/arts-council-ni-infographics-no-more-cuts-to-the-arts-campaign/

You really do not get commercial galleries vs national galleries at all, that is not how it works.

I know many people who have come to the UK and are amazing and impressed that so many galleries are free to enter, (as are some ROI national galleries)

A majority of artists (be it writers/poets/musicians) do not even get funding after they apply to the Arts council in NI/Mainland, and I assume its the same in ROI from the people I know. Its not like people are throwing money at artists left right and centre.

You were complaining about the Tate cost, which a few people explained was mostly to fund a 60% increase in the building size mainly (also the cost of planning that), plus publicity and I bet some was then spent on the art (be it the costs of preserving the archives or putting on a show).

Andy From Sligo

maudgonner wrote: »

You're joking, right?

The O2 London is the Millennium Dome, one of the most legendary white elephants in UK history. It absolutely was built with public money, from the UK's millennium fund. It was poorly conceived, attracted far fewer visitors than planned and made massive losses. It was then leased out, at a huge discount, to be redeveloped as an entertainment & concert venue.

ah yes I remember now - I should have used the O2 up in Dublin as an example then (or 3 arena as its known now) - as far as I am aware no tax payers money went into that to be built / refurbished? - or am I wrong on that as well?

maudgonner

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

ah yes I remember now - I should have used the O2 up in Dublin as an example then (or 3 arena as its known now) - as far as I am aware no tax payers money went into that to be built / refurbished? - or am I wrong on that as well?

I don't know about the Point (i.e. 3arena), but the new venue being built in Cork, which is billed as being the city's equivalent to the Point, is receiving 20m of public funding. That's out of a 70m budget, so it's a substantial proportion.

dub_skav

Charging to view art is the most elitist thing that you could do, it takes the opportunity to view art away from the poor, which excludes many children who may become inspired and produce the great art of our futures.

Somebody above mentioned that people only wander into the tate because it is free / on a rainy day, this was framed as a bad thing.
Is it not brilliant that people can while away the hours and perhaps find - much to their surprise - that they find the art accessible and beautiful?

Free access to art allows the poor to enjoy and draw inspiration from the pieces in exactly the same way as the rich.
Public funding of artists also allows the poor to pursue art for arts' sake in the same way as the rich.

So, public funding of artists and public funding of access to art are incredibly important, particularly in recessionary times when they can provide entertainment and beauty for free and also fund people who may have no other options.

Just for disclosure, I am somewhat of a troglodyte where art is concerned, but I have seen pieces that I find fascinating and understand the importance in freedom of art so that others can get a lot more out of it than I do.

osarusan

dub_skav wrote: »

So, public funding of artists and public funding of access to art are incredibly important, particularly in recessionary times when they can provide entertainment and beauty for free and also fund people who may have no other options.

Just for disclosure, I am somewhat of a troglodyte where art is concerned, but I have seen pieces that I find fascinating and understand the importance in freedom of art so that others can get a lot more out of it than I do.

+1, great sentiments.

maryishere

dub_skav wrote: »

Charging to view art is the most elitist thing that you could do, it takes the opportunity to view art away from the poor, which excludes many children who may become inspired and produce the great art of our futures.
.

But public art venues are hardly ever visited by poor people. The hard pressed taxpayer ends up forking out yet again to fund actors nobody wants to pay to see, public spaces nobody wants to visit, and art nobody wants to buy. A bit of a scam.

failinis

maryishere wrote: »

dub_skav wrote: »

Charging to view art is the most elitist thing that you could do, it takes the opportunity to view art away from the poor, which excludes many children who may become inspired and produce the great art of our futures.
.

But public art venues are hardly ever visited by poor people. The hard pressed taxpayer ends up forking out yet again to fund actors nobody wants to pay to see, public spaces nobody wants to visit, and art nobody wants to buy. A bit of a scam.

If you look at my last post, in NI there are 70% of people from socially deprived areas engage with the arts (some through public events/days to make own art/galleries and open public art spaces)
Adding to that, 80% of people in rural areas enaged with the arts meaning location is not against.
If it was not so late I would look up mainland and the souths stats.
But its clear that socially deprived people do enjoy art, that anyone enjoys art.
David Hockey jumps to mind now.

Shint0

Shint0 wrote: »

In order to engage the rational side of the brain we have to utilise the creative side. The two are not mutually exclusive or discrete entities nor exists a hierarchy on either level. A painting such as Jack Pollock's Alchemy, for example, might appear as splatters on a canvas to you but it is much more than that. The splashes are carefully structured and patterened, and represent the fusion of the rational and creative transforming chaos into order.

As someone who went through an obsessive phase many years ago of thinking in terms of binary oppositions and if only I could find a way to meld all opposing concepts physically and metaphysically I would have cracked the code to existence and ultimately healed the disordered chaos in my own brain. So I tried to seek out all works of literature, music, art etc. such as Pollock's Alchemy to help me in my mission. It fuelled the anguish further but had a particular resonance and meaning for me at that time.

I went back to see the original last week. I looked at it. I appreciated it from a distance but it didn't evoke the same feelings in me because I am in a different place now. My life may not be perfect but I don't fall down that black hole anymore. It now has taken on a new meaning - my life and the painting - and for that I am at least thankful.

Bit surprised at the OP to be honest.

I just wanted to come on to say that your post is beautifully written

chrissb8

I hate conceptual art. Like pointless stuff like a shoe in custard or something like that. That is not art for me. Just nonsense. True art as in a piece designed and took a lot of effort on the behalf of the artist is something I appreciate. To make something abstract in to a reality is amazing. Art in Ireland is very underfunded. Ridiculous as well how many students from art college with a plethora of skills e.g. Computer Aided Design, sculpting, metalwork are overlooked. Already there's another resource that goes untapped and unused.

Andy From Sligo

maryishere wrote: »

But public art venues are hardly ever visited by poor people. The hard pressed taxpayer ends up forking out yet again to fund actors nobody wants to pay to see, public spaces nobody wants to visit, and art nobody wants to buy. A bit of a scam.

I agree with what you are saying (think we are in the minority on here though)
nicely put - and you got the point across in a short amount of words too, something that I am not good of doing.