Page 1 of 2
Money well spent?
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:01 am
by Gob
The ACT opposition claims the government has spent on average about $4300 a day on public art since 2007.
The government's figures suggest the amount on average is closer to about $4000 a day.
Opposition arts spokeswoman Vicki Dunne says regardless, it's too much and has flagged a freeze on funding for public art should the Liberals win government at the October election.
''Without announcing our arts policy, there would be very little appetite in my party room for any public art funding. My colleagues would see there should be other priorities for ACT taxpayers' money and at the very least that amount money should be distributed across all the arts practices,'' Mrs Dunne said.
''You won't see the roll-out of ACT taxpayer-funded public art. There is a lot being done by the private sector and we encourage that and welcome that because it also enriches our city.''
Mrs Dunne said the opposition believed the government had spent more than $8 million on public art since 2007 based on its own research and answers to questions on notice to the government.
The answer to one question on notice put the total amount spent on public art since 2007-08 at $7.99 million, including purchase, commission, transport and installation.
Only 38 works were listed by the government as costing almost $8 million.
In one case, a glasswork commissioned from artist Warren Langley called Microscopia cost $170,000 to purchase but in the end cost a total of $400,000 due to commission, transport and installation in Canberra and at the Shanghai World Expo in 2010. ''We think there has been too much money spent on public art to the detriment of the other arts practices,'' Mrs Dunne said.
''There needs to be considerably more consultation with the community about what and where; much more interaction with the School of Art, in particular, so emerging artists can benefit as well.''
Read more:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-new ... z1tJNNRy00
NB. This is money spent in Canberra alone, a city with a population of 358,000.
Re: Money well spent?
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:27 am
by Crackpot
What you never wanted to know what would result from the mating of a nautilus with a donut?
Re: Money well spent?
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:05 am
by The Hen
I like to think of it as the Government Goatse.
Re: Money well spent?
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:36 pm
by Lord Jim
Here's a thought....
How about spending whatever public money that is going to be spent on "art", on "art" that doesn't blatantly suck?
How about spending it on things that
won't serve as visible, public symbols of their inability to spend public funds wisely or efficiently; that
won't serve as symbols of their contempt for the taxpayers? (Some of this crap they could replace with a huge statue of themselves pissing on a group of ordinary citizens and it would basically give the same impression)
If they lack the skill set (which apparently they do) to
avoid spending large sums of taxpayer money on stuff that makes them look like incompetent boobs, here's a suggestion:
If a sum of money is allocated for commissioning a piece of public art, first require the artists applying for the commission to submit both a description and a visual representation of what the thing is going to look like. (A color drawing, a model...they very well may already do this...it's the
next step that's critical.)
Once this is done, then select a group of ordinary citizens from the community at random...somewhere between 10 and 20 should be plenty....
Then have this group look at the picture or model....
If the reaction you get is a combination of howls of hysterical laughter, gasps of horror, and people scratching their heads and saying "What the fuck?
" toss it in the trash and move on....
Seems pretty simple to me.....
Re: Money well spent?
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 3:58 pm
by Jarlaxle
Actually, my criteria for art is simple: if the first though that enters my mind upon seeing it is, "Wow, there is enough scrap metal there to pay for the fuel on my vacation!" it's not art!
See: the first image in Gob's post.
Re: Money well spent?
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:00 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
I get it LJ - you mean things that would be more sensible. Like this
Re: Money well spent?
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:46 pm
by Gob
Jim, your post is going to be cut'n'pasted in it's entirety into a thread on the local website.
It perfectly encapsulates my thoughts!!
Hope this is ok.
Re: Money well spent?
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:21 pm
by Crackpot
here's my honest opinion of the pieces.
1. interesting and evocative. problem is location makes it look like it's wreckage or left over construction material.
2. Interesting piece if it were a clock but I doubt it.
3. Huh? colors and contours make the gorge rise.
4. not bad... that is if the fencing isn't permanent.
5. I wouldn't mind so much if it was donated but whoever paid for it needs to be smacked.
6. schizophrenic bunny. Whet the hell is with the over use of orange? it's I fine color I own several orange shirts but it's a color best used in moderation. Yo Gabba Gabba wouldn't be so off putting if he was in any other color except maybe avocado.
7. I actually like this piece but it's location is bad in fact swap the bunny and the donut and you might have two workable pieces of art.
8.this one leaves me "meh" like so much art. I just don't get it. the mirrored piece seems a bit pretentious. otherwise it seems like something for the kids to climb on.
Re: Money well spent?
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 6:38 am
by BoSoxGal
That's it; I'm moving to Australia to be a
scam artist!
Re: Money well spent?
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:08 am
by BoSoxGal
DP
WHAT IS ART?
Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 4:08 am
by RayThom
Like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. Mostly, however, art -- of all forms and genres -- is created to both challenge and provoke. Reading the comments within this thread, the art pictured has certainly done its job well.
Re: Money well spent?
Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 10:27 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
How about the money waisted on all the road/park signs that get changed every time a new county executive, road commisioner, whomever gets voted in? Why don't they make a sign that they only have to change the name portion and not change the whole sign?
Oh wait, that would make sense.
Never mind.
Re: Money well spent?
Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 10:57 pm
by Gob
Luckily, we don't do that here!
Re: Money well spent?
Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 11:04 pm
by Guinevere
To the extent art generates comment and discussion, it has done its job. And wasn't there a bit of a stir when the design for the Vietnam Memorial was chosen, but it is one of the most amazing pieces of public art I have ever encountered.
Re: Money well spent?
Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 11:58 pm
by Gob
Guinevere wrote:To the extent art generates comment and discussion, it has done its job.
The trouble is that that is all people seem to want to achieve these days. The thought of creating beauty and awe seems to have been lost.
This year's Turner Prize shortlisted entries.
Re: Money well spent?
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 5:35 am
by MajGenl.Meade
Guinevere wrote:To the extent art generates comment and discussion, it has done its job. And wasn't there a bit of a stir when the design for the Vietnam Memorial was chosen, but it is one of the most amazing pieces of public art I have ever encountered.
True on all counts. I think the main reason for the stir though was the name and ethnicity of the artist.
Meade
Re: Money well spent?
Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 4:15 am
by BoSoxGal
Bingo; had the 'scar in the earth' design of the Vietnam memorial been proposed by a WASPy architect, I'm sure it would have been well received. It's a stunning design that incorporates the names of all the dead & MIA. eta: I'm aware that there were detractors anxious for a more traditional design, but I think they would have been far less vociferous had the design been proposed by a white man.
It's because Maya Lin designed it that it caused such an outcry. Thankfully folks who chose the design had the courage of their convictions; the memorial has been praised by millions who have visited it.
I'm headed to DC at the end of this month and looking forward to visiting it yet again; it's always a gut wrenching experience.
Re: Money well spent?
Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 6:28 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
Yes it is. The first time I saw it, aside from other reactions, I was devastated (as an Englishmen for goodness' sake) by the fact that the names stand "in front of" the reflections of all those people gazing at them. "We" were behind all those deaths as we always are. And then I wondered at all the many more thousands of wounded whose names are not there. It's an amazing work of art/monument - no matter which way you approach it, it and the war ends as it began - a little nothing, a small thing below our feet and out of sight.
Brilliant.
Meade
Re: Money well spent?
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 4:26 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
A testament to the design as it has been "copied" for a few other memorials.
Flight 800 memorial
The curved black granite memorial has names engraved on one side and an illustration on the other of a wave releasing 230 seagulls into the sky.
Re: Money well spent?
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 5:46 pm
by Guinevere
Sure, there are multiple levels to the controversy over the initial choice of design, but the design itself was absolutely part of the criticism.
Other than being in the middle of the Antietam battlefield, with no monuments, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is hands down one of the most moving things I've ever seen and experienced. At night, it is even more powerful. I urge all of you to go then, when its typically quieter, and follow one of the Park Rangers when they pick up the items left at the wall. They will often share what they are picking up, read the words, let you hear the memories.