Tate modern

[Andy in Germany]

The customer will dictate the success of a performance - the ‘blackout’ plays in London had to change their policy when they were economically unviable.

That's part of the problem: if they're unviable, why do they get subsidy? Surely there's more useful things to spend money on. I often felt in theatre that a few wealthy people were demanding a lot of less well off people pay for their cultural interests.

I remember one episode of "yes Minister" where the idea of making the "National Theatre" a genuinely national theatre was floated, with smaller performances in venues all around the country. The people in charge of the "National" theatre were predictably horrified at the idea of having to work outside of London, but it actually made a lot of sense.

 

[Donger]

Only went to the Tate Modern once. In one room there was a group of "paintings" called things like "Purple over orange" , "Orange over purple" and "purple and orange". You've guessed it. Half the canvass painted in each colour. Yes it may be art. But no, it's not worth a second look and certainly not deserving of prominent public display.

That sort of thing can act as a designer accessory in a modernist, colour co-ordinated room but perhaps makes it worthy of being stocked in home deco shops like Home Sense and the like but it doesn't make it worthy of display in a major gallery.

 

[lostinthought]

The Tate Modern is one of my favourite places on earth. I especially enjoy the Rothko paintings.

Just sayin'

I'm actually still a bit salty that they moved the Rothko room (Seagram murals) from its original purpose built gallery in the Millbank Tate (the OG Tate, to me!), to the Modern ; )

 

[AndyRM]

This is worth a read:

https://www.waterstones.com/book/wh...-not-have-done-that/susie-hodge/9780500290477

 

[markemark]

Only went to the Tate Modern once. In one room there was a group of "paintings" called things like "Purple over orange" , "Orange over purple" and "purple and orange". You've guessed it. Half the canvass painted in each colour. Yes it may be art. But no, it's not worth a second look and certainly not deserving of prominent public display.

That sort of thing can act as a designer accessory in a modernist, colour co-ordinated room but perhaps makes it worthy of being stocked in home deco shops like Home Sense and the like but it doesn't make it worthy of display in a major gallery.

If other people like and you don’t, should it still not be deserving its own room?

 

[Andy in Germany]

If other people like and you don’t, should it still not be deserving its own room?

Why?

Why should money be given to art galleries, as with theatre, without some accountability to be relevant and accessible to a wide audience?

Why not instead give this money to more local community based projects where artists can help people explore their creativity and themes that interest them, then put the results in art galleries with an invitation to respond? That would certainly be an interesting project which would involve a lot of people, create a lot of discussion and maybe help people understand their world differently.

 

[markemark]

Why?

Why should money be given to art galleries, as with theatre, without some accountability to be relevant and accessible to a wide audience?

Why not instead give this money to more local community based projects where artists can help people explore their creativity and themes that interest them, then put the results in art galleries with an invitation to respond? That would certainly be an interesting project which would involve a lot of people, create a lot of discussion and maybe help people understand their world differently.

Lots of things that aren’t commercially viable but culturally important are subsidised. Modern art and classical art are all subsidised. There’s a huge variety of art that is subsided. And Tate modern is a huge tourist draw to the local economy and tourism in general. As for a wide audience it get 4 million visitors a year and is often the most visited tourist attraction is the U.K. it’s too reductionist to know for sure but the commercial value of bringing in tourists and spending in the local economy I would suggest far outweighs its subsidy.

 

[Andy in Germany]

Lots of things that aren’t commercially viable but culturally important are subsidised. Modern art and classical art are all subsidised. There’s a huge variety of art that is subsided.

That's the point I'm making, really: why? Who decides what is "culturally important"? On what criteria?

As for a wide audience it get 4 million visitors a year and is often the most visited tourist attraction is the U.K. it’s too reductionist to know for sure but the commercial value of bringing in tourists and spending in the local economy I would suggest far outweighs its subsidy.

That could be described as very convenient because it removes accountability, especially if as is often the case, the people deciding are the people benefiting from the subsidy.

 

[TheDoctor]

Why?

Why should money be given to art galleries, as with theatre, without some accountability to be relevant and accessible to a wide audience?

Why not instead give this money to more local community based projects where artists can help people explore their creativity and themes that interest them, then put the results in art galleries with an invitation to respond? That would certainly be an interesting project which would involve a lot of people, create a lot of discussion and maybe help people understand their world differently.

A gallery that's free to enter, in a large city, is accessible to a wide audience almost by definition.
Tate Modern is popular and heavily visited, it's widely discussed (including here!) and it's therefore relevant.
Don't get me wrong - we should do the community-based projects too. Not instead.

 

[Adam4868]

Why?

Why should money be given to art galleries, as with theatre, without some accountability to be relevant and accessible to a wide audience?

Why not instead give this money to more local community based projects where artists can help people explore their creativity and themes that interest them, then put the results in art galleries with an invitation to respond? That would certainly be an interesting project which would involve a lot of people, create a lot of discussion and maybe help people understand their world differently.

I agree with you about local funding for the Arts etc...there is some funding available from the Arts council...I know my partner has recently secured some funding for local artists and projects,but there's never enough is there?
But surely Tate modern and other public gallery's are there for the good of the public....free entry means it's accessible for all.

 

[Punkawallah]

I agree with you about local funding for the Arts etc...there is some funding available from the Arts council...I know my partner has recently secured some funding for local artists and projects,but there's never enough is there?
But surely Tate modern and other public gallery's are there for the good of the public....free entry means it's accessible for all.

Free? If I decided to visit tomorrow, it would be a £54 return ticket by train. Free perhaps to someone with an Oyster card in the Greater London area.

 

[Adam4868]

Free? If I decided to visit tomorrow, it would be a £54 return ticket by train. Free perhaps to someone with an Oyster card in the Greater London area.

I said free entry...but why not make yourself a packed lunch and go to your local gallery...they need your support.

 

[markemark]

That's the point I'm making, really: why? Who decides what is "culturally important"? On what criteria?



That could be described as very convenient because it removes accountability, especially if as is often the case, the people deciding are the people benefiting from the subsidy.

It is convenient but it’s also true of large aspects of tourism. London is one of the most popular destinations in the world. It’s not because of the weather or the food or the people or the nightlife. It is because of the history, monarchy, the museums the architecture and the galleries. Most of these are free and subsidised. People come for some or all combinations of those. It’s impossible (convenient) to know the exact break down. But we do know the visitor numbers to the various sites and what tourism brings to the economy. It’s worth it.

 

[The Crofted Crest]

hat's the point I'm making, really: why? Who decides what is "culturally important"? On what criteria?

I love the Tait. But why aren't bingo halls subsidised? Or pubs?

 

[Andy in Germany]

A gallery that's free to enter, in a large city, is accessible to a wide audience almost by definition.
Tate Modern is popular and heavily visited, it's widely discussed (including here!) and it's therefore relevant.
Don't get me wrong - we should do the community-based projects too. Not instead.

By "accessible" I don't mean "easy to get to". (which the Tate isn't unless you're in London) I mean understandable, and relatable to a wide audience. I understand why governments would subsidise art, but I think the decision-making should be a bit more transparent than "a certain group of influential artists think it's good".