Tate modern

[BrumJim]

When we went to the Tate Modern (and went down the slides - thank you, Carsten Höller for injecting an element of playground fun into an art gallery), we were struck by the famous installation of an arrangement of bricks, and the addition of the notice "do not cross this line", hinting of the controversy of the purchase of what is little more than a pile of bricks at an extortionate price with absolutely no discernable message, showing the possible limit of modern art and a challenge as to if this should be the limit of what we should tolerate.

Then realised that the sign was just an instruction to avoid people moving or messing around with the bricks. Took away the impact of the art, and just left me cold.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Are you mixing up Caravaggio and Canaletto?

Both fine Italian pasta dishes, best served with a glass of red

 

[Ian H]

When we went to the Tate Modern (and went down the slides - thank you, Carsten Höller for injecting an element of playground fun into an art gallery), we were struck by the famous installation of an arrangement of bricks, and the addition of the notice "do not cross this line", hinting of the controversy of the purchase of what is little more than a pile of bricks at an extortionate price with absolutely no discernable message, showing the possible limit of modern art and a challenge as to if this should be the limit of what we should tolerate.

Then realised that the sign was just an instruction to avoid people moving or messing around with the bricks. Took away the impact of the art, and just left me cold.

It's quite a few years since I saw it, but I was impressed. What people were/are prepared to pay for a work is utterly irrelevant.

 

[All uphill]

It's quite a few years since I saw it, but I was impressed. What people were/are prepared to pay for a work is utterly irrelevant.

That's an important point.

I love art that moves me and challenges me.

I despise the art market.

When I'm a multi-millionaire* I'm going to anonymously fund an art gallery displaying only copies and fakes.

*may not happen.

 

[Adam4868]

That's an important point.

I love art that moves me and challenges me.

I despise the art market.

When I'm a multi-millionaire* I'm going to anonymously fund an art gallery displaying only copies and fakes.

*may not happen.

Was at the Vatican a couple of weeks ago...partner is an artist,Catholic and Irish so you can imagine her expletives at the wealth 🤣
Must admit I was a touch overwhelmed myself.

 

[All uphill]

Was at the Vatican a couple of weeks ago...partner is an artist,Catholic and Irish so you can imagine her expletives at the wealth 🤣
Must admit I was a touch overwhelmed myself.

View attachment 760389

All paid for by good little catholics.

I think my partner and yours would get along.

 

[Profpointy]

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.

I too have rather mixed feelings about subsidy for "the arts", and I'm speaking more about theatre and music than art-art here. I very much enjoy classical music and other so-say high culture things but as a reasonably prosperous middle class person why should my entertainment bill be subsidised by possible less well off people? Whilst I do think a cultural value in, say, the RSC shows at Stratford, they do seem to be rather extravagant with the public subsidies by lavish costumes made of specially dyed cloth and so on, rather than picking up something appropriate from the store.

Likewise with art-art, which I admit I rather less interested i , and quite a lot of the most modern stuff does seem to be pretentious and of no value beyond being a parody of itself. The rather hyped up market for modern art seems to be more a "bigger fool" investment gamble than anything. "old masters" generally interest me even less, despite the incredible skill that's gone into it.

Now that said, I do admire Jackson Pollack, Picasso, Magritte and others but Rothko ot Warhol I don't get at all.

 

[Profpointy]

Norma the argument is that as a society, we benefit indirectly; we benefit from trains carrying people and goods even if we don't use them, cycle lanes benefit non-cyclists because of reduced traffic and improved air quality, schools benefit us because a better educated workforce creates wealth (and pays pensions); national parks preserve our natural environment and biodiversity which helps agriculture; the NHS benefits everyone indirectly because we lose less work days et c.

In my own field, apart from the moral argument, society benefits economically when people with psychological or mental illness and/or disability are protected and have meaningful work because it means they are less likely to become addicted and/or get involved with criminal activity or living on the streets, which costs far more to deal with.

As I said above, I'm not arguing that the arts should not get supported; that would be an odd position for someone who worked in theatre for almost a decade, but given that all the above activities have to provide a cost benefit analysis, so should the arts. That's not to say it should make a profit, but it needs to be accountable and show how it benefits society, not just tell people they're ignorant when they object; the burden of proof is on those benefiting from the

Extremely well put. I was trying to say something along those lines myself but rather less clearly

In a similar vein there was a series of public lectures run by Bristol Uni a while back. One was on particle physics, the LHC, search for the Highs and so forth. The enthusiastic young physicist commented along the lines that trying to explain to the public what it was about , however simplified the explanation, was hugely important, "after all, everyone here is paying for my hobby". OK he didn't have to convince me, but it was healthy that he saw the considerable spend needed to be sold to those who understood little of it

 

[markemark]

Tate modern alternates with the British museum to be the most visited U.K. attraction. It clearly has appeal and a large part of that is overseas tourism. This is worth a lot to the U.K. economy.

 

[Punkawallah]

Tate modern alternates with the British museum to be the most visited U.K. attraction. It clearly has appeal and a large part of that is overseas tourism. This is worth a lot to the U.K. economy.

We should subsidise it because tourists like it? Would it be as popular if tourists had to pay to see it? Are you speaking from experience, or imagination?

 

[markemark]

We should subsidise it because tourists like it? Would it be as popular if tourists had to pay to see it? Are you speaking from experience, or imagination?

Yes. As above London earns billions from tourism. It’s not because if the weather or the food or the people or the nightlife. It is the arts, the history, the monarchy, the architecture to name a few. They are subsidised to keep them. The U.K. taxpayer earns a fortune from the money it brings in.

 

[Andy in Germany]

Yes. As above London earns billions from tourism. It’s not because if the weather or the food or the people or the nightlife. It is the arts, the history, the monarchy, the architecture to name a few. They are subsidised to keep them. The U.K. taxpayer earns a fortune from the money it brings in.

As things stand, the picture you present is the country effectively subsidising the capital: taxpayer's money comes into the London to pay for free attractions so that tourists come and spend money in London, so London benefits twice.

Again, that's an argument for subsidising ways to get those tourists elsewhere in the UK, so all that money can be spread about rather than being poured into an already very wealthy corner of the country. At the same time, it means that those who have ambitions in this field have to move to London, and then they in turn support this system.

And again, how do we know tourists go for the art and not the hype? Maybe more accountable arts funding would produce more interesting art, which would attract more people.

 

[markemark]

As things stand, the picture you present is the country effectively subsidising the capital: taxpayer's money comes into the London to pay for free attractions so that tourists come and spend money in London, so London benefits twice.

Again, that's an argument for subsidising ways to get those tourists elsewhere in the UK, so all that money can be spread about rather than being poured into an already very wealthy corner of the country. At the same time, it means that those who have ambitions in this field have to move to London, and then they in turn support this system.

And again, how do we know tourists go for the art and not the hype? Maybe more accountable arts funding would produce more interesting art, which would attract more people.

Nit quite. Yes London benefits from the money they spend. But a large chunk is paid in tax which is not specific to London. Now London, the South East (and sometime the East of England) are the only areas that earn more in tax than it spends. They subsidise the rest of the U.K. which runs at a loss. So this, along with the huge incomes in tax the rest of London’s economy raises, subsidises everyone else. We could argue that why should London do that using the same logic.

 

[Adam4868]

Tate Modern....Tate London....Tate Liverpool...Tate St Ives.
Never been to the St Ives so I can't really comment on it.
Personal favourite is the Whitworth Gallery in Manchester...you really don't have to travel to London to view art.

 

[lazybloke]

Tate Modern....Tate London....Tate Liverpool...Tate St Ives.
Never been to the St Ives so I can't really comment on it.
Personal favourite is the Whitworth Gallery in Manchester...you really don't have to travel to London to view art.

Tate St Ives isn't free, which seems be the complaint of the moment. Plenty of other free tourist attractions around the country; but i don't know if they receive subsidies.