Tate modern

[Andy in Germany]

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.

That still seems an odd way of managing a country, but I appreciate I'm wandering off Art and toward NACA territory.

I will say though that this is an advantage of having sixteen semi-autonomous states: spending on many things including art subsidies is decided locally so it is more accountable, and it means that we don't have to go to Berlin to see an art gallery because there is one in our own state capital, in my case Stuttgart, and funded locally.

That said, there are still some strange decisions made regarding art in Germany: you certainly don't have a monopoly on pretentious art:

 

[markemark]

That still seems an odd way of managing a country, but I appreciate I'm wandering off Art and toward NACA territory.

I will say though that this is an advantage of having sixteen semi-autonomous states: spending on many things including art subsidies is decided locally so it is more accountable, and it means that we don't have to go to Berlin to see an art gallery because there is one in our own state capital, in my case Stuttgart, and funded locally.

That said, there are still some strange decisions made regarding art in Germany: you certainly don't have a monopoly on pretentious art:

View attachment 760466

There are local pots and national pots. There are investments that have immediate returns. There are those that come over time. There are investments that have knock on benefits beyond financial return. It’s too reductionist to simply work out how much something costs as the benefits are convoluted, non-linear and often more than economic.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Normally the argument is that as a society

There are plenty of roads that get built from my taxes, that millions will never benefit from, including myself..

But anyway, £10 billion was spent on arts across the country in 2024. Tate Modern is but one, but a long way from taking all that money.

 

[Dogtrousers]

This thread has made me think that what I really, really want is a miniature copy of Duchamp's "fountain". Surely such a thing must be available somewhere? Surely the Tate has seen that people would want these and would have one in their shop? Or maybe someone is making 3D printed ones and selling them on Etsy?

I mean, if you made a little one - say 15cm long - it clearly wouldn't be a fake. And there are all kinds of artworks (the Mona Lisa, Michelangelo's David, Van Gogh's Sunflowers etc) that have resulted in tat being sold in museum shops. So why not a miniature Duchamp urinal?

But no, it seems that the demand isn't as high as I thought. I did manage to find a 3D print design for one, but alas that's all.

I want one!

 

[lazybloke]

This thread has made me think that what I really, really want is a miniature copy of Duchamp's "fountain". Surely such a thing must be available somewhere? Surely the Tate has seen that people would want these and would have one in their shop? Or maybe someone is making 3D printed ones and selling them on Etsy?

I mean, if you made a little one - say 15cm long - it clearly wouldn't be a fake. And there are all kinds of artworks (the Mona Lisa, Michelangelo's David, Van Gogh's Sunflowers etc) that have resulted in tat being sold in museum shops. So why not a miniature Duchamp urinal?

But no, it seems that the demand isn't as high as I thought. I did manage to find a 3D print design for one, but alas that's all.

I want one!
View attachment 760530

Not quite a fruit bowel

 

[wiggydiggy]

Always liked this Red Dwarf sketch on 'Art'


View: https://youtu.be/rwdxIUeMrSM?si=M2208-FfgF8C6Wwp&t=90

 

[Ian H]

This thread has made me think that what I really, really want is a miniature copy of Duchamp's "fountain". Surely such a thing must be available somewhere? Surely the Tate has seen that people would want these and would have one in their shop? Or maybe someone is making 3D printed ones and selling them on Etsy?

I mean, if you made a little one - say 15cm long - it clearly wouldn't be a fake. And there are all kinds of artworks (the Mona Lisa, Michelangelo's David, Van Gogh's Sunflowers etc) that have resulted in tat being sold in museum shops. So why not a miniature Duchamp urinal?

But no, it seems that the demand isn't as high as I thought. I did manage to find a 3D print design for one, but alas that's all.

I want one!
View attachment 760530

Duchamp made miniatures of many of his later works. Not the urinal though, as far as I know, but he'd probably approve of the idea.

 

[Badger_Boom]

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.

If we only spent money on things that are (in the opinion of each and every citizen?) 'useful' it would be a pretty soul destroyingly dull world.

 

[Ian H]

Duchamp made miniatures of many of his later works. Not the urinal though, as far as I know, but he'd probably approve of the idea.

@Dogtrousers It seems I was wrong. https://www.thecommononline.org/the-story-of-a-box/

 

[Dogtrousers]

@Dogtrousers It seems I was wrong. https://www.thecommononline.org/the-story-of-a-box/

I've put "make a miniature urinal" down on my list of things to do when I retire.

 

[Punkawallah]

If we only spent money on things that are (in the opinion of each and every citizen?) 'useful' it would be a pretty soul destroyingly dull world.

I doubt anyone would object to anyone else spending their money on whatever they want. When the government spends my money on their whims, that’s different. And by ‘whims’ I mean our noble Dept for Culture Media and Sport foots the bill for the Tate to collect its . . . works.
Fun fact. Some £224 billion is spent yearly on quangos.

 

[Andy in Germany]

If we only spent money on things that are (in the opinion of each and every citizen?) 'useful' it would be a pretty soul destroyingly dull world.

It would indeed, but that's not what I'm suggesting.

 

[Badger_Boom]

It would indeed, but that's not what I'm suggesting.

Maybe it could be better (or differently) spent if that's what you were getting at. But there are people who will argue that because they don't need adult social care, a council house, or cancer treatment that it shouldn't be spent on that either.

 

[Andy in Germany]

Maybe it could be better (or differently) spent if that's what you were getting at. But there are people who will argue that because they don't need adult social care, a council house, or cancer treatment that it shouldn't be spent on that either.

Again, that's not my argument. By all means support the arts or whatever, but the people making the decisions and being given money need to be accountable.

When I work with a client I have to carefully document what I'm doing, and why, so that the people paying for it can understand it. This is very carefully set out in the contracts we have with local and state governments, and there are clear criteria for who qualifies for what program and why. I can't just say "because it is".

The contracts for the programs include goals and regular checks on specific dates to see if we are achieving those goals, and if we don't we have to be able to explain why not. We are held accountable for what we do, as we should be.

In the same way, if the arts wants support, then it is up to the people asking for this support to have a clear case why and how it benefits society as a whole, and why they make the decisions they do. Saying "because it is important" or "because this is a great artist" is not a clear benchmark.

 

[Punkawallah]

Again, that's not my argument. By all means support the arts or whatever, but the people making the decisions and being given money need to be accountable.

When I work with a client I have to carefully document what I'm doing, and why, so that the people paying for it, can understand it. This is very carefully set out in the contracts we have with local and state governments, and there are clear criteria for who qualifies for what program and why. I can't just say "because it is"; the contracts for the programs include goals and regular checks on specific dates to see if we are achieving those goals, and if we don't we have to be able to explain why not. We are held accountable for what we do, as we should be.

In the same way, if the arts wants support, then it is up to the people asking for this support to have a clear case why and how it benefits society as a whole, and why they make the decisions they do. Saying "because it is important" or "because this is a great artist" is not a clear benchmark.

Oh to be a fly on that wall!