SOJ - Save Our Jobs

[tech_guy]

Is your council sitting on a load of loot and talking about huge numbers of public sector job losses? Mine is and this guy has the right idea:

 

BBC News - Critic calls for councils to sell art to save services

 

In our Art Gallery there's a Lowry for a start that's worth a few million that hardly anyone goes to see. Selling this on the art market would raise a few million and safeguard a considerable number of jobs & services. There's also a number of other works by less notable artists including a dreadful piece by Damien Hirst. Sell the @*&%$! lot!

[localzuk]

I disagree. Selling off the country's art to pay for a short term money shortage is short-sighted and premature.

 

Why not sell all our landmarks too? Let them get dismantled and shipped off. Do a country-wide 'yard sale' so that in a few years, we have no cultural history to look back on.

[AngryTechnician]

The biggest problem with selling off art to raise capital for things other than reinvestment in the same collection is that it destroys the reputation of the gallery in the art world. That means you can kiss goodbye to visiting collections, loaned pieces, and support when the gallery needs it.

 

Some of the pieces may be junk in some people's eyes, but the fact that it's worth selling means it has value.

[speckytecky]

Agree with localzuk - if the Labour Government hadn't flogged off most of the gold reserves (with the price gold has risen to now that would have been a pretty pile of dosh) and squandered revenue from the Scottish oilfields then the Country would be in a much better financial situation than it currently is that's for sure.

[pooley]

Short sighted in the long term I agree, but if its a tossup between some building having 30k piece of art that's in storage and me losing my job and not being able to support my family, then bu@@er the future and let me feed my kids now!

[localzuk]

Short sighted in the long term I agree, but if its a tossup between some building having 30k piece of art that's in storage and me losing my job and not being able to support my family, then bu@@er the future and let me feed my kids now!

 

Doesn't quite work that way though, as it means in the future, there's less value to the country and therefore less tourists, meaning less income to our towns, less tax, less jobs etc... Artwork is a long term investment, adding to the reason for people to visit the country, and for our own people to go and see.

[Ric_]

I can understand why people would be against selling art but how much cultural benefit does it really give when such large amounts of it are in storage? Would it not be better to sell it to an appreciative collector who may be able to show it privately or simply hang it for his/her personal enjoyment?

[pooley]

Doesn't quite work that way though, as it means in the future, there's less value to the country and therefore less tourists, meaning less income to our towns, less tax, less jobs etc... Artwork is a long term investment, adding to the reason for people to visit the country, and for our own people to go and see.

 

But with 79% of it in storage who does it benefit? If its in storage its not being used to bring in tourism etc, its just taking up space in some storage unit somewhere?

[localzuk]

I can understand why people would be against selling art but how much cultural benefit does it really give when such large amounts of it are in storage? Would it not be better to sell it to an appreciative collector who may be able to show it privately or simply hang it for his/her personal enjoyment?

 

It isn't always in storage, it gets lent out to other galleries, the collection on display gets changed etc... Much like large libraries - a lot of their collection is in storage, but can be called up for people when asked for.

 

How many people here actually visit their local galleries and see how they run, changing their collection month by month etc...?

[LeMarchand]

Why not sell all our landmarks too?

 

Aren't the govt selling off swathes of forest? Maybe I'm missing something, but the only way I can see a business making money from a forest is by using it as a building plot.

 

Some of the pieces may be junk in some people's eyes, but the fact that it's worth selling means it has value.

 

I think the point that the OP was making was that the Lowry piece gets very few views, so why keep it?

 

Agree with localzuk - if the Labour Government hadn't flogged off most of the gold reserves (with the price gold has risen to now that would have been a pretty pile of dosh) and squandered revenue from the Scottish oilfields then the Country would be in a much better financial situation than it currently is that's for sure.

 

If the Tory government hadn't sold off the gas/water/electric/train companies etc then maybe we wouldn't be being ripped off to such a huge degree. Isn't a large part of the deficit also due to the banking bail out?

[localzuk]

If the Tory government hadn't sold off the gas/water/electric/train companies etc then maybe we wouldn't be being ripped off to such a huge degree. Isn't a large part of the deficit also due to the banking bail out?

 

No, the deficit is separate to the banking bailout - it is being accounted for separately to the normal 'running of the country', and is being added to our debt as a country but not the deficit. The deficit is simply due to not enough money coming in to the government, and too much being spent by them, meaning that they have the options available of - increase taxes, reduce spending, encourage new business, and reduce job losses.

[LeMarchand]

No, the deficit is separate to the banking bailout - it is being accounted for separately to the normal 'running of the country', and is being added to our debt as a country but not the deficit. The deficit is simply due to not enough money coming in to the government, and too much being spent by them, meaning that they have the options available of - increase taxes, reduce spending, encourage new business, and reduce job losses.

 

Thanks for explaining that. The govt seem to not be making any effort on the 4th option, though - as evidenced by the title of this thread.

Edited November 29, 2010 by LeMarchand
Typo

[GrumbleDook]

Nope ... don't sell of art. Don't sell of any assets if you can help it. Although the asset might not be a short-term money earner they are also used by institutes as means of securing funds as collateral. The reason why councils can get good deals on loans is because banks know that the council can sell of land or other assets if it needs to. If you have no assets to start with then you make it more difficult for councils to deal with sudden shortfalls in cash (and it is cashflow which is the big problem atm).

 

As for the stuff in storage ... it gets circulated. Sometimes to other galleries in return for borrowing their stuff, or to overseas or private galleries to earn money.

 

It means that there can be a steady flow of works of art around the country for years to come. If we sell it off then we have to rent it from the buyers ... and the money which was earned selling it soon disappears and we have no assets left.

 

Unfortunately the UK has a stigma about going to art galleries as it is seen as 'posh' and posh is a bad word at the moment. The fact that a large number of galleries where put up by philanthropists at no cost to previous governments (and some still are) with the idea of sharing access to the wealth of art the nation owns ... but through mis-management of galleries or from actions of certain parts of previous governments (and the civil service) it is difficult to get people along to arts events ... unless it is deemed a 'modern' piece ... such as standing on a plinth for an hour.

[actech]

The State Government here are selling off assets to get themselves out of a HUGE deficit that they have incurred. They only people in the long run that will benefit from it are the brokers, lawyers and accountants. Now the premier is facing the battle of her career as there are not many people that want her around anymore. Selling off public assets is a waste of time and a short-term patch at best. Fix the bigger problems first

 

Anna Bligh leading Queensland Labor to electoral oblivion

 

‎

[Guest Guest]

How many people here actually visit their local galleries...?

 

I think that sums it up quite nicely; how many people do actually go to art galleries? Not many I'll bet. (No, I'm not talking about London or any other major tourist city)

 

Although I don't generally agree with selling off assets you've got to weight up the value of something in cash terms verses its value in tourism/heratage/etc. In tech_guys example of a Lowry worth millions can anyone seriously say its worth millions in terms of tourism? Without jobs paying peoples wages how exactly are these people going to go to the art galleries?

 

Unfortunately the UK has a stigma about going to art galleries as it is seen as 'posh' and posh is a bad word at the moment. The fact that a large number of galleries where put up by philanthropists at no cost to previous governments (and some still are) with the idea of sharing access to the wealth of art the nation owns ... but through mis-management of galleries or from actions of certain parts of previous governments (and the civil service) it is difficult to get people along to arts events ... unless it is deemed a 'modern' piece ... such as standing on a plinth for an hour.

 

Whatever the reason the fact remains, people don't go to galleries. Look at our local one, the highest number of people who have ever been to it came when Top Gear were there!

Edited November 29, 2010 by Guest

[TechMonkey]

Well that is my learning for the day. Ta GD.

 

Sorry to go OT but did anyone watch the Channel 4 programme about the deficit. Britain's Trillion Pound Horror Story? Interesting take on the issue. Basically saying we need to pare government right down, follow the Hong Kong example, which strangely enough we put in place. They have small government, low flat tax and are booming.

[GrumbleDook]

The Lowry might not get a lot of traffic right now but in 5 years they might... Or their stock might go on a world tour to bring in money. And the space could be used for other things instead such as retro gaming displays or a collection of ageing tech such as an Apple I or an original IMP. I'm waiting for the first tour of kit from the National Computer Museum. It'll be interesting to see where it goes.

 

One of the other things people might not know is that the collection you see on display might not be solely owned by the gallery or Govt. To have a complete display they might borrow private pieces. Sometimes this is at no cost as the insurance, care and restoration is taken on by the experts in the gallery. Having galleries with experts dotted around the country instead of just centralised in London is also beneficial to UK PLC.

 

The British Musuem used to do a talk about how they make use of experts around the country who are part employed by museums and might also be eminent lecturers at Universities too.

[Rydra]

If we as a country are so desperate to keep these 'works of art' then we should do what we can to keep them here.

But having them sit in the basement of a free art gallery is not the way. If we really want them, then they need to be on display, and IMO there needs to be an entrance fee to go in these places, albeit a modest one.

The point people are making is they are there to generate money on the long term, as an investment.

A item that spends most of it's time in a box, in a free museum is of no use to us. The critic was not saying sell it all off, far from it.

As with all walks of life, everyone has something they can't bring themselves to ever get rid of, in case they might want/need it. But sometimes, when you need the cash, or the space you just have to bite the bullet and get rid.

 

A piece of national (or even local) heritage should not be sold, but some random modern artist's piece that some art nut will pay half a million for the bent out of shape bicycle with a clown painted on it, well I won't shed any tears about it. And who's to say it will go abroad? There are art collectors, and paying galleries in this country too.

 

Probably the biggest flaw in British society, is we just don't know how to let things go. I mean we still harp on about '66, there's still people who won't talk about 'The War' (cue Basil Fauwlty reference), and we are the worst group of Kleptomaniac's around.

[localzuk]

If we as a country are so desperate to keep these 'works of art' then we should do what we can to keep them here.

But having them sit in the basement of a free art gallery is not the way. If we really want them, then they need to be on display, and IMO there needs to be an entrance fee to go in these places, albeit a modest one.

The point people are making is they are there to generate money on the long term, as an investment.

A item that spends most of it's time in a box, in a free museum is of no use to us. The critic was not saying sell it all off, far from it.

As with all walks of life, everyone has something they can't bring themselves to ever get rid of, in case they might want/need it. But sometimes, when you need the cash, or the space you just have to bite the bullet and get rid.

 

You are equating art with just a financial goal, when it obviously isn't.

 

A piece of national (or even local) heritage should not be sold, but some random modern artist's piece that some art nut will pay half a million for the bent out of shape bicycle with a clown painted on it, well I won't shed any tears about it. And who's to say it will go abroad? There are art collectors, and paying galleries in this country too.

 

That attitude would mean that we cease actually creating anything new. Why bother, its all going to be judged as nonsense when you compare it to the Da Vinci's of times gone by.

 

Probably the biggest flaw in British society, is we just don't know how to let things go. I mean we still harp on about '66, there's still people who won't talk about 'The War' (cue Basil Fauwlty reference), and we are the worst group of Kleptomaniac's around.

 

It isn't a flaw, it is part of being British! One of the things people take the mickey out of the USA for is the fact they have no 'real' history. We should cherish our past, as it guides us in the future.

[GrumbleDook]

@Rydra

 

There isn't room to get everything out of the boxes ... some museums and galleries have closed over the years to save money as the costs for keeping buildings running was too much and they were able to sell the land for good prices, but at least they kept the artwork / artefacts.

 

You also have the problem that one gallery might own 3 pictures by an artist, another might own some miniatures, another have the sketchbooks, etc ... as a gallery, if you took everything out of *your* boxes it would be an unstructured mess that would not be a pleasure to view. So, museums and galleries agree to share stuff when it is needed. It also means that galleries and museums can keep their displayed collections fresh and interesting.

 

Why would any local want to visit a gallery and see the same stuff month after month ... when a group of them can circulate round a collection which gives a far better story.

[pooley]

**Fixed**

 

Why would any local want to visit a gallery?