Still with their snouts in the trough

[Sturdee]

Andy, I whole heartedly support what you are saying.

Well I don't, I agree with Gumby.

Whilst there may well be deserving artists I also believe that most moneys spent subsidizing " The Arts" is wasted and can be put to better use.

When the Victorian Government spents over $ 10M a year on the National Opera Company and they do not perform in Melbourne I start to question the sanity of the people giving the money. When again our state government together with the Melbourne council was willing to spent over $ 100,000 to paint trees in the gardens blue for the Commonwealth Games I, together with most of Melbourne, saw blue at the waste. In fact when the annual list is made public the outcry at the waste on talk back radio is enormous.

By all means make a case for where you think the moneys ought to be spent rather than attack personalities :mad: but until then I maintain it is wasted and should not be spent.


Peter.

BTW Richard I do know what business Gumby is in, but I'm not telling.

Peter.

[bitingmidge]

The Nobleman held up his right hand.

Domingo began to grow excited.

The man had six fingers.

"You see?" the Nobleman began.

"Of course" Domingo interrupted, "the balance of the sword is wrong for you because every sword has been conceived for five."

"Clearly you understand the difficulties," the Nobleman began, but Domingo had travelled where other’s words could never reach him.

Inigo had never seen his father so frenzied, the measurements of course, each finger, and the circumference of the wrist, and the distance from the sixth nail to the index, and on and on he went until the Nobleman dismounted and had to take him by the shoulders to quieten him.

"You will make me the greatest sword since Excalibur."

"I will beat my body into ruins for you, perhaps I will fail, but no one will try harder."

"And payment?"

"When you get the sword- then payment."

"I insist on leaving something on account."

"Alright, one gold piece will be that, but do not bother me with money when there is work that needs beginning. Come back in a year." Domingo said, and with that he set to work.

Such a year, Domingo only slept when he dropped from exhaustion, he ate only when Inigo would force him to.

A year of the handle being right but the cutting edge too dull, of the cutting edge sharpened but that throws the balance out again. Such a year.

One night Inigo woke to find his father seated. Staring. Calm. Inigo followed the stare.

The Six Fingered Sword was done.



Even in the hot starkness it glistened.

"At last!" Domingo cried, (he could not take his eyes off the sword,) "After a lifetime Inigo, I am an artist."

The big-shouldered Nobleman did not agree, when he returned he merely looked at it a moment.

"Not worth waiting for" he said.

"You're dissapointed?" Domingo could scarcely get the words spoken.

"I’m not saying it’s trash you understand," the Nobleman went on, "but it’s certainly not worth 500 pieces of gold. I’ll give you ten, it’s probably worth that."

"Wrong" Domingo cried, "It’s not worth ten. It’s not worth even one. Here, the gold piece is yours, you have lost nothing". He took back the sword and turned away.

"I’ll take back the sword," the Nobleman said, "I didn’t say I wouldn’t take it. I only said I would pay what it was worth".
Domingo whirled back, eyes bright;

"You quibbled! You haggled!

Art is involved and you saw only money!

There is no more reason for you remaining here, please go."

"The sword," the Noble said.

"The sword belongs to my son," Domingo said, "I give it to him now, it is his forever, goodbye."

"You’re a peasant and a fool and I want my sword!"

"You’re an enemy of art and I pity your ignorance," Domingo said.

They were the last words he ever uttered. A flash of the Nobleman’s sword, and Domingo’s heart was torn to pieces......



...from THE PRINCESS BRIDE, S. Morganstern’s classic tale of true love and high adventure,(the good parts version), abridged by William Goldman.

[bitingmidge]

For me, the above quote summarises it all, from both sides of the fence.

In reading the previous posts, I am afraid that there is a little truth in all of them, however:

I have discounted all the posts written by accountants as they simply know nothing about art.

I have discounted all the posts by artists as they simply know nothing about business.

Throughout history, the arts have relied on it's patrons for it's survival. Some artists have become well known and dined with kings. Court jesters did that every day.

Some artists became celebrities in their own right.

Of course in those days there were no books, scribes simply worked in dark rooms till they went blind, musicians wrote palms and sang them to their sheep, painters decorated walls of noblemen's apartments, sculptors laboured for the pay of common labourers.

Today, some arts companies (not struggling artists) expect to be supported in the manner that Elton John has become expected.

Was painting trees blue worth $100 grand? Yes, whether you liked it or not.

Why?

Because it gave you a sensory experience that you are still talking about. It lit something in your inner being, (or tried to) you don't have to get it, or even appreciate it. You just have to think things like "that's awful" or "I could have done that" and you have begun to change!

Why is $100 k worth of blue paint worth any less than a fireworks exhibition, or a street full of Christmas lights. The impact is similar. Who pays for them?

I'm going to take a breath now, and go and sharpen my spear, in the hope that you buggers produce a target or two for me!

Cheers,

P (Making money not art!)

[Harry II]

I think there are some people content in living in grey boxes and prefer if everyone else does too so it doesn't disturb their grey lives. Aesthetics will always influence our lives because we have feelings which respond to them. Take away all things to do with aethetics (art, fashion, music, design, dance, yes AND SPORT, etc) and ya got DULL NEAUTRAL GREY.

[Andy Mac]

If the said text vilified current IR Laws then it should be deleted no question No arguement ever

I have no problem really, apart from it being the first time I've been edited!! I am interested though in people's opinion (or knowledge) here, of my right or otherwise to "vilify" a law.
Have no doubt that I consider the IR legislation as particularly odious, and didn't vote for it (or GST for that matter)...in fact have never voted for this government at all! The fact that our leaders then set about and voted themselves a payrise on the back of it makes me seethe.
But to return to villifying a law you don't agree with. I know freedom of speech is not enshrined by our constitution (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/r...-02/02rn42.htm)

and the best that can be said is
"Since 1992 decisions of the High Court have indicated that there are implied rights to free speech and communication on matters concerning politics and government, e.g. permitting political advertising during election campaigns.⁽⁷⁾ This is known as the 'implied freedom of political communication'. Issues arising from these decisions include defining when communication is 'political' and when the freedom should prevail over competing public interests.<sup>(8)"
But when it comes to openly attacking any law, verbally or in written form, does anyone know what law or regulation is being transgressed?
Just interested, that's all.

Cheers,</sup>

[bitingmidge]

But when it comes to openly attacking any law, verbally or in written form, does anyone know what law or regulation is being transgressed?

Ubeaut's first law of the forum, which can be summarised in three No's:
Politics, Religion and something else I've forgotten.

However, these three laws are overridden when a thread is opened in Open Slather, where the only overriding NO is pawn.

Cheers,

P

[Studley 2436]

So much art that I have seen is craft or tradesmans work. It is just done on an individual piece basis and priced accordingly. From there you have a dillemna. Should I charge what it's worth or what the market will pay? Properly appreciated it is worth a lot perhaps but to get it to sell in a reasonable time you might have to give someone a bit of a bargain. My reply to this is it is better to work and get some pay than get nothing even if you are not getting much.

So far as snouts in the trough I would tend to look more in the bureaucracy and government. Those such as Mike Ranns 100+ staffers who work in his media unit!!!!!!!!!! They get paid 80 to 125,000 each for reading the paper and watching the TV news making sure his face gets out there all pretty. 8,000,000 each year lets say to maintain the premiers image. It stinks.

You can always point at some artist who is getting a motza from handouts and paint the lot black. What about the people who work on the Arts Council administering the "handouts" I bet they are doing allright. However there are many many artists who never succeed beyond their immediate circle and that is business.

How do you succeed. First you have to decide what success is. Pro Hart did a lot made a lot too but is still yet to be hung in the National Gallery. So what is your aim do you want popular success or the acclaim of the art worlds insiders? However before you can get anywhere you must have a clear picture of where you want to go.

A bit of market pressure on artists to produce to a price is not going to hurt them. In fact the pressure will most likely make them better. Having to do something to a budget and get it out the door on time will only heighten their creative process as they seek ways to satisfy their artistic standards but do it on time. Too much drifting along in the art world for my liking.

When I was a chef I did all my work in 5 Star hotels. I saw many restaurants go bust. You get a chef who buys it so he can cook his way. Might be popular with the customers but who is managing the place and so on. The owner is hidden in the kitchen. Might last a year. If you own something you should be running it rather than doing the donkey work. Big Hotels went bust on me just about everyone that I worked in. That was more of an accounting type thing. Owner sucks all the money out of it says oops gee it's bust sells and the whole thing starts over again. So what do you want from your art and business? It is a vehicle to something. What is the something?

There is a lot to be said for the promoters of the world. Pro Hart with his cannons or Wolf Blass who used to call up the Adelaide Airport when a flight from Sydney and Melbourne came in and say can you put out a call for Wolf Blass. So they put it over the PA phone for Mr Wolf Blass. Now Blass had his shed in Nuriotpa and painted his name as big as a house on the side of it by the main highway his wines were pretty average schlock but they drank well straight from the bottle shop and that is how he built a shed into a huge Winery. Do a count of all the little struggling wineries around the place. I think it is a fair comparison to the art world. They go in with big dreams and lots of passion and think that is enough. Sadly it is not.

Studley

[Zed]

if ida moved this thread to the orqange room on the basis of one comment then this very pertinant and intersting discussion would have suffered...

[bitingmidge]

Fair call Z, (unless there was art involved! )

P

[Sturdee]

I have discounted all the posts written by accountants as they simply know nothing about art.

P (Making money not art!)

That's an Architect talking, always designing the big (but ugly) concept of what a building should look like without any regards to cost or reality or public opinion. Just like all these artists people.

My main point is not that I'm against art or subsidizing it but at the idiocy of a state government supporting an opera company that never performs for its own citizens but in other states. If it needs support let their own state support it. Similarly the grand stupidity of painting trees blue with a water paint so that when it rains it washes away. At least public opinion stopped that one.

There are many more examples that are beyond belief. A look at the grants that the Arts council gives out is an eye opener. Even local government has been getting on the bandwagon spending ratepayers money on extraordinarily expensive pieces of junk that grace the entrances to our suburban city entrances and calling it art.:mad:

But as I said I look forward to hearing what art is appropriate for subsidy, but if opera or ballet cannot get enough paying patrons we should not have them.

May be that is a grey world, but at least it's affordable.

Peter.

[Wood Butcher]

The three No's are Politic's, Religion and Sex (I'm married too Peter, took me a while to remember what it was too)

The reason Politics is a touchy subject at the moment is that we have been spammed repeatedly lately by idiots claiming to be uni students from Malaysia. I think that we (the supermods) have banned around a dozen political spammers and they just keep coming back.

So....there are reasons we do what we do, sometimes there are better ways to do it but we are human and therfore not perfect!

[Daddles]

So....there are reasons we do what we do, sometimes there are better ways to do it but we are human and therfore not perfect!

As if we're going to accept that excuse, we're woodies remember ... no, hang on, if we're woodies, of course we're going to accept that excuse

Richard

[bitingmidge]

My main point is not that I'm against art or subsidizing it but at the idiocy of a state government supporting an opera company that never performs for its own citizens but in other states.

The art of not being there to cop the flak?
I'm sure someone appreciates it Peter! Besides, we give you a round of our State of Origin, and that's close to art in some eyes!

Similarly the grand stupidity of painting trees blue with a water paint so that when it rains it washes away. At least public opinion stopped that one.

But "public opinion" that grand judge of what is right and wrong and what is best for me, doesn't mind the stupidity of simply burning money in the form of fireworks! "Public opinion" turns out in it's millions to watch that!

Yet if I was to take a 1,000,000 pile, and burn it in the name of art. (It's been done by the way Watch the K-Foundation Burn a Million Quid "public opinion" would see it differently. There's no "art" in "public opinion", that's one thing the "art" of the Soviet Era really showed!

There are many more examples that are beyond belief. A look at the grants that the Arts council gives out is an eye opener.

Some things I admit, are a little difficult to get one's mind around, however the grants also help to get artists, education and exposure to a great many people outside of those two great sources of culture in this country, Melbourne and Yoplait Yoghurt.

Even local government has been getting on the bandwagon spending ratepayers money on extraordinarily expensive pieces of junk that grace the entrances to our suburban city entrances and calling it art.:mad:

In some Qld centres, all developers of commercial buildings have to provide public artwork to a percentage of the value of the buildings. This isn't doing anything for the art community, apart from providing work for some businesses.

i am presently involved in a small apartment project, which has as a condition of it's approval, Public Art to be provided in the street to a value of $120,000. (It's OK Andy, we'll talk later!) That's $6,000 per unit. Yes Mr Sturdee, we'll let you live in this street but you'll have to spend $6,000 on an piece of art first!

Who puts the value on it? One of my little carvings has to be worth that, doesn't it?

I'd rather see a starving sculptor subsidised for 12 years at $10,000 per year, than fork out for one piece that a commercial "gallery" will produce an invoice for! On the other hand, art is involved, so why quibble?

But as I said I look forward to hearing what art is appropriate for subsidy, but if opera or ballet cannot get enough paying patrons we should not have them.

Anything that provides instruction or contact with those who would otherwise not be exposed is a good start.

A "top up" for people genuinely living their craft is another. For instance some of the best known luthiers in this country are extremely successful in their craft, but cannot possibly survive financially. Allowing them a small (means tested) grant can only provide a future reference for similar artisans.

Much as I love their work, the Left Handed Lesbian Surfboard Designers don't have a place in this scheme, and I don't see why Opera should be any more entitled to dosh than punk rock. Both have equal opportunity to record and attract an audience. Musicians are used to struggle!

However, Ted Egan, playing only his empy beer carton, has a lot more chance of getting to audiences in remote centres than a cast of 50 with sets attached, so..... .Well actually he has a lot more chance of recovering his costs of getting there without a grant doesn't he?

May be that is a grey world, but at least it's affordable.

I've visited grey worlds. Now that the wall is down they are less grey.

One may be able to survive in them, but I don't think they really ARE affordable!

Cheers,

P

[Lignum]

Two things that get everyone hot under the collar is Sharpening and The Arts. Remember this one http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...ad.php?t=31343

I have no problem as a tax payer that some of my money goes to Artists wether their strugling or not. It would be nice if woodwork was classified as Art, but its not so we have to look else where to get it. Trouble is its their, but hard to find and secure. Thats ok, i dont get all twisted over it. If i did i would go harder at getting a little slice of the pie.

And one of my great dissapointments of recent times was the blinkerd one eyed grumpy people who loudly objected (with the constant and LOUD help of certain radio talk back hosts) to the painting of 100 trees for the Comm games. Ok 100k is a fair wack but it was a drop in the ocean compared to the massive Comm Games buget and he ended up getting 56k for something else anyway. But because of that public "censorship" we missed out on seeing something truley spectacular. Imagine 100 old Elms (i think they were the elms) painted blue all lit up at night, wow, it would have been something else. Interactive art at its best.

Anyway the funding is a % thats allocated in both Bugets regardles and is to go to Artists and Community Arts projects of all descriptions, so who are we to decide if the Art is Arty enough for our taste to qualify. Its the various bodys who decide where its alocated that need to come under more scrutiny and be more accountable. But thats the trouble, they can keep alocating in the inner sanctum like they do and largly avoid public scrutany, or be more accountable (going more public) and risk loosing works like the Blue Trees. I know which one id prefere.

However, Ted Egan, playing only his empy beer carton, has a lot more chance of getting to audiences in remote centres than a cast of 50 with sets attached

Not so Midge I know it was a one off, but remember 1998, Cats was publicly funded to take the full show on the road to all remote outback locations. And it was very sucsessfull.

[Clinton1]

Andy,
I think you have identified the problem.
If artists were educated on the importance of getting themselves economically viable then there would be less instances of the "starving artist in the cold water garret"

I think it is a bit pretensious (and an important part of the image of being an artist) to think that you should be able to do whatever you want, and because you decided to be an artist, that the community should subsidise your life.

Is there something wrong with an artist deciding to produce a body of work in order to make a living, and a body of work that is purely an expression of their artistic free will?

Most of us have to draw a line between what we do in order to pay the bills, and what we do in order to make paying the bills worthwhile.

In any case, the poor artist works a 'real' job to finance their art anyway.... usually at minimum wage.

SO, I'm proposing that each year of a B. Arts there are lessons on "running a small business", "investment principles"... delivered by accountants!

Lignum - didnt the "100K for painting trees blue artist" get the 56K for having the contract reneged on and for the paint they bought.... i.e. 56K for nothing!