$1.8 million for this `art' ? (med-long)
Jeff Bird
called "No. 16" by Mark Rothko, painted in 1957. I'm soliciting
the help of the folks here on rec.arts.fine (couldn't find a
rec.arts.abstract) and cross-posting to can.general to see if you
can help shed some light.
The painting is a red background (3x2.5m) with two beige rectangles,
something like
--------------------
| ---------------- | The demarcations between the beige and
| | beige | | red areas are not sharp, but appear to
| ---------------- | be the result of using a wide house-
| | painting brush very rapidly.
| ---------------- |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | beige | | Of course, art is subjective and those
| | | | trying to picture the work based on this
| | | | crude description could not fairly
| ---------------- | comment on it, but this is the second
| | time the National Gallery has spent such
| red | a sum on such a piece. (Three years ago
-------------------- they spent 1.76 mil for a red stripe on
a blue background.)
I (definitely not in the art world) appreciate a painting based on the
skill required to paint it. The emotional/inspirational/interpretational
feelings usually come as a result of seeing the level of skill. Maybe
that's a result of my scientific background, I don't know. The classical
painters and even the occasional Picasso work for me, but this??
Most of us shrug and walk away shaking our heads, chuckling. But I don't
think that was what the painter (as opposed to artist?) had in mind.
But it will boost attendance and ticket revenue at the gallery for a while
because of curiosity and if nothing else, it's probably good for that.
It's not so much the artwork itself (which I suppose could grow on you),
but the price. I'm sure price is driven by demand but I'm still at a
loss (pun intended). Sorry for being so long winded, but it's just so
flabbergasting I had to let off some steam.
Flame away.
Steve Leffler
>The National Gallery of Canada just spent $1.8 million on a work...
>The painting is a red background (3x2.5m) with two beige rectangles
Someone should offer them a discount. I volunteer to paint THREE beige
rectangles on a red background for only $500,000. What a bargain.
--
| Department of Physics
Steven Leffler | University of British Columbia
lef...@physics.ubc.ca | Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1
| CANADA
Malgosia Askanas
low skills does you credit. Yes, the level of skill involved was
indeed very low. And exactly for that reson, it took Rothko and
his assistants an anguished 180,000 man-hours to paint the work in
question. At the properly unskilled rate of $10/hour, this brings
the total value of the work to exactly 1.8 million.
By basing your response to works of art solely on the level of skill,
you are depriving yourself of many profound artistic experiences.
The number of man-hours that went into the work can be just as
profoundly moving as the skill.
Ed Rodda
> The National Gallery of Canada just spent $1.8 million on a work
> called "No. 16" by Mark Rothko, painted in 1957. I'm soliciting
> the help of the folks here on rec.arts.fine (couldn't find a
> rec.arts.abstract) and cross-posting to can.general to see if you
> can help shed some light.
You obviously do not understand impressionist art. Actually, there is
nothing much to understand, this is its mystique.
Impressionist art was designed for un-talented artists, so they could
become as rich and famous as the more talented ones.
The art you describe is an *impression* of a mountain scene seen
through a window. Of course a talented artist would have painted a
better window frame and included more detail, maybe straightened out
some of the lines, drew in impressions of some window panes,
mountains, etc.
That other great piece of art (three stripes, not a red stripe on a
blue background) is of a meadow scene with horses, framed between two
trees. This artist obviously has much less talent than Rothko.
Glad I could be of help.
Rosemary Anne Waigh
>bi...@edx.ed.dreo.dnd.ca (Jeff Bird) writes:
>>The painting is a red background (3x2.5m) with two beige rectangles
>
> Someone should offer them a discount. I volunteer to paint THREE beige
>rectangles on a red background for only $500,000. What a bargain.
No no no. The value of the Rothko's work stems for its original vision.
What you propose is a mundane copy, worse still a plagiarism of it. Why
should you get anything for Rothko's idea? It is the hard work of thinking
up these pictures that makes them so valuable, not the time spent in
executing them.
I propose to paint a purple circle on a green background. Not only are the
colours different, but I have also gotten away from the stifling patriarchal
rectilinear form of the earlier works. I think this is worth $2 million,
and a bargain at that. How many other galleries even have one Rosemary
Waigh original?
--
Rosemary Anne Waigh Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rw...@cdf.utoronto.ca University of Toronto
"Five percent of the people in the world consume one-third of its resources...
and produce almost half the non-organic waste...those people are us." Adbusters
Denis Beauregard
>In article <2286vb...@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> lef...@physics.ubc.ca (Steve Leffler ) writes:
>>bi...@edx.ed.dreo.dnd.ca (Jeff Bird) writes:
>>>The painting is a red background (3x2.5m) with two beige rectangles
>>
>> Someone should offer them a discount. I volunteer to paint THREE beige
>>rectangles on a red background for only $500,000. What a bargain.
>
>No no no. The value of the Rothko's work stems for its original vision.
>What you propose is a mundane copy, worse still a plagiarism of it. Why
>should you get anything for Rothko's idea? It is the hard work of thinking
>up these pictures that makes them so valuable, not the time spent in
>executing them.
>
>I propose to paint a purple circle on a green background. Not only are the
>colours different, but I have also gotten away from the stifling patriarchal
>rectilinear form of the earlier works. I think this is worth $2 million,
>and a bargain at that. How many other galleries even have one Rosemary
>Waigh original?
I don't understand the object of the current debate. $1.8 million is not
the price of the paint. It is a disguised subside to the saler who is
probably the friend of someone involved in the process of buying that.
With enough pressure, maybe that person could be identified and requested
to refund the price of that thing (it is not art). After all, when Canada
P ublic Archives are missing money to answer to their mail in usable time
(last time I ordered a microfilm, it took 3 monthes), using for public
sake the same money instead of enriching a fooler (sorry about the term,
I has some difficulties to express exactly what I mean, but I thing the
readers will understand), this is preferrable. And CPA and the museum
are probably under the same authority (i.e. same department).
--
\_\ L'opinion de Denis Beauregard * internet:beau...@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
/ \ Genealogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J __> Operateur de "Racines du Quebec" (514) 922-9636 BBS/Genealogie
\_*-=== -> maintenant a 1200/2400/9600/14400 bps, V.32bis V.42bis
Keith Meng-Wei Loh
>The National Gallery of Canada just spent $1.8 million on a work
>called "No. 16" by Mark Rothko, painted in 1957. I'm soliciting
>the help of the folks here on rec.arts.fine (couldn't find a
>rec.arts.abstract) and cross-posting to can.general to see if you
>can help shed some light.
On one level world reknown art of this sort is market driven and its
value is estimated by the price most dealers and galleries are prepared
to pay for it. There's no real use in discussing whether it is worth
$1.8 million or less or more, the price is what the market was prepared
to pay. From what I have read and heard about this, the price that
the National Gallery had to pay was below market value (which was more
than a few million). But, again, this was only an estimate. I presume that
the present market value is $1.8 million though this will rise after this
brouhaha. Discussing whether it is really worth it as art is another
discussion. I think I would like it very much in my living room but am
unprepared to pay market value for it.
Gerald Olchowy
art or good art or worthwhile art, but that there are enough art
experts or fools (depending on one's point-of-view) out there who
think it is good art...so the purchase is not spending per se, but
an investment that should realize a healthy rate of return.
Whether or not you think the Voice of Fire or No.16 is art, it is
a commodity that be bought and sold. From this perspective, it really
doesn't matter if the commodity has real value or not, or if the buyers
and sellers really know anything, or are just fools...what matters is
that we can make a profit.
Gerald
Darren Stone
Does the $1.8 million include matting, frame, and glass?
That stuff can really add up.
- Darren Stone
sto...@wimsey.bc.ca
Marc Roussel
the piece in question or are you all relying on a newspaper picture?
While Voice of Fire is quite a simple painting that can perhaps be
judged from a picture (although its size does somewhat affect one's
perception of it), the picture I saw of No. 16 (or whatever it's called)
suggests subtleties which newsprint can't capture. I would therefore be
terribly hesitant to pass judgment on it without seeing it in person.
If you want an example of a marvelous painting that could not
possibly be photoreproduced, look for something called (I think)
"Fireflies" next time you visit the Gallery. The newspapers would have
a field day with this one because a picture of it would probably come
out all black; the fireflies, shadows and outlines it contains would
simply disappear. (Unfortunately, "Fireflies" is incredibly poorly
displayed in the new Gallery. Nevertheless, if you find it, you'll know
exactly what I mean.)
To be quite honest, I don't trust most of our media to deliver
honest judgments on artistic matters. Many journalists have resolved
to make the Gallery look bad, for reasons that I really can't fathom.
Don't trust them to point out the true merit of a piece of art. If it's
at all possible, visit the Gallery and see for yourself.
Marc R. Roussel
mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Russell Ochocki
>The National Gallery of Canada just spent $1.8 million on a work
>called "No. 16" by Mark Rothko, painted in 1957. I'm soliciting
>the help of the folks here on rec.arts.fine (couldn't find a
>rec.arts.abstract) and cross-posting to can.general to see if you
>can help shed some light.
>
What will the National Gallery do for an encore? Maybe they'll get the classic
"Polar Bear in Snowstorm" for only $2.5 million! Picture a blank, white canvas
with a single black dot (the polar bear's nose, of course).
I have to agree that this type of (or maybe lack of) `art' is for the birds.
What if we could show this painting to an artist like Michelangelo? I'm sure
his reaction would be "Huh, what is this crap?" When you explain that it's
someone looking at a mountain scene though a window, he would say, "Ahhh.
I had a neighbour down the street who painted things like that. He was the
town's local con-artist." :-> :-> :->
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| Russell Ochocki r...@kynes.bison.mb.ca
Marc Roussel
br...@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:
>I think the National Gallery's administrators who purchased No.16
>did so in order to be controversial. What better way is there to attract
>attention to art than to waste millions of tax dollars on pieces deemed
>garbage by the plebes? They don't realize that negative attention
>isn't going to help their cause.
I think that they do realize it. I don't think you're being fair
to the Gallery staff. They are just trying to acquire the best
collection they can with the money they have. Obviously, there will be
disagreements about the best way to spend the money, but would you be
happy with a Gallery that ignores important modern movements just
because they are not popular in some circles at this time?
Marc R. Roussel
mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Andy Pearlman
>The National Gallery of Canada just spent $1.8 million on a work
>called "No. 16" by Mark Rothko, painted in 1957. I'm soliciting
>the help of the folks here on rec.arts.fine (couldn't find a
>The painting is a red background (3x2.5m) with two beige rectangles,
>
>I (definitely not in the art world) appreciate a painting based on the
>skill required to paint it. The emotional/inspirational/interpretational
>feelings usually come as a result of seeing the level of skill. Maybe
>that's a result of my scientific background, I don't know. The classical
>painters and even the occasional Picasso work for me, but this??
Rothko is one of my favorite painters(this from someone who drew a realistic
semi-nude on a computer, using a mouse...Imagine drawing with a rock. The
output to slide looks like a realistic oil painting.)
Here's why:
His paintings dominate the room. Regardless if you like it or not, your eye
will definitely look at his paintings first when you enter the room.
Color choices are well chosen. I don't think you realize just how hard it
is to balance colors like he did. The technical skill involved is enormous.
If you take one of those rectangles, and move it down say a couple of inches,
the whole effect of the painting is destroyed.
The paintings are absolutely beautiful. That should be reason enough.
Andy Pearlman
st90...@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
computer is not having a good day.
> This is a reply to Russell Ochoki's remark that Michelangelo would
> percieve Rothko as crap.
>
> Must all artwork that will be created after Michelangelo be judged by
> the same standards as Michelangelo? Must art remain stagnant and not
> be allowed the innovation that Rothlo produced?
> Keep in mind that when the French Impressionists first did thier work, most
> of society did not like it--their work was refused by the annual Salon.
> Rothko fits into an entire school of thought that deals with color fields.
>
> I do not want to deny the importance and greatness of Michelangelo, but
> I do not think he is the end-all and be-all of art.
>
> I very much agree with Marc Roussel's comment:
Peter L. Hurd
> To be quite honest, I don't trust most of our media to deliver
>honest judgments on artistic matters. Many journalists have resolved
>to make the Gallery look bad, for reasons that I really can't fathom.
>Don't trust them to point out the true merit of a piece of art. If it's
>at all possible, visit the Gallery and see for yourself.
But do it Thursday, just in case....
> Marc R. Roussel
> mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Gordon Fitch
| >The National Gallery of Canada just spent $1.8 million on a work
| >called "No. 16" by Mark Rothko, painted in 1957. I'm soliciting
| >the help of the folks here on rec.arts.fine (couldn't find a
|
| >The painting is a red background (3x2.5m) with two beige rectangles,
| >
| >I (definitely not in the art world) appreciate a painting based on the
| >skill required to paint it. The emotional/inspirational/interpretational
| >feelings usually come as a result of seeing the level of skill. Maybe
| >that's a result of my scientific background, I don't know. The classical
| >painters and even the occasional Picasso work for me, but this??
apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) writes:
| Rothko is one of my favorite painters(this from someone who drew a realistic
| semi-nude on a computer, using a mouse...Imagine drawing with a rock. The
| output to slide looks like a realistic oil painting.)
|
| Here's why:
|
| His paintings dominate the room. Regardless if you like it or not, your eye
| will definitely look at his paintings first when you enter the room.
|
| Color choices are well chosen. I don't think you realize just how hard it
| is to balance colors like he did. The technical skill involved is enormous.
| If you take one of those rectangles, and move it down say a couple of inches,
| the whole effect of the painting is destroyed.
|
| The paintings are absolutely beautiful. That should be reason enough.
I think it's amusing that the controversy about Modernism is
still raging up north, long after everyone got bored with it
down here -- after all, Modernism has been "dead" for about
a generation. Let me assure those of you who are worried
about the money that late Modernism has been so thoroughly
classicized that Rothko paintings will continue to sell for
big bucks as long as anything else does. They've been made
part of the system -- that is, certain texts and procedures
for transforming them have been worked out which result in
the text of a rather large check being written whenever
anyone wants to run them.
Can you get anything out of them? In the early 1960s, when
ab-ex bestrode the world, I found a visit to the Museum of
Modern Art depressing. Now that ab-ex has retired from
running the universe, though, I find the material pretty,
engaging, sort of Arcadian. I must say I know where to get
decent stuff along these lines a lot cheaper than $1.8
million, though, but I don't think museums are allowed to
get a painting just because the director likes it. But
that's a different problem, and is not confined to Rothkos.
--
)*( Gordon Fitch )*( g...@panix.com )*(
Wayne Smith
>> called "No. 16" by Mark Rothko, painted in 1957. I'm soliciting
>> the help of the folks here on rec.arts.fine (couldn't find a
>> rec.arts.abstract) and cross-posting to can.general to see if you
>> can help shed some light.
This piece looks like a clip of movie film without the sprocket holes.
Maybe it's frame # 16?
But more seriously, the way that the museum people talk about this piece
makes it sound like they are justifying it as if it was an addition to a
private portfolio. "It's by Joe Blow, done at a critical time of his life,
and we got it at a bargain" - note the lack of artistic value.
If this piece, and the voice of fire, are prime examples of "art", then I
ask if they would be so admired or treasured or acclaimed if they were
found in the back room of the museum, painted by an unknown summer
student. Beauty in the eye of the beholder, or in the name on the back...?
Steve Leffler
>Steve Leffler (lef...@physics.ubc.ca) wrote:
>: bi...@edx.ed.dreo.dnd.ca (Jeff Bird) writes:
>: >The National Gallery of Canada just spent $1.8 million on a work...
>: >The painting is a red background (3x2.5m) with two beige rectangles
>:
>: Someone should offer them a discount. I volunteer to paint THREE beige
>: rectangles on a red background for only $500,000. What a bargain.
>Well, Steve, if you do this, and then spend the rest of your life finessing
>an aura of eccentricity, borderline psychoses and intellectual aloofness,
Well, I'm a grad student in physics so I guess I've already got the
borderline psychoses and intellectual aloofness :). I'll have to work on an
aura of eccentricity next.
How many surrealist painters does it take to change a light bulb?
Ans: The fish.
Patrick Divine
>Impressionist art was designed for un-talented artists, so they could
>become as rich and famous as the more talented ones.
this is total crap ..
the amount of work that went into _Voices Of Fire_ is actually really staggering .. I beleive there is over 100 layers of paint (something like this), and
hundreds and thousands of man hours that went into creating that piece.
if you think you are talented, or even patient enough, to try painting somethinglike this (it takes years to do), then be my guest.
--
= FISHTANK ======== FIREPIPE ============== BOMB SHELTER BBS ========
= PO Box 75115 CiTR 101.9 fM (604) 535-6926
= White Rock, BC Friday nights 12:30-?? FishNet UUCP Network
= V4A 9M4 "INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH"
Marc Roussel
(Wayne Smith) writes:
>But more seriously, the way that the museum people talk about this piece
>makes it sound like they are justifying it as if it was an addition to a
>private portfolio. "It's by Joe Blow, done at a critical time of his life,
>and we got it at a bargain" - note the lack of artistic value.
They're trying to explain the acquisition to a public whom, their
experience has shown, will make a fuss no matter what they say. Think
of it as damage control. They're doing the right thing, but want to
minimize the negative publicity that will follow because of the
deliberate misreporting of this purchase by most of the media.
>If this piece, and the voice of fire, are prime examples of "art", then I
>ask if they would be so admired or treasured or acclaimed if they were
>found in the back room of the museum, painted by an unknown summer
>student. Beauty in the eye of the beholder, or in the name on the back...?
I suspect that if a "Voice of Fire" were found that had been
painted by an unknown artist BEFORE the original work, it would be
treasured. There is however no value in simple imitation. Note that
the same is true of the work of the Renaissance masters in whose case
even original works for which the artist borrowed only the style and
signature are devalued once discovered.
Marc R. Roussel
mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Darren Stone
:
:It's really hard to separate "art" from "self-indulgence". If anything can
:be art in the eye of the beholder, then there's no way one can qualitatively
:compare _Voices of Fire_ to, say, Michelangelo's _David_ in artistic terms.
:
:But if the issue is the use of tax money to acquire art, then perhaps society's
:opinions must be taken into account. In this electronic age, I'd like to
:see electronic referendums, where tax payers could "vote" via phone or
:another electronic media, on what public galleries should acquire, and how
:much they should spend. This would remove the elitist control that gallery
:admin's currently hold. (I bet they'd HATE this idea!)
Say, that's a great idea. Once that infrastructure is in place, then maybe
we can do the same for the health care system. Like, put a photo of the
proposed patient up on the TV screen, then have people call in votes on
whether or not they deserve publicly-funded surgery.
No, seriously, I don't think that system would work. Unless everyone who
voted was required to view the proposed pieces in a gallery setting, in
person, then there's no way they can possibly make an informed decision.
Casting the ballot is easy, but ensuring that everyone _knows_ what they're
voting for or against is impossible at the best of times. What you'd get
is a bunch of people (like myself) looking at lousy, 2D, scaled-down, blurry,
low-bandwidth newspaper or TV picture of a piece of art, then casting
_ignorant_ votes it.
:By the way, next weekend, I'm going to run around with raisins taped to
:my forehead and a raw beard of bacon fastened to my chin.
:This is art. I've been conceiving this idea for years.
:Make all cheques or money orders payable to me, thanks.
The check is in the mail! :)
- Darren Stone
sto...@wimsey.bc.ca
Keith Meng-Wei Loh
>It's really hard to separate "art" from "self-indulgence". If anything can
>be art in the eye of the beholder, then there's no way one can qualitatively
>compare _Voices of Fire_ to, say, Michelangelo's _David_ in artistic terms.
If you're worried about elitism in art, remember that Michaelangelo's _David_
was commissioned by the ruling class and that most "classical" art was produced
not for self-indulgence but at the whim of those who wished to pay for it. Could
you be sure that people in Renaissance Italy at the time would have voted for
_David_ if they were given the chance? _David_ was considered elitist crap
then, I suspect.
>But if the issue is the use of tax money to acquire art, then perhaps society's
>opinions must be taken into account. In this electronic age, I'd like to
>see electronic referendums, where tax payers could "vote" via phone or
>another electronic media, on what public galleries should acquire, and how
>much they should spend. This would remove the elitist control that gallery
>admin's currently hold. (I bet they'd HATE this idea!)
Art is not for everyone but at least you get a chance to see it to judge
for yourself because the gallery has brought it in. Yes, you have to go
to the National Art Gallery, but the city where you are probably has a
museum also full of the stuff you like to hate. Walk into the room and
check it out. If we had to vote for _David_ now without the benefit of
generations of media/history books telling us it is great, would we
really think the same as most of the world has never been to see _David_
in person? It is too bad we can't make that test because I would not
hazard any money on _David_ in any electronic voting media.
>By the way, next weekend, I'm going to run around with raisins taped to
>my forehead and a raw beard of bacon fastened to my chin.
>This is art. I've been conceiving this idea for years.
>Make all cheques or money orders payable to me, thanks.
Cut your head off and mount it. Then we can start voting.
Marc Roussel
br...@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:
>But if the issue is the use of tax money to acquire art, then perhaps society's
>opinions must be taken into account. In this electronic age, I'd like to
>see electronic referendums, where tax payers could "vote" via phone or
>another electronic media, on what public galleries should acquire, and how
>much they should spend.
Do that, and I can guarantee that in a hundred years or less, the
Gallery's collection will be essentially worthless. If we must have a
National Gallery (and I think we do), it must systematically collect
important pieces from all the important movements, especially those
which have been influential with contemporary Canadian artists. The
value of a national collection is not in individual holdings but in the
overall historical perspective which it provides. The Gallery owns a
good deal of fairly ugly early Canadian art. Should the Gallery throw
these things away despite their historical value? No! Similarly, we
have to collect, as it becomes available, the art of this century. If
we let people vote on these things, we will wind up with a collection
with important holes for which future generations will rightly blame us.
The curators of the Gallery both know what they have and what they need
in order to provide a complete historical record of the art of our
time.
A Gallery is not a living room. It's not just a place to hang
some pictures. It is a type of museum specializing in objects
which were produced as art. As such, aesthetics is not necessarily the
prime consideration in building a collection. Indeed, there is a good
deal of art which is DELIBERATELY ugly. (Consider some of Andy
Warhol's work.) That does not diminish its importance.
Marc R. Roussel
mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Ward Paul
>
>But if the issue is the use of tax money to acquire art, then perhaps society's
>opinions must be taken into account. In this electronic age, I'd like to
>see electronic referendums, where tax payers could "vote" via phone or
>another electronic media, on what public galleries should acquire, and how
>admin's currently hold. (I bet they'd HATE this idea!)
Just to put my two cents worth in; why bother? I mean, why should society
(ie taxpayers) pay for any art in the first place. If people want art,
people (individuals; organizations) can buy art. Why do we have this
silly National Gallery spending taxpayers' money on art?
Sell off the whole lot, and privatize.
--
Marc Roussel
br...@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:
>pieces, fine, so long as they're not outrageously expensive, like the piece
>in question. Otherwise, they've done nothing but alienate the public.
>It's hard to justify a $2 million price tag to someone unemployed with a
>family to support, and whose social support cheques are minimal.
I'm not sure I understand your point. The Gallery has an
acquisition budget. It decided to spend $1.8 million (or so) on No. 16.
If it hadn't, it either would have set the money aside for a future
major purchase or have spent the money on a number of smaller purchases.
What's the big deal? It's not like the Gallery went to Parliament to
ask for extra money for this purchase.
>I for one reject out of hand that the public
>is too "ignorant" to understand art: this is precisely the elitism that
>has alienated the public from the world of art.
The problem isn't that the public is ignorant of art, but rather
that it doesn't have time to familiarize itself with the Gallery's
holdings and their historical context. You don't want to fill the
Gallery with the works of only two or three schools of art. Either you
build a balanced collection (which the Gallery tries very hard to do) or
you close the place and sell its assets. Anything else isn't worth the
effort.
>Let's face it: art prices are artificial, inflated, and market-motivated,
>and don't reflect a piece's importance or artistic value. Rather, whatever
>genres are in vogue will have high auction values.
That's true. On the other hand, there is no way to avoid the
market. If you need a piece to round out a collection and you can
afford it, you buy it. If you're the National Gallery, you can
sometimes negotiate a little, but the artist or his (or her) estate will
quite rightly insist on a near-market price. Buying a particularly
expensive piece is always a bit of a gamble but if the piece (and this
is the key point) has intrinsic historical value, it is unlikely to
depreciate so that buying it as early as possible is always a good
move. As far as I know, no one has disputed the historical importance
of No. 16 so it's probably a good purchase.
Marc R. Roussel
mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Marta Lyall
>Just to put my two cents worth in; why bother? I mean, why should society
>(ie taxpayers) pay for any art in the first place. If people want art,
>people (individuals; organizations) can buy art. Why do we have this
>silly National Gallery spending taxpayers' money on art?
>
>Sell off the whole lot, and privatize.
>--
I feel like that too. (While I really like Rothko, and don't approve of
"the market" as the instrument of determining value, I guess we gotta
let the market be free). While we're at it, we probably ought to sell
off the resources from our other publicly funded institutions, i.e.
those involved in scientfic and academic research. I wonder if we would
break even on the deal?
Josh West
Andy Pearlman
>Just to put my two cents worth in; why bother? I mean, why should society
>(ie taxpayers) pay for any art in the first place. If people want art,
>people (individuals; organizations) can buy art. Why do we have this
>silly National Gallery spending taxpayers' money on art?
>
>Sell off the whole lot, and privatize.
There's a really simple reason:
Because this way, the society supports something that the society thinks is
good. There is an interesting correlation between spending money on art and
how stable the culture is as a whole. While individuals may ignore this,
society can't afford to do this.
There you go.
Andy Pearlman
Andy Pearlman
>On the contrary, I think that a National Gallery that had a few strong
>collections is more valuable than one with a balanced but thin collection.
>For example, the Louvre, Musee d'Orsay, and modern art gallery in Paris each
>specialize in different genres. Given that the National Art Gallery would
>likely have a much smaller budget (does it??), they'd be better off
>specializing on a few schools of art. Especially on those that
>would please the public, rather than antagonize it!
The point of art is not to please the public.
>Here's are some philosophical/political issues that I'm struggling with.
>I'm not intending this to be sarcastic (although I'm sure someone
>will interpret it as such). Which is more valuable to a society:
> (i) a strong national treasury of art;
> (ii) a weaker treasury of art that is appreciated by the populace;
> (iii) a populace that is healthy, clothed, and employed?
The problem with this statement, is that it is quite likely you can't have
iii without having i or ii. Also, the problem with having a healthy, clothed,
and employed populace is related to the problem of having enough resources and
how one distributes them. From a society viewpoint, it is a good thing to
have some small amount of unemployment, some hungry, some poor.
Andy Pearlman
Marc Roussel
br...@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:
>On the contrary, I think that a National Gallery that had a few strong
>collections is more valuable than one with a balanced but thin collection.
>For example, the Louvre, Musee d'Orsay, and modern art gallery in Paris each
>specialize in different genres.
"Balanced" doesn't necessarily mean "thin". Regardless, I feel
that we must simply agree to disagree on this. Canada is not France and
French solutions are not appropriate here, for various reasons, not the
least of which is that we can't afford multiple galleries.
>Here's are some philosophical/political issues that I'm struggling with.
>Which is more valuable to a society:
>
> (i) a strong national treasury of art;
> (ii) a weaker treasury of art that is appreciated by the populace;
> (iii) a populace that is healthy, clothed, and employed?
>
>For example, it might be said that a country that ignores it's national
>trasury of art is abandoning the intellectual legacy of its citizens.
>On the other hand, wouldn't such funds contribute more if it supported
>its art education (and other educational institutions)? And, more importantly,
>isn't it *immoral* for a government to spend outrageous sums of funds on art
>while people are hungry and unemployed, and most people are generally
>struggling to support themselves.
These issues are never as simple as they seem either. Spending
money on the Gallery generates tourism (yes, people specifically go to
Ottawa to see the Gallery) which generates employment. That doesn't
show up in the Gallery's balance sheet of course, but you can't ignore
it when deciding such questions.
Marc R. Roussel
mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
woody
they could call it "Memories of Voice of Fire". I wouldn't want to be the
president who makes such choices in art...
Marc Roussel
br...@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:
>But I believe that the point of public collections
>*should* be to please the public, or at least, a significant portion thereof
>IMHO. I should be able to choose what art I display in my house; I think the
>populace should be given similar rights with regards to their national
>collections.
What about the value of the National collection to scholars? You
see, as I wrote earlier, the Gallery isn't just a place in which pretty
pictures are hung.
>Andy Pearlman (apea...@panix.com) wrote:
>: From a society viewpoint, it is a good thing to
>: have some small amount of unemployment, some hungry, some poor.
>
>I would not want to say that to the face of one of Canada's 12% unemployed!
Agreed. Unemployment is bad, poverty and hunger are worse still.
If I really thought that cutting the Gallery's budget would reduce
unemployment, I would wholeheartedly agree to do it. However, as I
wrote in an earlier posting, I think that any interference with the
normal functioning of the Gallery would in fact have a negative impact
on the National Capital Region's economy. Our Gallery is reknowned,
partly for its architecture, partly for its excellent contemporary
collection, and partly as a centre for study of the Group of Seven. It
is by far the best of the National Museums and that which (as far as I
can tell) has the greatest drawing power for tourists and scholars. As
long as their work is being competently done, we should leave the Gallery
staff to spend their acquisition budget as they see fit.
Marc R. Roussel
mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Darren Stone
: Darren Stone (sto...@vanbc.wimsey.com) wrote:
: : Brian Ross (br...@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca) wrote:
: ::
: ::It's really hard to separate "art" from "self-indulgence". If anything can
: ::be art in the eye of the beholder, then there's no way one can qualitatively
: ::compare _Voices of Fire_ to, say, Michelangelo's _David_ in artistic terms.
: ::But if the issue is the use of tax money to acquire art, then perhaps society's
: ::see electronic referendums, where tax payers could "vote" via phone or
: ::another electronic media, on what public galleries should acquire, and how
: ::much they should spend. This would remove the elitist control that gallery
: ::admin's currently hold. (I bet they'd HATE this idea!)
: : Say, that's a great idea. Once that infrastructure is in place, then maybe
: : we can do the same for the health care system. Like, put a photo of the
: : proposed patient up on the TV screen, then have people call in votes on
: : whether or not they deserve publicly-funded surgery.
: Reductio ad absurdum. Actually, bringing up the health care system
: is good, because $1.8 million could heal a lot of people, and feed a lot
: of starving Canadian kids.
I don't think $1.8 million of tax dollars should be spent on a single piece
of art if that's a huge portion of our annual budget for aqusitions.
Nor do I think that pouring more into the bottomless-pit-of-a-socialist-
health-care-system automatically makes that money work better for the public.
: : No, seriously, I don't think that system would work. Unless everyone who
: : voted was required to view the proposed pieces in a gallery setting, in
: : person, then there's no way they can possibly make an informed decision.
:
: Ridiculous. How many people have actually seen famous works of art in person?
: Does that make those who have never seen art in person uninformed and
: ignorant of it?
Yes, it does. I'm a person who is quite ignorant of art. Including the piece
in question. I've seen lots of pictures of it. But I have not experienced
it as it was meant to be. I really know nothing about it. I can't judge
if it is any better or worse than another aquisition, although the price
(as a proportion of the total budget for art as I understand it) seems out
of proportion.
: : Casting the ballot is easy, but ensuring that everyone _knows_ what they're
: : voting for or against is impossible at the best of times. What you'd get
: : is a bunch of people (like myself) looking at lousy, 2D, scaled-down, blurry,
: : low-bandwidth newspaper or TV picture of a piece of art, then casting
: : _ignorant_ votes it.
:
: Citizens could vote on the general type of art to hold in the gallery, and
: more importantly, what a "ceiling" price should be for any acquisitions.
: The alternative to not changing is for people to get pissed off and tell
: their MP's to cut funding altogether.
A ceiling on the art budget I whole-heartedly argree with. But I really
don't think citizens know enough about the possible breadth available
in art. Why wouldn't the public be content to appoint experts who have
studied art and know how to put a good, valuable, varied collection together?
Sure, give them a budget, though.
I'd just be really scared that we'd end up with a collection of pretty,
mountain and lake oil paintings if the public chose the art. That would
truly be a waste, in my opinion.
Nicely framed, though, I'm sure.
- Darren Stone
sto...@wimsey.bc.ca
Stewart Tame
>
>What will the National Gallery do for an encore? Maybe they'll get the classic
>"Polar Bear in Snowstorm" for only $2.5 million! Picture a blank, white canvas
>with a single black dot (the polar bear's nose, of course).
>
Hmmmm . . . you might want to check out the works of Robert Rauschenberg.
That description sounds amazingly like some of his paintings . . . minus
the black dot of course . . .
>What if we could show this painting to an artist like Michelangelo? I'm sure
>his reaction would be "Huh, what is this crap?" When you explain that it's
>someone looking at a mountain scene though a window, he would say, "Ahhh.
>I had a neighbour down the street who painted things like that. He was the
>town's local con-artist." :-> :-> :->
Hmmm . . . I've noticed a continued reference to the painting as "a view
through a window of a mountain scene." Will somebody explain to me this
assumption that all art *must* represent something in the real world? I
don't understand . . .
-- Stewart "confused" Tame
High Priest, Universal Church of Barney
Keeper of the Death In June discography
I understand it's obligatory to mention Kibo somewhere in one's postings.
============================================================================
Email: st...@emunix.emich.edu | Disclaimer: Eastern Michigan University
-------------------------------- and all employees thereof fully agree
Snailmail: Stewart Tame | with my opinions. The Easter Bunny told
311 Jarvis, Apt. 103 | me so.
Ypsilanti, MI 48197-2462|____________________________________________
============================================================================
"Dear diary, today I ditched the wife and kids and discovered the grisly
pleasure of necrophilia." -- The Dysfunctional Family Circus
Marc Roussel
writes:
>Why wouldn't the public be content to appoint experts who have
>studied art and know how to put a good, valuable, varied collection together?
How do you think the Gallery works? Who do you think its curator
and staff and advisory boards are?
Marc R. Roussel
mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
st90...@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Already in our country there is a strong push to get rid of various arts
in the school system (music is shrinking, as is art and phys ed - what about
extra-curricular languages?) We cannot be so short-sighted as to feel that
science is the only field to invest in. Although its short term goals may be
apparent, the long term importance of art and culture in our society cannot
be overstated.
I agree! I agree! In my high school, the music department got cutbacks
evrey year. In the art room, it was impossible to even find a pencil.
[and yet somehow, the school had money to but a $12,000 running track]
same thing in my college--at Brandies some huge center for brain studies
is being built over the course of three years--a big huge deal. yet
the art department needs more funding. I think when the arts are
amrginalized in education that this may be a cause for art existing
on the border of mainstream society
------Sarah Bromberg st90...@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Ward Paul
>If we must have a National Gallery (and I think we do),
Why?
>it must systematically collect important pieces from all the important movements
And what is considered important now will be worthless in the future, and what
is irrelevant now will be highly valued in the future.
--
Paul
Sandy Boyd
>The National Gallery of Canada just spent $1.8 million on a work
>called "No. 16" by Mark Rothko, painted in 1957. I'm soliciting
>the help of the folks here on rec.arts.fine (couldn't find a
>rec.arts.abstract) and cross-posting to can.general to see if you
>can help shed some light.
I think it would have been worth more in a light azure blue ground
and painted with a yard brush to give a more solid texture.
Say around $2.5million.
As a framer, I'm at the wrong end of the business.
.....'Must do something about that!!!!!.....
Sandy
Gordon Fitch
| >If we must have a National Gallery (and I think we do),
wa...@agamit.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) writes:
| Why?
Probably, as a manifest of bourgeois spiritual leadership.
It depends on who "we" is taken to mean.
| >it must systematically collect important pieces from all the important movements
|
| And what is considered important now will be worthless in the future, and what
| is irrelevant now will be highly valued in the future.
Not necessarily. Historically, this hasn't been the case at
all. Some shifting around occurs, but not to so great an
extent as to threaten general property values, which would not
be in the interest of the evaluators.
--
)*( Gordon Fitch )*( g...@panix.com )*(
Ward Paul
>
>Because this way, the society supports something that the society thinks is
>good.
But we have ample evidence that many people do not think it is good. If
some individuals or group of people think a particular work of art is
worthwhile, let them buy it. I do. On the other hand, if no one thinks
a work of art is good, it will not sell to anyone. Why should it be
otherwise? Why should a select group of people take taxpayers' money
and spend it on art?
>There is an interesting correlation between spending money on art and
>how stable the culture is as a whole.
Is there? While I question this, especially in the absence of citations,
it changes nothing. Individuals and groups can contribute to art as they
see fit. Those who have no such desire should not be forced to so contribute.
>While individuals may ignore this, society can't afford to do this.
Eech. I believe you can use this statement to allow society to do just about
anything it likes over the will of the individual.
--
Stephanie Moskal Fysh
>Keith Meng-Wei Loh (l...@fraser.sfu.ca) wrote:
>: br...@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:
>: >It's really hard to separate "art" from "self-indulgence". If anything can
>: >be art in the eye of the beholder, then there's no way one can qualitatively
>: >compare _Voices of Fire_ to, say, Michelangelo's _David_ in artistic terms.
>:
>:If you're worried about elitism in art, remember that Michaelangelo's _David_
>:was commissioned by the ruling class and that most "classical" art was produced
>:not for self-indulgence but at the whim of those who wished to pay for it.
>:Could you be sure that people in Renaissance Italy at the time would have
>:voted for _David_ if they were given the chance?
>:_David_ was considered elitist crap then, I suspect.
>
>qualitatively measure art; there are many complex social, cultural, and
>philosophical factors.
>
So everything that can't be decided qualitatively, that requires some
subjective judgement, should be decided by popular vote? Well, I
guess that means Voting On History. The majority rules, even if they
didn't know all the background information. It *is* impossibly to
qualitatively measure art. That is why there are curators, critics,
art historians, and so forth. They know about such things as what
artists do (including the technical proficiency required to produce a
painting like Voice of Fire - I've seen it up close, have you?). They
have studied, for years and years and in intense detail, the
philosophies of art and aesthetics (of which there are many competing
ones), the history of art, the lives of artists and of their works.
They don't make their decisions based on what they instinctively like
and don't like. And paintings don't cost $1.8M because the artist put
a price tag on it at random based on his own perception of self-worth,
but because the *art* market has shown so much interest in the artist
and his work that at auctions his work fetches those prices.
According to everyone in the art world, the gallery actually got quite
a good deal on Number 16.
Now if only I could find the $2000 for that old cookbook I saw....
--
Stephanie Moskal Fysh | "I meant," said Ipslore, bitterly, "what is
Dept. of English | there in this world that makes living worthwhile?"
Univ. of Toronto | Death thought about it.
(sf...@epas.utoronto.ca) | CATS, he said eventually, CATS ARE NICE. -Pterry
Ward Paul
>
>| >it must systematically collect important pieces from all the important movements
>|
>| And what is considered important now will be worthless in the future, and what
>| is irrelevant now will be highly valued in the future.
>
>Not necessarily. Historically, this hasn't been the case at
>all. Some shifting around occurs, but not to so great an
>extent as to threaten general property values, which would not
>be in the interest of the evaluators.
I should probably have qualified that "will" to some extent, but I shall
defend it as it stands. What you say depends highly on the time-frame in
question. More simply put, how many Greek plays do you know that are
performed? How about medieval church music? The monestries in England
were all destroyed in the reformation; can you say the same will not
happen in the future of art work? A lot will depend on the value of the
art to the society in question.
--
Paul
Jim Charters
br...@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:
>But if the issue is the use of tax money to acquire art, then perhaps society's
>opinions must be taken into account. In this electronic age, I'd like to
>see electronic referendums, where tax payers could "vote" via phone or
>another electronic media, on what public galleries should acquire, and how
>much they should spend.
>
Hmmmm.......$1.8 million seems like a lot of money, but let's put it
in perspective.
$1.8*10^6/27*10^6 people is approximately $0.07 each. Hardly worth
worrying about, considering the money squandered by all levels of
government.
This is a significant piece of art, if the critics are to be believed,
and at $0.07 per person, why all the fuss?
--
Jim Charters
Geophysicist & Chief Computer Flunkey / University of Toronto Geology
Toronto / Ont. / CANADA / M5S 3B1 / char...@quartz.geology.utoronto.ca
"Save the choad" (common a.t. sentiment) -- Hell, no. USE IT!
Ward Paul
>Hmmmm.......$1.8 million seems like a lot of money, but let's put it
>in perspective.
>
>$1.8*10^6/27*10^6 people is approximately $0.07 each. Hardly worth
>worrying about, considering the money squandered by all levels of
>government.
>
>This is a significant piece of art, if the critics are to be believed,
>and at $0.07 per person, why all the fuss?
And this is why we have such a large national debt. All those little items
(just $0.07 per person) add up.
(As a side note, all those who do believe $0.07 per person is irrelevant
should get the Gov't of Canada to send me $1.8 million :-)
--
Paul
br...@quake.sylmar.ca.us
>Brian Ross (br...@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca) wrote:
>:But if the issue is the use of tax money to acquire art, then perhaps society's
>:see electronic referendums, where tax payers could "vote" via phone or
>:another electronic media, on what public galleries should acquire, and how
>:admin's currently hold. (I bet they'd HATE this idea!)
>No, seriously, I don't think that system would work. Unless everyone who
>voted was required to view the proposed pieces in a gallery setting, in
>person, then there's no way they can possibly make an informed decision.
I have an idea! We could have people who were reall interested (since they
are the only ones whose opinions matter anyway) pay for the museums and
performances they actually attend. We could call it "private museums"
and nobody would have anything to complain about. The folks who think that
modern art is garbage (such as myself) will not have to pay for garbage to
be put on display, and those who like it can buy as much of it as they
desire, unfettered by any limits imposed by people like me who would just
as soon burn the stuff as look at it.
>Casting the ballot is easy, but ensuring that everyone _knows_ what they're
>voting for or against is impossible at the best of times. What you'd get
>is a bunch of people (like myself) looking at lousy, 2D, scaled-down, blurry,
>low-bandwidth newspaper or TV picture of a piece of art, then casting
>_ignorant_ votes it.
You seem to have no problem taking the money of those ignorant people or
allowing them to vote for public officials, so why are you all of a sudden
noticing that the man of the street is not necessarily going to know enough
about the facts to participate.
--Brian
David F. Skoll
golc...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>Whether or not you think the Voice of Fire or No.16 is art, it is
>a commodity that be bought and sold. From this perspective, it really
>doesn't matter if the commodity has real value or not, or if the buyers
>and sellers really know anything, or are just fools...what matters is
>that we can make a profit.
Yes, but what are the odds that the National Gallery would ever sell
the painting? And should it sell the painting, what are the odds
that it would turn over the profits to the taxpayers, the original
investors in the commodity?
--
David F. SKoll
David F. Skoll
>If you take one of those rectangles, and move it down say a couple of inches,
>the whole effect of the painting is destroyed.
Not true. If you move it down a couple of inches, you can see the
artist's initial ideas for the painting. By carefully analyzing the
painting with all the hi-tech equipment I could smuggle into the
gallery, I saw that just under the top part of the bottom beige
rectangle is a slightly darker beige shape that looks something like
this:
S U C K E R S
--
David F. Skoll
David F. Skoll
>Because this way, the society supports something that the society thinks is
>good. There is an interesting correlation between spending money on art and
>how stable the culture is as a whole.
Yes? See the movie "The Architecture of Doom" to see the great art
shows held in Berlin in the late 30's and early 40's. I don't know
that there's a correlation between spending money on art and the
desirability of a society.
(OK, I'm the first to admit that this analogy is waaay out in left
field. However, using some perceived threat to society to stop people
from calling what they perceive as expensive crap, expensive crap, is
also way out in left field. If you really want to support art, why not
give 60 promising young artists $30 000 each?)
--
David F. Skoll
br...@quake.sylmar.ca.us
>br...@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:
> Do that, and I can guarantee that in a hundred years or less, the
>Gallery's collection will be essentially worthless. If we must have a
>National Gallery (and I think we do),
Why must there be a national gallery? WHy must it be operated by the
government? Do you think that if people were asked to fund it voluntarily
they wouldn't provide the funds?
>it must systematically collect
>important pieces from all the important movements, especially those
>which have been influential with contemporary Canadian artists.
WHy is that important? Who cares about "contemporary artists"? These
days, if something is "contemporary" it is quite likely to be non-art
or just bad art. Is this really just welfare of living artists who can't
convince anyone to buy their work voluntarily?
>The
>value of a national collection is not in individual holdings but in the
>overall historical perspective which it provides.
Perspective regarding what? The prominent attitude of the culture?
On the whole contemporary artists have nothing to do with social attitudes.
In fact, they intentionally try to be different than what is preferred by
the public at large. If you want to have some record of the art of the times,
just stash the year's movies and a selection of rock albums from your nearest
music store. It would cost a lot less than 1.8 million.
>The Gallery owns a
>good deal of fairly ugly early Canadian art. Should the Gallery throw
>these things away despite their historical value? No!
What is their historical value? The art world these days has nothing to do
with anything outside itself and thus it has no relevance to the
history of the country.
>Similarly, we
>have to collect, as it becomes available, the art of this century. If
>we let people vote on these things, we will wind up with a collection
>with important holes for which future generations will rightly blame us.
Won't they blame you for filling the basement with piles of garbage?
>The curators of the Gallery both know what they have and what they need
>in order to provide a complete historical record of the art of our
>time.
The "art of our time"? What makes an artist or piece "important"? These days
it is an incestuous affair with the museums themselves being the only
purpose for the "art". If all the museums are doing is recording their
own history, they are a complete waste of time and money.
> A Gallery is not a living room. It's not just a place to hang
>some pictures. It is a type of museum specializing in objects
>which were produced as art. As such, aesthetics is not necessarily the
>prime consideration in building a collection.
Really? Aesthetic value is not the prime consideration in collecting art?
Can you justify that in terms of the purpose of art, the purpose of
museums, or anything ele?e>
>Indeed, there is a good
>deal of art which is DELIBERATELY ugly. (Consider some of Andy
>Warhol's work.) That does not diminish its importance.
Importance for what? Who cares about Andy Worhol? I sure don't and I wouldn't
shed a tear if everything he ever did was burned. Tell me, why should I care?
Or should I? Do tell.
I love art, and I enjoy looking at good art. This attitude that artistic
quality is unimportant compared to so-called "historical significance"
and intangible importance removes any justification for museums to exist
in the first place.
--Brian
br...@quake.sylmar.ca.us
>In article <1993Jul18.2...@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> br...@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:
>The point of art is not to please the public.
What is the point of art? To allow artists to paint whatever nonsense they
like at public expense? To fund the lifestyles of snobbish art directors?
What is it? Something else?
>>Here's are some philosophical/political issues that I'm struggling with.
>>I'm not intending this to be sarcastic (although I'm sure someone
>>will interpret it as such). Which is more valuable to a society:
>> (i) a strong national treasury of art;
>> (ii) a weaker treasury of art that is appreciated by the populace;
>> (iii) a populace that is healthy, clothed, and employed?
>The problem with this statement, is that it is quite likely you can't have
>iii without having i or ii.
This is a commonly heard bromide, but is it true? How is it that the fact
that there is some Rothko painting hanging in a gallery is going to somehow
put shoes on people's feet? I have my own theory on this (and it counts
Rothko out as non-art) but I am curious about how you arrived at this
conclusion.
>Also, the problem with having a healthy, clothed,
>and employed populace is related to the problem of having enough resources and
>how one distributes them. From a society viewpoint, it is a good thing to
>have some small amount of unemployment, some hungry, some poor.
So the reason we have government-funded art is to make sure that there are
always a few poor people? Curiouser and curioiuser.
Your premise seems to be that there needs to be some economic dictator handing
out the goodies to the populace. Is that really your position?
If there were no National Gallery, would those paintings and sculptures no
longer exist? According to you, the general public doesn't care to see it
anyway, so what is the point? To make sure artists can see what other artists
are doing (read: getting away with)?
--Brian
br...@quake.sylmar.ca.us
>In article <1993Jul18....@wisipc.weizmann.ac.il> wa...@agamit.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) writes:
>>In article <1993Jul18.1...@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> br...@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:
>>>tax payers could "vote" via phone
>>Just to put my two cents worth in; why bother? I mean, why should society
>>(ie taxpayers) pay for any art in the first place. If people want art,
>>people (individuals; organizations) can buy art. Why do we have this
>>silly National Gallery spending taxpayers' money on art?
>>Sell off the whole lot, and privatize.
>This is a pretty ridiculous statement and shows as much worth as privitizing
>our school system.
That would be a good idea too.
>That's right - art is education... If people feel that
>the only education comes from test tubes, pendulums, and calculus then
>they're sorely mistaken.
So tell me is you can, what does looking at a Pollack or Rothko painting
"teach" someone? I can think of some nasty lessons like "art is nothing"
or "understanding is futile" but I assume that you meant something
positive. Just what might one learn by looking at such contemporary art?
>Art is a privilege and a luxury, but by no means is
>it frivolous.
No? What is it good for? Even better, what good is a museum in Ottawa
to a taxpayer in British Columbia?
>You have clearly pronounced your ignorance by deeming that the
>National Gallery is "silly" yet not pointed out that that was your humble
>opinion.
Is it more than your humble opinion that abstract art is oh-so-useful?
> Already in our country there is a strong push to get rid of various arts
>in the school system (music is shrinking, as is art and phys ed - what about
>extra-curricular languages?)
PE is art? Foreign languages are art? What an odd definition.
>We cannot be so short-sighted as to feel that
>science is the only field to invest in. Although its short term goals may be
>apparent, the long term importance of art and culture in our society cannot
>be overstated.
OK then, go ahead and state why art is so important and exlplain why the
kind of art collected by the gallery fits that definition.
--Brian
br...@quake.sylmar.ca.us
>I agree! I agree! In my high school, the music department got cutbacks
>evrey year. In the art room, it was impossible to even find a pencil.
>[and yet somehow, the school had money to but a $12,000 running track]
Indeed, high schools generally put athletics above everything else in
priority and imporance. Consider what it would mean for a basketball
game to be canceled because of an important math exam is you doubt it.
>same thing in my college--at Brandies some huge center for brain studies
>is being built over the course of three years--a big huge deal. yet
>the art department needs more funding. I think when the arts are
>amrginalized in education that this may be a cause for art existing
>on the border of mainstream society
On the contrary, some artists are very well-paid and generally appreciated.
The public loves Michael Jackson, Madonna, Peter Gabriel, and Garth Brooks.
The reason the arts are marginalized in the university world is that
university artists have been pumping out ugly meaningless heaps of trash
and calling it "art" for years now and nobody wants or cares about such
"art". Believe me, if your art department was generating stuff of the
quality (and kind) of Parrish, Dali, Nagel, or Vermeer, you'd have no problem
being funded or appreciated.
--Brian
Andrew Webster
my 2 bits....
--
Andrew Webster and...@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
Jeff Harrington
: The National Gallery of Canada just spent $1.8 million on a work
: called "No. 16" by Mark Rothko, painted in 1957. I'm soliciting
: the help of the folks here on rec.arts.fine (couldn't find a
: rec.arts.abstract) and cross-posting to can.general to see if you
: can help shed some light.
: The painting is a red background (3x2.5m) with two beige rectangles,
: something like
: --------------------
: | ---------------- | The demarcations between the beige and
: | | beige | | red areas are not sharp, but appear to
: | ---------------- | be the result of using a wide house-
: | | painting brush very rapidly.
: | ---------------- |
: | | | |
: | | | |
: | | | |
: | | beige | | Of course, art is subjective and those
: | | | | trying to picture the work based on this
: | | | | crude description could not fairly
: | ---------------- | comment on it, but this is the second
: | | time the National Gallery has spent such
: | red | a sum on such a piece. (Three years ago
: -------------------- they spent 1.76 mil for a red stripe on
: a blue background.)
Sounds like one of his "Buddhist TV Sets." (Popular joke about Rothko ;-).
Jeff Harrington
idea...@dorsai.dorsai.org
--
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
(*) IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV (*) Zappin' CBS Evening News (*)
(*) idea...@dorsai.dorsai.org (*) Since 1983! (*)
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
Mike Melton
>
>I think it would have been worth more in a light azure blue ground
>and painted with a yard brush to give a more solid texture.
>Say around $2.5million.
>
>As a framer, I'm at the wrong end of the business.
>.....'Must do something about that!!!!!.....
Well, Sandy, I'd say you're in the right business. I wouldn't plan a
career change right now.
I was disgusted by the conservative, restrictive definitions of painting
I've read from the critics who posted to the Rothko and "1.8 mil" thread.
This Rothko paining represents a piece of history, which the museum has
purchased. Probably a very good investment. I suggest those who do not
understand this investment to read up on the history of this painting, and
what was transpiring with other painters at that time--while your at it,
take a look at what events where occurring on the socio-political scene.
Other references to the value of a painting being based on figurative "details"
are for those who cannot conceive of a painting existing as an entity in itself,
not representing anything physical. These people should stick to painting
barns and flowers, and, of course, the craft of framing.
Mike
Jim Charters
>Jim Charters (char...@madhaus.uucp) wrote:
>: In article <1993Jul18.1...@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>
>: br...@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:
>: >But if the issue is the use of tax money to acquire art, then perhaps society's
>: >opinions must be taken into account. In this electronic age, I'd like to
>: >see electronic referendums, where tax payers could "vote" via phone or
>: >another electronic media, on what public galleries should acquire, and how
>: >much they should spend.
>: >
>:
>: Hmmmm.......$1.8 million seems like a lot of money, but let's put it
>: in perspective.
>:
>: $1.8*10^6/27*10^6 people is approximately $0.07 each. Hardly worth
>: worrying about, considering the money squandered by all levels of
>: government.
>:
>: This is a significant piece of art, if the critics are to be believed,
>: and at $0.07 per person, why all the fuss?
>
>even though the cost for a typical case might be $0.01 per person.
Since when? Perhaps you have a "typical" case in mind?
Jim Charters
>In article <CAEwM...@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> char...@madhaus.uucp (Jim Charters) writes:
>
>>Hmmmm.......$1.8 million seems like a lot of money, but let's put it
>>in perspective.
>>
>>$1.8*10^6/27*10^6 people is approximately $0.07 each. Hardly worth
>>worrying about, considering the money squandered by all levels of
>>government.
>>
>>This is a significant piece of art, if the critics are to be believed,
>>and at $0.07 per person, why all the fuss?
>
>And this is why we have such a large national debt. All those little items
>(just $0.07 per person) add up.
>
Yes, but at least this is an asset. If the political will existed, it
could be liquidated. Which is more than I can say for a lot of the
money poured into programmes such as welfare, where loss to fraud is
probably more than enough to pay for the National Gallery and all the
treasures therein.....
For those who immediately get out their flame throwers, consider
this. In 1991 or 1992, when an investigation was made into welfare
fraus in metropolitan Toronto, apologists suggested that the
fraudulent claimes amounted to "only" 17% -- go multiply that by the
national welfare rolls, and then start talking about the national
debt.
Gerald Olchowy
>: Hmmmm.......$1.8 million seems like a lot of money, but let's put it
>: in perspective.
>:
>: $1.8*10^6/27*10^6 people is approximately $0.07 each. Hardly worth
>: worrying about, considering the money squandered by all levels of
>: government.
>:
>: This is a significant piece of art, if the critics are to be believed,
>: and at $0.07 per person, why all the fuss?
>
>even though the cost for a typical case might be $0.01 per person.
>
The NGA didn't "spend" the $1.8 million...it really invested it.
Unlike most government spending, we have property or an asset that
can be sold at a healthy rate of return in a decade or two if we
need the money. It is just a slightly more risky investment than
stocks or bonds.
Gerald
Gerald Olchowy
>
>(just $0.07 per person) add up.
>
>(As a side note, all those who do believe $0.07 per person is irrelevant
>should get the Gov't of Canada to send me $1.8 million :-)
The art doesn't contribute to the national debt...because it is property
and a capital asset whose value will probably increase more than enough
to compensate for the interest on the money the government borrowed to
pay for it...plus, it will probably draw visitors to the gallery, and
generate income on its own.
Gerald
Gerald Olchowy
>
>I have an idea! We could have people who were reall interested (since they
>are the only ones whose opinions matter anyway) pay for the museums and
>performances they actually attend. We could call it "private museums"
>and nobody would have anything to complain about. The folks who think that
>modern art is garbage (such as myself) will not have to pay for garbage to
>be put on display, and those who like it can buy as much of it as they
>desire, unfettered by any limits imposed by people like me who would just
>as soon burn the stuff as look at it.
>
In general, I tend to agree with the sentiment that government should
have as limited an involvement in art and culture as possible, however,
the fact remains that we supposedly hire skilled curators to make
artistic judgements, and in order for the artistic work to maintain
or increase its value, which is what is really important in this
case, is not that everyone like it, but a sufficient number of rich
people like it...so that the value of the painting increases faster
than inflation and gives a reasonable rate of return on our investment.
Concensus art is mush...art is not democratic...it is subjective.
Even when art becomes Art, it may only have at most a minority appeal.
The point of government involvement in art is to insure that what may
be significant art in the history of our country does not necessarily
get overlooked or entirely gobbled up by foreigners.
Gerald
Steve Leffler
>In article <1993Jul18....@julian.uwo.ca> wls...@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca
>(Wayne Smith) writes:
>>If this piece, and the voice of fire, are prime examples of "art", then I
>>ask if they would be so admired or treasured or acclaimed if they were
>>found in the back room of the museum, painted by an unknown summer
>>student. Beauty in the eye of the beholder, or in the name on the back...?
>... There is however no value in simple imitation. Note that
>the same is true of the work of the Renaissance masters in whose case
>even original works for which the artist borrowed only the style and
>signature are devalued once discovered.
^^^^^^^^^
One could just as easily argue that this is further evidence that it is
really only the name of the artist that matters, not how good the work is or
whether it has any kind of importance.
--
| Department of Physics
Steven Leffler | University of British Columbia
lef...@physics.ubc.ca | Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1
| CANADA
Gary L Dare
>br...@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:
>>Jim Charters (char...@madhaus.uucp) wrote:
>>:
>>: put it in perspective.
>>:
>>: believed, and at $0.07 per person, why all the fuss?
>>
>>Children are regularly denied expensive medical treatment in Canada,
>>even though the cost for a typical case might be $0.01 per person.
>
>Since when? Perhaps you have a "typical" case in mind?
JOKE! JOKE! It was only a joke!
[Lampooning various propoganda from the U.S. ...]
gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare Montreal Canadiens,
> g...@columbia.EDU 1993 Champions!
> g...@cunixc.BITNET La Coupe Stanley Cup
Marc Roussel
wa...@agamit.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) writes:
>In article <1993Jul18.1...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
>mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>>If we must have a National Gallery (and I think we do),
>
In simple terms, because art has historical value. The art being
produced by our generation says a lot about who we are. The National
Gallery is just as important a part of our educational and scholarly network
as the universities.
Marc R. Roussel
mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Marc Roussel
wa...@agamit.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) writes:
>Why should a select group of people take taxpayers' money
>and spend it on art?
By the same token, why should we support any scholarly work? As I
wrote in another posting, a Gallery is not a place to hang pictures. It
is a centre for study of art history and restoration (among other
things). If you think there's something wrong with the Gallery, you
should immediately surrender you Internet priviledges because government
subsidizes them for exactly the same reasons as they subsidize the
Gallery.
Marc R. Roussel
mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
David F. Skoll
mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>In article <1993Jul19....@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>
>br...@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:
>>Children are regularly denied expensive medical treatment in Canada,
>>even though the cost for a typical case might be $0.01 per person.
> What medical treatment are you talking about?
Medicare pays for medical treatment, but not for transportation costs.
There was a case recently about a baby in Newfoundland born without
eyes. The baby needs treatment available only in Ontario.
--
David F. Skoll
Darren Stone
: In article <22cvt3$3...@vanbc.wimsey.com> sto...@vanbc.wimsey.com(Darren Stone
: writes:
: >Why wouldn't the public be content to appoint experts who have
: >studied art and know how to put a good, valuable, varied collection together?
:
: How do you think the Gallery works? Who do you think its curator
: and staff and advisory boards are?
:
Exactly. If you read my post, you would have seen the reason for me asking
that question. I was responding to a proposal that the public should (by
electronic voting) _directly_ approve or disapprove pieces. I said it was
a lousy idea.
- Darren Stone
sto...@wimsey.bc.ca
Marc Roussel
br...@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:
>There must be a problem when the majority of people disdain work that is
>revered by the art community. Has art been hijacked?
The work of Picasso was held in low regard by the general population
when it first appeared but has since earned fairly widespread acceptance.
There are many more examples of this sort. These things just take time.
Art appreciation is much like music appreciation: There is pop music and
there is serious music for which one must educate one's ears and mind.
Marc R. Roussel
mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Darren Stone
: In article <22bvhn$n...@vanbc.wimsey.com> sto...@vanbc.wimsey.com (Darren Stone) writes:
: >Brian Ross (br...@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca) wrote:
:
: >Casting the ballot is easy, but ensuring that everyone _knows_ what they're
: >voting for or against is impossible at the best of times. What you'd get
: >is a bunch of people (like myself) looking at lousy, 2D, scaled-down, blurry,
: >low-bandwidth newspaper or TV picture of a piece of art, then casting
: >_ignorant_ votes it.
:
: You seem to have no problem taking the money of those ignorant people or
: allowing them to vote for public officials, so why are you all of a sudden
: noticing that the man of the street is not necessarily going to know enough
: about the facts to participate.
I do have a problem with taking money. That's why my post included that the
probably the only suitable thing the public should vote on related to art
is _how much_ to spend on it (that figure could be $0.00).
Assuming that the government is going to spend our money on art, and
assuming that the reason for building an art collection goes beyond just
simple viewing pleasure, then why should the public be allowed to approve
or disapprove aquisitions directly? They are not skilled to.
Art collection is a very specialized business, like other parts of government.
Let's say another part of government needs to spend a wad of cash on something.
Say the Ministry of Highways is going to resurface some freeways. They've
got the choice of spending their budget on several different types of asphalt
and concrete, and sealers, and machinery. Some options will cost tens of
millions more than others. Each has certain advantages and disadvantages to
the taxpayer. It would be silly to allow Joe or Jane Average on the street
to vote on what they wanted done. Sure, they'd have an opinion. It might
seem like they had good reasons for holding it, but it would be sadly
uninformed, and their input could screw up what's best for both themselves
and the rest of the citizens.
This is much different than electing public representatives. Even an armchair
citizen can typically determine which candidate is most in alignment with
his or her beliefs and desires. This is the core of our society and the
one thing everyone is instinctually qualified to do.
Again, this assumes that the government has some kind of business collecting
art for us. They seem to think that they do, so we've got to come up with
a responsible way to do it at least. Personally, I think your suggestion
about private galleries only is probably a good one.
- Darren Stone
sto...@wimsey.bc.ca
Bruce Jonathan Schuck
Not a chance. The National Gallery has almost zero relevance to anyone
who doesn't live in Ottawa.
Spend the budget on supporting artists in the provinces on a per
capita basis. Donate the art to *local* museums. Donate some of the BC
art to Newfoundland and vice versa, and so on.
--
===========================================================================
Bruce Schuck sch...@sfu.ca
Admin Systems (604) 291-3943
Simon Fraser University Rm 211 - Gym
===========================================================================
tr...@gw.wmich.edu
it devolved into a battle of the raging egos.
But back to the interesting part: I am surprised by the apparent ignorance of
more people than I would have expected in this group. Some of these people
went as far as to state that they are sure of what Michelangelo's reaction to
Rothko would be.
Though this person is an idiot, I think The idea of Michelangelo
seeing a Rothko is very interesting.
Rothko's work was about color, True.
More importantly however his work was about what color is all about: LIGHT.
He was going after the same effect that Michelangelo was: the sublime.
(Yes I said it, the S word).
When I saw a room of Rothkos I was trying to look behind the canvas to see
how a light had been attached to shine through the painting, but of course it
was simply the light from the painting itself.
It is the same sort of thing as the sun lighting up a stain glass window in a
church or cathedral. The light brings the viewer God, and, I believe, this
sort of thing was one of Rothko's concerns.
Michelangelo painted the Sublime as he was able to within the cultural
environment of his time. Rothko did the same thing. Both men were suscessful
and greatly revered after their deaths.
On another line from this discussion; I do not think anyone is too dumb or
ignorant to experience art. However, I do think that many people, many more
than they realize, are too stupid to discuss art. Some people, also, are too
smart to talk about it at length, realizing/remembering that this is visual
art here, NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION and there are reasons why it is expressed
this way, like, maybe, words don't always cut the mustard.
P.S.
To Ross: Seize a life, (or as much of one as possible with the brain of a
carp).
TROUT/KALAMAZOO
Marc Roussel
>On the whole contemporary artists have nothing to do with social attitudes.
>In fact, they intentionally try to be different than what is preferred by
>the public at large.
I don't think that this is true. What is much closer to the truth
is that the good artists try to produce art that reflects something
about the world around them. For instance, the art of our generation is
angry. It takes a stand on issues. I think that reflects something
about us that largely wasn't true of earlier generations of Canadians.
It certainly wasn't true of Canadians and their art twenty years ago.
>What is their historical value? The art world these days has nothing to do
>with anything outside itself and thus it has no relevance to the
>history of the country.
Suffice it to say that I disagree.
>Aesthetic value is not the prime consideration in collecting art?
>Can you justify that in terms of the purpose of art, the purpose of
>museums, or anything ele?e>
The purpose of art is far from simple. I certainly don't have the
knowledge required to do this question justice. On the other hand, the
purpose of a museum is straightforward: It is a center for the study
and preservation of history. Just as the Museum of Civilization is an
anthropological and archeological museum, preserving and making
available to scholars the artifacts of day-to-day life, the Gallery is
an art museum which makes it possible for scholars to gain a sense of
the evolution of painting, drawing and sculpture in this country. It is
a place where they can examine a representative sample of both Canadian
art and of pieces which have been influential in the development of our
schools. The public education function of the Gallery goes
hand-in-hand with this. That people are allowed to just walk in off the
street and look around (at least on Thursdays :-)) is an important but
completely incidental side-benefit.
Think of it this way: Most universities have rare book collections
which, in addition to having significant acquisition budgets, require
special care. In most cases, some of the money required to support
these facilities comes from government, in one form or another. The
Gallery is exactly the same sort of facility, supporting exactly the
same sort of scholarly activities.
>This attitude that artistic
>quality is unimportant compared to so-called "historical significance"
>and intangible importance removes any justification for museums to exist
>in the first place.
"Artistic quality" is a rather intangible notion itself. It is
easy to purchase large quantities of beautiful art which no scholar will
take the least interest in because it represents well-trodden paths. It
is easy to acquire a collection that even a typical member of the
general public will think dull because of its uniformity of treatment.
(Be honest: The Group of Seven room gets a little hard to take after a
few minutes, doesn't it?) It is far harder to find the pieces required
to build a Gallery to which one can return over and over again, every
time experiencing the same wonderment as on one's original visit. It
is harder still to create a historically significant collection.
The walls of my apartment are not covered with avant-garde works.
On the other hand, when I go to a gallery, I expect to see them along with a
sampling of works which explain to me how we got there. I may not like
everything I see. (There are some metal sculptures which I neither
understand nor appreciate for instance. On the other hand, some of
these things do eventually grow on you. My parents own a sculpture which
I once thought a repulsive piece of trash but which I now enjoy immensely.)
I may feel that the Gallery would have done better spending its money
otherwise. However, I don't presume to tell scholars who have devoted
their whole lives to the study of art how to build the collection
in such a way that it will be a useful record of the evolution of art in
our time.
By the way, if you're planning a trip to the Gallery anytime soon,
I suggest that you poke into their "open storage" room. It's of course
not particularly carefully arranged, but it can be fun to go on a sort
of quick treasure hunt through there. I just thought I'd pass that
along to take the edge off this highly charged discussion. :-)
Marc R. Roussel
mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Marc Roussel
>So tell me is you can, what does looking at a Pollack or Rothko painting
>"teach" someone? I can think of some nasty lessons like "art is nothing"
>or "understanding is futile" but I assume that you meant something
>positive. Just what might one learn by looking at such contemporary art?
I'll let someone else respond to the main thrust of this question,
especially since it wasn't directed at me. Let me point out though that
in addition to whatever you specifically learn from examining a
particular painting or set of paintings, examining a well put-together
collection lets you learn something generic about human intellectual
evolution, namely how a few ideas mesh together in the genesis of a new
school of thought. The Gallery's Canadian collection is spectacularly
well designed for this purpose.
>Even better, what good is a museum in Ottawa
>to a taxpayer in British Columbia?
Now that is a good question. It may be that we made a mistake in
building the Gallery and that the national collection should in fact be
dispersed over a number of smaller galleries scattered throughout the
country. There is some value in a large, centrally housed national
collection (for scholarly purposes, as well as for economy in the
conservation function), but it is true that general public interest in
such institutions declines with distance. I suppose that you have to
fall back on the argument that it has to be somewhere, just like the NRC
labs have to be somewhere. Perhaps in the future we will be able to
afford a few "branch" Galleries (just as the NRC has labs in a few
places other than Ottawa), but just now that is clearly not possible.
I know that at least some of the other National Museums sponsor
various sorts of traveling exhibits but I have never heard that the
National Gallery does so. Does anyone know if it does? I know that it
occasionally participates in (often multinational) special-topic
exhibits. I'm wondering if it ever sends parts of its collection on
tour across the country. Obviously, I have no illusions that Voice of
Fire will be making many cross-country trips, but the Group of Seven
sketch collection would make an interesting and highly educational
traveling exhibit for example.
Marc R. Roussel
mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Marc Roussel
(Steve Leffler ) writes:
>mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>>... There is however no value in simple imitation. Note that
>>the same is true of the work of the Renaissance masters in whose case
>>even original works for which the artist borrowed only the style and
>>signature are devalued once discovered.
>
>really only the name of the artist that matters, not how good the work is or
>whether it has any kind of importance.
The artist's name acquires importance not by accident but because
there was something about his or her work which distinguished it when it
was produced. Either the artist pioneered a new style or new methods or
was unusually competent at something or other which his or her peers had
not yet mastered. Then (and this is key) other artists became familiar
with the techniques of the master and acquired these skills. That is
how the artist (and his or her work) gains importance. The work of
Da Vinci then is important because he not only discovered (and applied) many
principles of faithful representation but passed his learning on. A
Da Vinci forger on the other hand can learn these principles from a
textbook and thus has much less merit.
Marc R. Roussel
mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Marc Roussel
>In <1993Jul19.2...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
>mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>>In article <1993Jul19....@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>
>>br...@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:
>>>Children are regularly denied expensive medical treatment in Canada,
>>>even though the cost for a typical case might be $0.01 per person.
>
>> What medical treatment are you talking about?
>
>Medicare pays for medical treatment, but not for transportation costs.
Each province makes up its own rules about this sort of thing. I
don't think that this is true of every province. In fact, I'm fairly
sure that it's not entirely true of Ontario, i.e. there are
circumstances in which OHIP will pick up transportation costs.
Marc R. Roussel
mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Marc Roussel
>routine X-rays, in order to cut back on expenses. Doctors can be disciplined
>for giving too many X-rays.
It seems to me that the problem there is two-fold:
1. There is no real agreement about what is necessary and
what constitutes abuse.
2. In a fee-for-service system, the government has only very
blunt tools with which to control expenses.
Marc R. Roussel
mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Marc Roussel
>mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jul18.1...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
>>>mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>>The National
>>Gallery is just as important a part of our educational and scholarly network
>>as the universities.
>
>Not a chance. The National Gallery has almost zero relevance to anyone
>who doesn't live in Ottawa.
By the same argument, the Kaon factory has almost zero relevance to
anyone who doesn't live in BC. Large countries like Canada have special
problems when it comes to creating centres of scholarship. That does
not mean that we shouldn't build such places however.
Marc R. Roussel
mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Mark G. Salyzyn
>>Just to put my two cents worth in; why bother? I mean, why should society
>>(ie taxpayers) pay for any art in the first place.
>I feel like that too. (While I really like Rothko, and don't approve of
>"the market" as the instrument of determining value, I guess we gotta
>let the market be free).
More to the point, why do we have an elite organization that's only
purpose is to increase the value of Canadian Art until it is out of
reach of normal plebes like me? Heck, I can't even afford the trip to
view this `art' ;-)
This debate, of the value of art, rages on, and yet not one of us would
want to even try to imagine *no* art anywhere amoungst our travels, in
or out of the cities we live in. The *real* debate is whether public funds
should be used to purchase art for elite organizations ... I say put #16
in the closest Metro station to brighten it up!
-- Mark
Line the walls of the Museum with felt paintings!
Bruce Jonathan Schuck
>In article <schuck.7...@sfu.ca> Bruce_...@sfu.ca writes:
>>mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jul18.1...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
>>>>mrou...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>>>The National
>>>Gallery is just as important a part of our educational and scholarly network
>>>as the universities.
>>
>>Not a chance. The National Gallery has almost zero relevance to anyone
>>who doesn't live in Ottawa.
> By the same argument, the Kaon factory has almost zero relevance to
>anyone who doesn't live in BC.
What Kaon factory. No money has been allocated. None will.
Only suckers believe Ottawa will spend that kind of money
outside of the Ottawa/Montreal/Toronto triangle.
>Large countries like Canada have special
>problems when it comes to creating centres of scholarship. That does
>not mean that we shouldn't build such places however.
We are waiting for one out here in BC.
Mark G. Salyzyn
>I'd like to see some funds contributed towards the study of why art has
>earned such a bad reputation with the general public during this century.
Me too! My guess is that after spending $1.795Million dollars on the study, we
will find out that it is all <answer withheld, to be sold later as art>
-- Mark
Mark G. Salyzyn
>OK then, go ahead and state why art is so important
How short or long do you want me to make this? Art, beauty, culture,
philosophy <blah> <blah> enriches us in ways that can never be counted,
extoled or placed in a neat row in front of an uncaring individual (I should
know, trying to justify children to singles, young adults, homosexuals, and
D.I.N.K.s ;-) :-).
A simple analogy would be: place one in a cement room with steel bars,
isolated from mankind, and ask him how much he would `pay' just to see
a pretty picture!
>and exlplain why the
>kind of art collected by the gallery fits that definition.
Sorry, I can't, this picture (Cell block #16) looks like a cement room, with
steel bars. But, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess some
people would find art that looks like a wasteland worth casting their
eyes upon ... it is not my position to judge the beauty of a poster, I
can only judge it from the collective reaction of several that have seen
enough beauty in it to comment (if you all find it ugly, then it must be ugly!)
What worries me is the budget, attitude (or elitism) and deeply regional
nature (I have been there once, being from Alberta, very hard for me to even
justify this kind of trip again) of this gallery. This gallery, in my humble
opinion, *must* be funded by who it benefits, which amounts to support
from the city of Ottawa and Hull only!
Now, if they allowed their acquisitions to tour across Canada, to the
other `regional' museums, rather than keep a substantial portion of their
`art' to themselves (I mean, a SUBSTANTIAL portion, not some token visits),
then I may feel compelled to ignore this kind of infraction in judgement.
Rather, why should Ottawa be the sole beneficiary of Federal Funding!
-- Mark
An Albertan with a Red Neck!