|
| Thread: Priorities: art or the people? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV |
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
posted September 24, 2015 08:06 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Who is?
Is kind of like Bach but kicking a ball instead of scrabble some notes. 
P.S. I see what you made me do? Just to prove a snowy point? Now I will have to whip myself in penitence.
|
|
elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 08:25 PM |
|
|
blizzardboy said:
80 million is a small fraction of the cost to build an aircraft carrier (simply the construction itself: nevermind the ongoing cost), which I understand you're okay with because you're a "big spender" when it comes to military investments, or anything else that you fancy.
Oh really? What pray tell tickles my fancy?
I believe in a small government of limited power over the people, that keeps to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, as far as US government goes. The more things a government gets involved in the more money it must take from those who earn it.
Certainly military spending is necessary for any people to remain free unless they depend on another nation for their defense. Artwork is certainly not a necessary expenditure for any government and is an inappropriate use of taxpayer money in my opinion. I'm sorry you find that to be offensive.
____________
Revelation
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 11:45 PM |
|
|
elodin said:
ll tickles my fancy?
I believe in a small government of limited power over the people, that keeps to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, as far as US government goes. The more things a government gets involved in the more money it must take from those who earn it.
Certainly military spending is necessary for any people to remain free unless they depend on another nation for their defense. Artwork is certainly not a necessary expenditure for any government and is an inappropriate use of taxpayer money in my opinion.
Define "necessity". I don't need a road outside of my house in order to survive. I don't (necessarily) need a military either. Perhaps I would prefer to rely on my own guile for protection from the Swedish military juggernaut. They're all just very useful to have, and (local, state, federal, depending on the level) government pays for it. I don't need a school next to my house either, but it's still there. Mandated schools didn't even exist in the world until relatively recently.
Quote:
I'm sorry you find that to be offensive.
I accept your apology, but really, don't apologize to me. I don't have a million migrants on my doorstep. I just have lazy, welfare-dependent prairie dogs on my doorstep.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Dies_Irae
Supreme Hero
with the perfect plan
|
|
posted September 28, 2015 09:08 AM |
|
|
This thread has been asleep for 4 days, I see. Time to pour some Elixir of Life into its engine again  .
I have a few more articles to share, unfortunately they are all in Dutch (save for one). However, I will try and capture the essence of them in a summary.
Meerderheid tegen aankoop Rembrandt-schilderijen
Majority votes against purchase of Rembrandt paintings
According to a public opinion poll, 36% percent is in favor of the purchase, 56% is against. This does not add up to a 100%, though. Could be that the remaining 8% of voters did not care. The article is silent about the number of voters, so there is need for some caution. I mean, there's a difference between 1000 and 100.000 voters, right? More than half of 100.000 voters is a much stronger number than that of only 1000.
Verzet tegen Rembrandtmiljoenen van Staat
Objection against Rembrandt-millions of the State
Hm, on the face of it I thought it to be an article with a view of its own, but it turns out to be exactly the same information as in the article above. Same poll, same results, same absence of number of voters. Just a copy-paste .
Bussemaker: Rijksmuseum krijgt voorrang bij aankopen Rembrandts
Bussemaker: 'Rijksmuseum has priority for purchasing Rembrandts'
France is also joining the party, they too want to have these paintings - or at least one of them. However, according to Jet Bussemaker (minister of Education, Culture and Science), the chances of both coming to the Netherlands are strong, for the Rothschild family has favored the Rijksmuseum. France has 80 million in store for one of the two paintings, and they're striving to buy the paintings together with the Netherlands, with the agreement to take turns exhibiting the paintings.
-
This whole situation with France being part of it is running deep. The French appear to feel cheated. They claim that there was an agreement with the Netherlands to buy the paintings together, they don't understand why 'we' suddenly want them both. The letter they wrote was made for the agreement, but the Netherlands say that it was just a notification of the French intention to buy them together. The Rijksmuseum is said to have the Rothschild's favor, but the French say that the Rothschild's are interested in the other option, and that they would rather sell to the Louvre.
It appears that the French are afraid that the paintings might leave their country once and for all:
"Een poging van het Louvre om de doeken in Frankrijk te houden strandde begin dit jaar, waarop tot grote verontwaardiging van veel Fransen een exportvergunning werd afgegeven en de angst ontstond dat de doeken buiten Europa terecht zouden komen."
An attempt by the Louvre to keep the paintings in France stranded at the start of this year, followed by public indignation about the issuing of an export license which gave birth to the fear that the paintings might end up outside of Europe.
What I presented as something taking place within the borders of the Netherlands has become, or already was, something far more complicated. The scope of my thread is still valid as you can see, but with this information we can place it in a broader context. Two countries fighting over two paintings, while within the NL there is also a major disagreement. The French claim A, NL claims B. The French feel cheated, the Dutch tried to speed up the purchase by their delegation at the expense of the French.
Click 1
Click 2
Click 3 (French article)
____________
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted September 28, 2015 11:13 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 23:15, 28 Sep 2015.
|
Dies_Irae, I think the additional struggle just highlights that more than one government is miss-focused. (to put in very, very nicely)
First off, I greatly enjoy The Arts (and do several myself)but my enjoyment has nothing to do with any nation collecting taxes to run said nation, that spends that collected money on Art.
<imo>The stance adopted towards the question; "Right or Wrong" is heavily biased by the current status of the responder and also his or her family or friends and how knowledgeable of social problems. If I know only of one person in my family that cannot find work but know the same person will not "consistently" get up in the morning for any job-that in my days like those, I would not have thought about this question and likely have said; Why not? “It’s important to keep our national treasures.
But years later, when I know lots of people, even ones I don't know, are working two jobs but still cannot make ends meet, while government services are always for foreigners and international problems while our politicians are only focused on the WANTS of Big-Business and appear to not give a flying flip about children receiving a good education, relief for the homeless, struggling families, affordable healthcare and many other serious public issues? There’s not a chance in hell I would vote for any Government buying any “additional” luxury whatsoever; they already live in a realm of kingship compared to the ordinary citizen.
Btw, Since the born-rich “have to store-up money for the needs of five family generations ahead,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmlX3fLQrEc
I say; make those types buy any necessary national-art as a gift for the nation they pillage.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 29, 2015 07:06 AM |
|
|
To slightly clarify (though the essence of my opinion hasn't changed): I don't have the background knowledge / connection to ascertain the cultural significance of these paintings. 80 million is a small but not insignificant amount of money. If it's a big enough deal I would be okay with it, though I could conceivably be against it.
Nation states setting aside a portion of their budget for cultural/artistic/archaeological/historical projects and displays is perfectly fitting. It's a shame China didn't devote a little more money to this before they finished damming the Yangtze: a lot of centuries-old or millennia-old sites were drowned before proper excavation and movement of delicate artifacts could take place.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Dies_Irae
Supreme Hero
with the perfect plan
|
|
posted February 14, 2016 10:30 AM |
|
|
*Uses his Grandmaster Necromancy-ability to resurrect this thread*
Since the last post in this thread, things have happened on this front.
France and the Netherlands reached an agreement regarding the Rembrandt-portraits. The Louvre bought the woman, the Rijksmuseum bought the man. Each paid 80 million for their respective half of the set. Two different museums each own half of the 'complete' work, so that brings with it yet another problem. How are they going to exhibit them? This has little to do anymore with the original scope of the topic, but for the sake of closure and completism I might as well share this with you.
The idea is that the portraits should remain together at all times, and be exhibited both in the Rijksmuseum and the Louvre. That means they have to be transported to and fro the whole time. My guess would be that this will be done every six months or so. However, it's not yet known who will be the first to show both portraits, and for how long.
With that problem out of the way, another one arose: who is going to do the necessary restoration? The works need to be in a good condition for exhibition and transport. In France, restoration practice is different from what is usual in the Netherlands. Here, discoloured varnish (which tends to make a painting look brownish-yellow) is removed as much as possible, while in France they tend to be more careful about this. The discussion whether time is an 'improver' of paintings is a totally different one altogether, one that I could start elsewhere if people are interested .
The agreement is now that the paintings will be restored in the Netherlands, under strict surveillance of an international committee of experts, led by the Australian-born head of the restoration department of the Rijksmuseum. The last restoration of these paintings was in 1956, when they were in the Rijksmuseum for a large Rembrandt-exhibition. Further negotiations will have to cover the transportation of the artworks, and the insurance.
The Rembrandt Association, which is an important sponsor for the purchase of artworks in the Netherlands, is disappointed with how it all turned out. They were willing to pay 5 million for the purchase of both works, but that support has been cancelled. Furthermore, they are worried about who will be responsible for the costs when a work is damaged. They are concerned that the 'story' behind the portraits, of a young 17-th century couple, cannot be told well in the Louvre. It is more at home in the Rijksmuseum.
The government defends this co-ownership with the argument that at least these works won't be shipped off to China or end up in the bedroom of some rich oil sheikh.
____________
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted February 14, 2016 10:35 AM |
|
|
" Art for art's sake in an empty phrase. Art for the sake of truth, art for the sake of the good and the beautiful, that is the faith I am searching for.”
- George Sand
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted February 14, 2016 05:23 PM |
|
|
Well the story has the typical Government ending, doesn't it?
<imo> They spent a great deal of cash that should have went for necessities for the People but of course it cannot end there. Now that the first wad of cash was spent, now comes another in restoring said "must have" but of course that will still not be the end of the cost to taxpayers. Forgetting whatever those Governments give to where the Art will be housed and displayed and the people paid to work there, because of the split-decision both countries will have to dole money out for the transport and protection of this "priceless stuff". Priceless, what a fitting word.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
| |
|
|
