The UK’s National Gallery – a state-backed institution – and galleries in Scotland have secured £50 million to pay to keep a Titian painting “for the nation”, using state – taxpayer’s money – for this purpose. A Scottish Labour MP has criticised the use of taxpayers’ funds on this painting, arguing that such money would be better spent on supporting arts eduction for school children instead. The story is here. Naturally, the idea that a work of art that has been loaned by its owner is private property and should not be thought of as a something that belongs to “the nation” is not addressed in the article I link to, since that is outside the intellectual frame of reference either of the arts bureaucrats who spend this public money, or indeed the Labour MP who criticises them.
Leave aside the hopefully temporary problems posed by the credit crunch. For the past decade or so, there has been a huge amount of money swirling around among the rich and even not-so-rich to be spent on the arts. There is no need, in my view, for a penny of taxpayer’s money to be spent on the arts. Leave aside whether you love or loathe the things that public funds are used to support: the point is that these things should not be receiving tax-raised funds at all. Let the rich of today patronise what budding Titians, Raphaels or Turners that might be out there.
Don’t get all het up about terminology. Had the Titians been sold then many people who are now able to see them, wouldn’t be able to do so and this would have been a “loss”. This would constitute, moreover, a “loss to the nation”, even if the nation is viewed in your usual phillistine way as nothing more than a collection of individuals. Now, you may argue that the loss was lower than 75p or so each person has contributed to buying it,* or that no loss of this sort can justify theft, but that is a different point.
The art budget should be slashed, libertarian arguments aside, because it is a huge slush fund used to support idlers, shits and perverts and (unlike the idlers, shits and perverts of yore) they don’t produce anything decent. As to the Titians, one is very good, the other not so much, but, all in all, I’m glad they were bought up. Politics is just a bunch of interest groups seeking to screw over the others, and it’s pretty rare that my interest group gets to have its go.
*About £15 mill was raised privately.
Gabriel writes:
Well that is something with which I agree: the positive case for abolishing arts subsidies is that it encourages bad art, bolsters a corrupt arts establishment, etc. But your view implies that you are quite okay with forcing the public – taxpayers – to fork out for art if you think the art is of a standard you accept.
And my objection is not philistine, Gabriel. I admire great art and admire those who pay for it; I do not admire the idea that in order to produce or keep great things, we should force people to pay for it.
As for keeping art “for the nation”, Titian was not even British anyway. It was acquired privately in the first place by a Highland-clearing aristo.
Basically.
And I didn’t say your objection was phillistine, I said atomism is phillistine.
To describe the idea of individualism as philistine is an odd use of language. The standard dictionary definition of the term, as an adjective, is: “smug and ignorant and indifferent or hostile to artistic and cultural values”, to take an example. It has nothing necessarily to do with whether a person is a liberal in their views about the relationship between the individual and the state. An individualist can be an art-lover, just as a collectivst can be a materialistic oaf, etc.
I didn’t say “individualism”, though, did I?
Gabriel, atomism is often a word that people who support state powers use to attack individualism and liberal ideas generally. It is an old canard. I choose to spend my money on what I want. How terribly atomist of me!
No shit. It’s also a word that Oakeshott and other people use as a derogatory term to describe certain ethical-philosophical systems that deserve deroagation. I think it was pretty clear what I was getting at.
Gabriel:
I believe there is a lot to be said for the general stress you often lay down here on the importance of conserving certain traditions. How that general theme fits with non-state action – and clashes with state action – strikes me as rather interesting and relevant to Jonathan’s article. However…
“And I didn’t say your objection was phillistine, I said atomism is phillistine.”
No you bloody didn’t…
“I didn’t say “individualism”, though, did I?”
… you didn’t say ‘atomism’ either and it was you – in your first comment – who had the temerity to urge Jonathan not to ‘get all het up about terminology’.
And as for this sentiment:
“Politics is just a bunch of interest groups seeking to screw over the others, and it’s pretty rare that my interest group gets to have its go.”
I’d say such a readiness to resort to base desertion of principle shows that you’re the last person to be pointing to anything with that tag ‘philistine’.
Jonathan:
“…the hopefully temporary problems posed by the credit crunch”
Do you know something Peter Schiff doesn’t?
Mike, sorry, cannot help you there on the final point!
Dearie me
i.e. atomism.
So, as you can see ,”phillistine” was used as an adjective to describe a group of words that are synonymous with “atomism”. Therefore I said atomism=phillistine, and not that JP’s point was phillistinical. Not that it was even very germane to my point.
**
What principle? That the arts budget should be mis-allocated? That I should stand around like a dolt in imaginary-libertarian-world whilst everything I value is destroyed? That changing the meta-context trumps getting something I want done, even if not doing it will do flip all to change the meta-context? None of these are principles of mine.
According to something I read, every single person in this country is on the hook for £32,000 from Gordon Brown’s borrowing alone, you think I’m going to cry because some infinitessimal smidgen of that went on a couple of paintings I like? Frankly, all the bumwits who like to watch people running in straight lines, sometimes over hurdles, sometimes into a sandpit, owe me a lot more than two paintings.
Gabriel, you have been following this blog for several months, so you no doubt realise that we oppose bank bailouts, auto bailouts, tax money for the Olympics, art subsidies, the whole shebang. We are consistent across the board. You want to pick and choose those bits of the public spending machine that favour your values or whims.
There is a broader point: if we do not oppose these supposedly minor spending issues, what chance have we to oppose the larger ones?
“Idlers, shits and perverts”
– that’s me fucked then.
OK, but Gabriel… Wasn’t Titian a chutney ferret which by certain standards makes him a pervert. It’s horses for courses of course and therefore shouldn’t we all just spend our own money on what we like…
Other point. The money shouldn’t go on education either. I’d rather it went on the Titian than funding crappy “conceptual” art colleges. Now they really are havens for idlers, shits and perverts…
Had to google that one! I don’t think so actually, though obviously many have been. Anyway, as I said, the point is that the recipients of public moneys don’t produce anything good. Titian, whether he liked to pack fudge or not, certainly wasn’t an idler and very few great artists were (Vermeer maybe). However, most of them were state funded, in the sense that their patrons were often Duke/Prince/King somethingorother.
Now, our current ruling class is made of the sort of people who consider the Guardian an organ of high culture rather than daily insult to human intelligence, so obviously they can’t be trusted to patronise art. However, this is a contingent fact and if, in some stroke of luck, they decide to spend some of the money on Titian rather than yet another *challenging* exposé of western imperialism, then that’s a cause for celebration.
Which leads me to
Yes, there is an arts budget, that’s a done deal. So. the question – at least for me – is does it get spent on a bunch of c**nts, or on something worthwhile. That, in a few rare cases, it is the latter, gives me some hope that civilized life in this country might have legs.
**
We have no chance either way. This way I get to look at Titians.
Look, 50% of all money spent in this country is spent by the state. The proportion is even higher if you take out essentials for living. If you decide to be all pure, then you’re basically saying “I’m content to see everything I value wither because I live in a demi-Soviet country and I don’t want to participate in that”. Maybe you are, but I’m not. Society has had it’s legs broken by the government and, until they heal, the government might have to push the wheelchair a little.
I can fight two battles at one time, one to decrease the size of government and another to modify that government into something less hideous. Unless a victory in one – and heaven knows they’re rare enough – actively detracts from the other, I welcome it. To take one example, I don’t greet changes to the National Curiculumn with indifference just because, ideally, the whole education system as it exists should be abolished. If a good one ever comes along, I’ll be happy about it.
This is a work of art by an Italian painter and should really be displayed in one of the many wonderful Italian art galleries. Let the Italians pay for its maintenance and upkeep. After all, as citizens of the glorious European Empire, we are all entitled to look.
(from a disgrunted turnip muncher)
If taxpayer’s money is to be spent,then it is better spending it on something that will increase in value rather that the shit government can spend money on.
It is certainly worth more than the MPs and Quangocracies that plague the land.
Nostalgic, quite.
Nick M: that was priceless!
Gabriel, you are trying to pick whatever crumbs are to be had from the state’s table. That’s not going to work.
Anyway, I prefer to play the principled stance of saying that however much I might love or like something, I don’t demand my fellows should be coerced into paying for it.
“Now, our current ruling class is made of the sort of people who consider the Guardian an organ of high culture rather than daily insult to human intelligence, so obviously they can’t be trusted to patronise art.”
– I diagree Gabriel. They are patronising to art all the time!
“This way I get to look at Titians. ”
– I don’t much care for Titian. In fact you, me, JP, Perry and uncle Tom Cobley undoubtedly have different tastes. The only fair way is if you, me … Tom Cobley pay for what we like. Sounds fair to me.
Maybe that Titian should have been paid for by public subscription from Titian lovers… Lots of art works (many more than now) have been “saved for the nation” by that route. Fine, great. The reason it doesn’t happen is that the state is there and is so engrained that the minute anyone thinks “Something muyst be done!” then it’s gubbermint they turn to. Getting rid of this heffalumping gubbermint and changing the metacontext is the only way this will change.
“I don’t greet changes to the National Curiculumn with indifference just because, ideally, the whole education system as it exists should be abolished. If a good one ever comes along, I’ll be happy about it.”
-Precisely. Gabriel. By the same token If the 255 bus to Pluto ever comes along I’ll hop on board. We’ve had the NC for 20 odd years. Isn’t that enough time to realize that no good will ever come of it.
Getting gubermint out of the arts matters a lot to me because it is always one of the things which too many people believe just can’t be done without the government. Showing it can and showing it actually flourishes without the dead-hand at the tiller would be a huge boost to the cause. I mean, hell’s teeth Ugg the cave-chap doodled on cave walls! And he didn’t get a fucking grant from the Arts Council.
PS. If you dig through the Whited Sepulchre blog you ought to find (if interested) a spirited but friendly discussion between me and one of his commentators on publically funded art. Sorry. I’d have to look for the URL and the cooker don’t clean itself and it’s time to rinse off the foam…
You get my second on that as well. Far better that the money be spent on rescuing admirable works of art than spending £100Bn on saving 6,000 Labour voters’ jobs. At least one can SEE a Titian.
Personally I’d rather vote for spending £50m on researching how to save Terry Pratchett’s brain for the nation from the ravages of Alzheimer’s disease.
This art thing is just one example of something called “Culture War”. When the state takes on the role of the guardian of culture, it leads to a fight for the control of the state. At this point, all is fair so long as the state does what I consider to be valuable. Such mentality can hardly be considered friendly to the philosophy of liberalism (I mean, the one in the European sense, not the American one).
There is one sure way that one can make sure his/her values can be forced unto society: dictatorship. And even that does not guarantee such regime would remain in place. Liberalism has a neutral view about culture (Aside liberty). Unlike socialism, it does not in principle seek to destroy religions (Unless they end up threatening individual liberties). With regards to art, liberalism is neutral. Nothing prevents a Titian or Van Gogh to be displayed in private museums. So, the other solution with respect to arts would be to stop its public funding.
Here’s the URL that NickM referenced above.
The post is ok, but the debate in the comments (between two great people) is highly recommended.
http://thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.com/2009/01/my-design-proposal-for-department-of.html
Thanks Whited… I did clean the oven and all. Then I made a fish pie. And then by the rivers of mess-alon I sat down and wept. For the mess was almost as great as had been cleaned.
If that doesn’t say more about the “modern condition” than anything in contemporary art then I’m Jan Van Eyck.
I have a dilemma. I support the idea that arts and culture should be self-supporting. BUT I also like the quality of much of the stuff from the BBC that we see here in Australia, usually on the government-owned ABC. some of the shows are never seen on the commercial networks. Whilst we do have ’60 minutes’ on one of the commercial stations, it never comes near the quality of the documentaries that appear on the ABC’s Four Corners.
I suppose a solution would be to privatise the Corporation, and let it exist from rentals and products from the shows, like ‘Top Gear’ Magazine.
How viable might that be? Could the BBC be as good without the TV licence?
“How viable might that be? Could the BBC be as good without the TV licence?”
I’d have to say yes, without a doubt. I’m American (“United States of” variety) and we have PBS, a national tax payer funded station. They have some excellent documentaries. But they also have some complete shit. Such as: The Lawrence Welk Show (a 60’s big band show that my mom remembers hating when her mom watched it), Sewing With Nancy (Nancy sews shit), Victory Garden (some old broad gardens shit).
We also have here in The States (and you may have as well, I don’t know) on cable: The Discovery Channel, The History Channel, The Science Channel, and several derivatives of those. They also have a mixture of great documentaries and shit tripe.
But I see no reason why the excellent PBS docs couldn’t get sold to those cable channels. Hell, even the BBC’s “Planet Earth” (not sure if it was named that outside the US or not)…the 2005(?) nature documentary with David Attenborough (SP?) was aired on The Discovery Channel here.
There is a market for that stuff. No gov’t subsidies are needed.
Thanks for the good wishes, Jeff. But does the PBS survive on its’ income, or is there a tax to support it?
(I think we’ve seen all of Sir Attenborough’s shows over the years. The only life he hasn’t filmed would be the deep sea trenches- obviously his next series!)
You colonials have a rather rosy view of the BBC. Generally you cherry-pick the good stuff. The BBC makes some utter crap and us Brits have to pay for it whether we like it or not.
Nuke: Yes, PBS gets tax money. My point is that even if PBS ceased to get that money there would still be a market for their excellent docs. Sewing With Nancy and Lawrence Welk on the other hand would likely no longer be on the air. (In fairness to Lawrence, all those shows are reruns from the 60s or whenever.)
Not sure if you Godless Non-Americans have something similar, but we have a group of channels called C-SPAN. they are 100% funded by the cable companies, no gov’t cheese at all. During weekdays C-SPAN1 shows the house of representatives, C-SPAN2 shows the senate (or the other way around) with no commercials or commentators. In the morning they have an excellent news discussion show with various guests, at night they show talks given by groups like The Cato Institute, The Brookings Institute and things like that. I’ve never noticed a hint of bias in any of the interviewers or anything like that.
Sorry for the tangent, I just really really love swinging from C-SPAN’s nuts 🙂
Nick: The Beeb gave us ‘mericans Top Gear for free! For that I am eternally grateful to the BBC and you poor shlubs who have to pay for it.
To paraphrase: “Some people know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.”
In the grand scheme of things, 35 million quid is money well spent, when one considers the cultural benefits to the “nation” (i.e. a bunch of people living in the same country code).
Sorry: I am as philistine as the next man, but when it comes to art, especially the Old Masters, I’m a complete sucker.
The Italians have enough art — good grief, under the Vatican is a vault containing over 75 thousand pieces of as-yet-unseen ancient sculpture — so I’m all in favor of Britain keeping the odd Titian.
Look at it this way: the Titians will take up gallery space which might otherwise be occupied by some dreadful modern shit — and if that isn’t a cultural benefit for the nation, I don’t know what is.
Finally, given that Government is going to piss away money anyway, the millions spent on keeping the Titians will be millions that cannot be allocated to government bureaucrats’ salaries.
That’s sufficient reason right there.
The rich of today do patronise the arts, just as in the olden days.
And just as then, they use other peoples money to do it.
It’s just that the methods of getting their hands on other peoples money has changed and been made more respectable.
Top Gear is a great show, and there is a magazine that offsets costs. I just wonder if all shows could be similarly funded.
Jeff, FWIW, my wife likes “Sewing With Nancy” (she watches lots sewing and quilting programs). And since there’s so much airtime to fill and so many hundreds of cable channels I’m sure it would find a home somewhere even without PBS (that sort of show is really cheap to produce). But I do agree with your basic point; PBS shouldn’t be subsidized by the taxpayers.
Laird: Fair enough. I just always giggle a little when I see that on my channel guide.
But yes, I could see that being aired on the DIY Network, or TLC. Or maybe even MTV. I hear they are trying to cut costs after all.
Most of “the rich” who provided art galleries (and other such) did not get their money in some “unrespectable” way as J. Hardy and the other Communist comics of the B.B.C. claim.
“Paul always calls people he does not like Marxists” – only when they are (look at the background of the B.B.C. comics with their sneering at “Victorians nicking stuff”).
Neither farming nor most manufacturing or trading was wrong (although there are always some bad people about) – in fact this attack obscures (and is meant to obscure) the basic fact that these supposedly wicked “rich people” were the real benefactors of mankind – and before they even gave a Pound to culture. For (again contrary to the lying scum of the “education system” and the BBC) the business enterprises they built up led to the highest wages and the best conditions that the world had ever seen.
Lower than the modern world certainly – but without which the modern world could never have existed. And sadly as the lessons of the past have been twisted into reverse the modern world (and its prosperity) may well not last.
However, one must not forget that most of the money for most cutural activities in Britain and the United States was NOT from “the rich” – it was small amounts of money from vast numbers of fairly ordinary people.
All this maintained the cultural institutions of town and city – before Lord Keynes and his “Arts Council” came along in the 1940’s.