Official Election Artist

professorben

So I saw on the news this morning we have an official election artist, seems we have had one since 2001.

Just me or is it a total waste of money?
Im all for supporting the arts, but you have to wonder if this money could not be better spent on a nurse, or maybe some free nursery places?

Oh and it's a woman for the first time, well whoop-ti-doo!!

its still a total waste of time. 

Oh oh and if anyone was wondering here is a sample of the least elections 'pieces' by Adam Dent

https://imgur.com/gallery/et6Jz

olafgarten

Wow, those paintings are Masterpieces! How much did he get paid to do those. 

Heartfeltdawn

professorben said:

its still a total waste of time. 

Which is something that could be said of the arts, sports, playing Angry Birds Blast, all manner of activities. 

Financially it's £17,000 + expenses so a drop in the ocean compared to what will be spent during this election. I suspect the publicity around this will see it scrapped in the future. 

professorben

Heartfeltdawn said:

professorben said:

its still a total waste of time. 

Which is something that could be said of the arts, sports, playing Angry Birds Blast, all manner of activities. 

Financially it's £17,000 + expenses so a drop in the ocean compared to what will be spent during this election. I suspect the publicity around this will see it scrapped in the future. 

K so looking at £20k+ for this. 

In other words the startling salary for 1 nurse, or a teacher nearly. 

I agree its a drop in the ocean, but those drops add up, what's more valuable to the country, art pieces like those from last year or a nurse?

professorben

Oh and it turns out it was the keyboard player from Genesis's idea!?!?! 

Fretwired

professorben said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

professorben said:

its still a total waste of time. 

Which is something that could be said of the arts, sports, playing Angry Birds Blast, all manner of activities. 

Financially it's £17,000 + expenses so a drop in the ocean compared to what will be spent during this election. I suspect the publicity around this will see it scrapped in the future. 

K so looking at £20k+ for this. 

In other words the startling salary for 1 nurse, or a teacher nearly. 

I agree its a drop in the ocean, but those drops add up, what's more valuable to the country, art pieces like those from last year or a nurse?

I wouldn't mind if the art were good - presumably it could appreciate with time and provide a record of what went on.

However, I've seen better A-level art portfolios ... couldn't they find someone with something called talent?

Heartfeltdawn

If approaching it on a purely financial level as you are, probably the art actually if you consider that it will most likely appreciate value over time without the need for much additional expenditure. 

A nurse: £20k per year in salary, works for 30 years, comes to £600,000.

Now how do you attribute her value to society? The emotive answer would be "She can save lives". What sort of financial value can you clearly attribute to her contribution though? 

professorben

Ok so £17k for 7 weeks is £485 PER DAY. 

Lets say 12 hour day, (cos it's a passion innit and deadlines) that's £40 an hour to knock up sub sixth form exhibition pieces. 

Im no art expert, and I know it's all subjective, but I can play guitar to a reasonable standard, I could hold my own In most musical situations, and I'm not even a professional, this Adam Dent does art for a living!!!!

professorben

Heartfeltdawn said:

If approaching it on a purely financial level as you are, probably the art actually if you consider that it will most likely appreciate value over time without the need for much additional expenditure. 

A nurse: £20k per year in salary, works for 30 years, comes to £600,000.

Now how do you attribute her value to society? The emotive answer would be "She can save lives". What sort of financial value can you clearly attribute to her contribution though? 

1) you believe the 2015 election art will be a sought after commodity in 30 years? 
2) The tax paid by the patients she saves or even prolongs the working lives of would far outweigh the financial appreciation of the art work. 

Heartfeltdawn

professorben said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

If approaching it on a purely financial level as you are, probably the art actually if you consider that it will most likely appreciate value over time without the need for much additional expenditure. 

A nurse: £20k per year in salary, works for 30 years, comes to £600,000.

Now how do you attribute her value to society? The emotive answer would be "She can save lives". What sort of financial value can you clearly attribute to her contribution though? 

1) you believe the 2015 election art will be a sought after commodity in 30 years? 
2) The tax paid by the patients she saves or even prolongs the working lives of would far outweigh the financial appreciation of the art work. 

1) Most likely, yes. Irrespective of future financial appreciation, future expenses are minimal once the artist is paid and the works produced. 

2) And there you go with the emotive angle. Doctors and surgeons generally save people, nurses less so. They're there to facilitate recovery more than being life savers. Undoubtedly their efforts will help people recover and thus taxation paid by the patient will factor in. 

But what happens if she prolongs the life of the retired and sick who aren't working and will never work? Financially they cost the state money rather than contribute. 

This is the point I'm getting at. You're trying to compare two totally different items that don't really have any decent means for making comparisons. 

3) Adam Dent does art for a living thus demonstrating there is a market for his art, yes? 

Steffo

I like the idea of an official artist, but those pictures kind of suck, don't they?

professorben

Heartfeltdawn said:

professorben said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

If approaching it on a purely financial level as you are, probably the art actually if you consider that it will most likely appreciate value over time without the need for much additional expenditure. 

A nurse: £20k per year in salary, works for 30 years, comes to £600,000.

Now how do you attribute her value to society? The emotive answer would be "She can save lives". What sort of financial value can you clearly attribute to her contribution though? 

1) you believe the 2015 election art will be a sought after commodity in 30 years? 
2) The tax paid by the patients she saves or even prolongs the working lives of would far outweigh the financial appreciation of the art work. 

1) Most likely, yes. Irrespective of future financial appreciation, future expenses are minimal once the artist is paid and the works produced. 

2) And there you go with the emotive angle. Doctors and surgeons generally save people, nurses less so. They're there to facilitate recovery more than being life savers. Undoubtedly their efforts will help people recover and thus taxation paid by the patient will factor in. 

But what happens if she prolongs the life of the retired and sick who aren't working and will never work? Financially they cost the state money rather than contribute. 

This is the point I'm getting at. You're trying to compare two totally different items that don't really have any decent means for making comparisons. 

3) Adam Dent does art for a living thus demonstrating there is a market for his art, yes? 

Dear sir, I have read a lot of your posts and comments on here and can see you are a rational and intelligent man, I can help but feel you are taking the role of devils advocate on this as I can't honestly believe you feel Adam Dents Election daubs are equal or greater than the worth of a nurse or similar healthcare professional, I'm not talking about his overall career I'm talking about the money paid to him for this specific project. 

professorben

professorben said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

professorben said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

If approaching it on a purely financial level as you are, probably the art actually if you consider that it will most likely appreciate value over time without the need for much additional expenditure. 

A nurse: £20k per year in salary, works for 30 years, comes to £600,000.

Now how do you attribute her value to society? The emotive answer would be "She can save lives". What sort of financial value can you clearly attribute to her contribution though? 

1) you believe the 2015 election art will be a sought after commodity in 30 years? 
2) The tax paid by the patients she saves or even prolongs the working lives of would far outweigh the financial appreciation of the art work. 

1) Most likely, yes. Irrespective of future financial appreciation, future expenses are minimal once the artist is paid and the works produced. 

2) And there you go with the emotive angle. Doctors and surgeons generally save people, nurses less so. They're there to facilitate recovery more than being life savers. Undoubtedly their efforts will help people recover and thus taxation paid by the patient will factor in. 

But what happens if she prolongs the life of the retired and sick who aren't working and will never work? Financially they cost the state money rather than contribute. 

This is the point I'm getting at. You're trying to compare two totally different items that don't really have any decent means for making comparisons. 

3) Adam Dent does art for a living thus demonstrating there is a market for his art, yes? 

Dear sir, I have read a lot of your posts and comments on here and can see you are a rational and intelligent man, I can help but feel you are taking the role of devils advocate on this as I can't honestly believe you feel Adam Dents Election daubs are equal or greater than the worth of a nurse or similar healthcare professional, I'm not talking about his overall career I'm talking about the money paid to him for this specific project. 

Sorry if I was coming across as confrontational, I do see where you are coming from. 

But i I do feel they are directly equatable things, as the money that pays for them is the same.

given the choice, you have £17k+ expenses in one hand and you are asked to either give it to Adam Dent for his election artwork or to a typical hospital nurse to secure her job for 12 months, which would you choose?

Heartfeltdawn

professorben said:

Dear sir, I have read a lot of your posts and comments on here and can see you are a rational and intelligent man, I can help but feel you are taking the role of devils advocate on this as I can't honestly believe you feel Adam Dents Election daubs are equal or greater than the worth of a nurse or similar healthcare professional, I'm not talking about his overall career I'm talking about the money paid to him for this specific project. 

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that you're trying to make a comparison between two incomparable things. 

By all means, slate the notion of paying £20k for an election artist as a waste of money. No problem with that. But the angle of 'the worth of a nurse' without figures is an argument based purely on the emotive rather than anything substantive. 

The artist spend is really small. Now if you want to see some real wasting of money in action, then I would suggest reading this article. Note that it was the House of Lords who wanted to save money and not those in the other house. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/15/lords-overruled-recording-laws-vellum-goat-calf-skin

Public outrage over vellum is rare because that kind of shit doesn't get the publicity of "artist paid money fury" style headlines in the Sun. 

Heartfeltdawn

professorben said:

Sorry if I was coming across as confrontational, I do see where you are coming from. 

But i I do feel they are directly equatable things, as the money that pays for them is the same.

given the choice, you have £17k+ expenses in one hand and you are asked to either give it to Adam Dent for his election artwork or to a typical hospital nurse to secure her job for 12 months, which would you choose?

No problem, I didn't think you were being confrontational

Now you've actually changed the criteria here. By going with the "£20k - you can have option A or option B" approach, then it's the nurse front that wins. 

professorben

Heartfeltdawn said:

professorben said:

Sorry if I was coming across as confrontational, I do see where you are coming from. 

But i I do feel they are directly equatable things, as the money that pays for them is the same.

given the choice, you have £17k+ expenses in one hand and you are asked to either give it to Adam Dent for his election artwork or to a typical hospital nurse to secure her job for 12 months, which would you choose?

No problem, I didn't think you were being confrontational

Now you've actually changed the criteria here. By going with the "£20k - you can have option A or option B" approach, then it's the nurse front that wins. 

Cool cool, btw I've not changed the criteria I perhaps just didn't make a good  go of making it in the first place, all in all yes wasting of public funds is chronic.

But fundamentally at some point someone decided that they had/needed money for an artist, im aware different depts have seperate budgets etc, but it all come from your and mine pocket. 

I personally work in the pvt sector in a role where I physically repair and install stuff, thus it's possibly more difficult for me to appreciate less tangible benefits of other professions. 

But I do feel that Art gets a bit of a free ride a lot, I've never heard of an official government election trombonist or dancer. 

If an artist can make a living from their work, more power to them, but why should they have access to public money to do this? 

Evilmags

There is a proportionality issue that makes them impossible to equate. The state hires more nurses in a week than artists in a whole cycle. 

Heartfeltdawn

Your mention of tangible benefits is where it all lies. How do you translate medical care into some kind of tangible value? 

A teacher can look at test scores and use an overall positive improvement in their pupils as a tangible value. Doing that for the medical world is more difficult. 

The questions of where taxpayers money should go will never go away. Take something like the Poet Laureate. Carol Ann Duffy currently receives £5.750 per year and a case of sherry. Should we scrap that? Generally I get a bit more pissed about sports and the taxpayers, the West Ham saga being an obvious example. 

Budgie

Why is it that every time the arts has any kind of funding, and lets face it arts funding has been cut to near extinction in recent years, some Charlie has to bring out the age-old and worn-out argument of nurses pay or whatever other emotive comparison springs to mind to reinforce their point of view.

Do you really think that the funding for this has been diverted from the NHS budget? 

Artists have always documented important events, they provide an important cultural document for the future. Just look at the work of John and Paul Nash, Eric Ravilious, Stanley Spencer, Wyndham Lewis and many more. Their work has survived generations and offers a real insight of the day. The work is important and valuable both culturally and monetary.

I'm not making a comment on the above artist's work, it doesn't seem right. I will say though, like much of the arts, it has become a bit of a thankless task being an artist. It's hard to survive in the arts and with current attitudes and massively reduced funding, exhorbitant university fees, we are in danger of losing the potential great artists of the future.

It's a small amount of revenue. It wasn't destined for the NHS. Please change the record.

-edit

It would also appear that Adam Dant was the election artist in 2015. A quick search on google would suggest his work is rather interesting and of high quality. The 2017 artist is the Royal Academician Cornelia Parker... that appointment should really get the blood boiling from the usual suspects lol!

professorben

Budgie said:

Why is it that every time the arts has any kind of funding, and lets face it arts funding has been cut to near extinction in recent years, some Charlie has to bring out the age-old and worn-out argument of nurses pay or whatever other emotive comparison springs to mind to reinforce their point of view.

Do you really think that the funding for this has been diverted from the NHS budget? 

Artists have always documented important events, they provide an important cultural document for the future. Just look at the work of John and Paul Nash, Eric Ravilious, Stanley Spencer, Wyndham Lewis and many more. Their work has survived generations and offers a real insight of the day. The work is important and valuable both culturally and monetary.

I'm not making a comment on the above artist's work, it doesn't seem right. I will say though, like much of the arts, it has become a bit of a thankless task being an artist. It's hard to survive in the arts and with current attitudes and massively reduced funding, exhorbitant university fees, we are in danger of losing the potential great artists of the future.

It's a small amount of revenue. It wasn't destined for the NHS. Please change the record.

-edit

It would also appear that Adam Dant was the election artist in 2015. A quick search on google would suggest his work is rather interesting and of high quality. The 2017 artist is the Royal Academician Cornelia Parker... that appointment should really get the blood boiling from the usual suspects lol!

I don't get funding for any of the Art ( music) I create, I fund it out of my own pocket. 

Dont know their work, never consciously observed/appreciated/been moved by it, however I have been tended to by nurses when sick. 

struggling artist is a phrase for a reason. 

It's a commonly used argument for a reason, it's a valid point. 


Art art is a luxury, sure fund the arts, but after the hospital waiting lists are eliminated, when classrooms are sub 20 pupils to a teacher, when GP's are easy to see, when police are able to effectively tackle crime etc etc etc. 

Foster

professorben said:

Art art is a luxury, sure fund the arts, but after the hospital waiting lists are eliminated, when classrooms are sub 20 pupils to a teacher, when GP's are easy to see, when police are able to effectively tackle crime etc etc etc. 

Out of interest do you have a list of things that should be priority before spending any money on other, lesser, projects?

Remove any and all funding for the arts - fine, I disagree but for the sake of conversation let us assume it has happened. What next shall we cut funding for? Sport funding should be an obvious one, people can run for free so why should the government give money to groups when it could be spent on the NHS?