Official Election Artist

Budgie

professorben said:

Budgie said:

professorben said:

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. 

I am a full time professional artist and I don't get any funding either. I am lucky to have the representation and support of a number of commercial galleries which has come from hard graft and perseverance. Art funding tends to go towards the budgets of institutions like major galleries, opera houses, theatre, other creative venues, community groups or individual artists whose work benefits the community in some way whether by workshops for kids, murals, dance workshops, anything really. There is also opportunity for funding for one off public art commissions which again, are normally targeted at enriching everyone's environment. I don't know one single artist who thinks that they are owed a living by being funded. Mostly artists, like musicians, work for free with a hope of being able to sustain a meagre living from it or at best a very good living from it.

Over the last few years arts funding has been decimated by cuts, so in effect it is already way down the queue and very much further down the list of government spending than the obvious areas such as health, education etc. etc.

Have you any idea how much revenue the creative industries benefit the economy in this country? Google it... it is not at all insignificant.

Scapegoating funding for the arts for the problems in the NHS, education or whatever is just silly. Why not blame sports funding or pretty much anything that you don't deem worthy or relevant.

I can't understand the anger from people that the arts seem to generate to be honest. 

And rightly so I believe, art is a frivolous thing.
Education, welfare, health, defence, policing, these are areas that uphold the very fabric of society, Art to me is Brian Sewell or that nun wandering around fuck-off great big rooms talking bout 'angry brush strokes' and 'the artists obvious statement' or worse still the Turner prize entrants nonsense.

I once spent an afternoon walking around the Tate Modern, one exhibit was an looped film of an artist naked painted blue wearing a rabbit mask and snorkel punching himself in the face wearing boxing gloves, I mean really it's hardly bloody Matisse is it!!!

The arts as a whole, need some of stand on its own two feet, if it can't survive it fails, just like anything in the real world. 

You seem to suggest art is in some way to blame for all of society's failings. Wow. You don't like art, fine.. nobody is trying to convince you otherwise. I don't think what I do for a living is in any way frivolous. I don't know what you do for a living that puts you in a position of judgement, I don't particularly want to know either but society would be much poorer and far less advanced without creative people. You put in, you get it back in different ways. Simple really.

olafgarten

Most of it is crap, but this one is actually quite good: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/17/adam-dant-the-government-stable-storeroom-that-contains-an-election

But I still wouldn't pay 17 grand for it.

professorben

Budgie said:

professorben said:

Budgie said:

professorben said:

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. 

I am a full time professional artist and I don't get any funding either. I am lucky to have the representation and support of a number of commercial galleries which has come from hard graft and perseverance. Art funding tends to go towards the budgets of institutions like major galleries, opera houses, theatre, other creative venues, community groups or individual artists whose work benefits the community in some way whether by workshops for kids, murals, dance workshops, anything really. There is also opportunity for funding for one off public art commissions which again, are normally targeted at enriching everyone's environment. I don't know one single artist who thinks that they are owed a living by being funded. Mostly artists, like musicians, work for free with a hope of being able to sustain a meagre living from it or at best a very good living from it.

Over the last few years arts funding has been decimated by cuts, so in effect it is already way down the queue and very much further down the list of government spending than the obvious areas such as health, education etc. etc.

Have you any idea how much revenue the creative industries benefit the economy in this country? Google it... it is not at all insignificant.

Scapegoating funding for the arts for the problems in the NHS, education or whatever is just silly. Why not blame sports funding or pretty much anything that you don't deem worthy or relevant.

I can't understand the anger from people that the arts seem to generate to be honest. 

And rightly so I believe, art is a frivolous thing.
Education, welfare, health, defence, policing, these are areas that uphold the very fabric of society, Art to me is Brian Sewell or that nun wandering around fuck-off great big rooms talking bout 'angry brush strokes' and 'the artists obvious statement' or worse still the Turner prize entrants nonsense.

I once spent an afternoon walking around the Tate Modern, one exhibit was an looped film of an artist naked painted blue wearing a rabbit mask and snorkel punching himself in the face wearing boxing gloves, I mean really it's hardly bloody Matisse is it!!!

The arts as a whole, need some of stand on its own two feet, if it can't survive it fails, just like anything in the real world. 

You seem to suggest art is in some way to blame for all of society's failings. Wow. You don't like art, fine.. nobody is trying to convince you otherwise. I don't think what I do for a living is in any way frivolous. I don't know what you do for a living that puts you in a position of judgement, I don't particularly want to know either but society would be much poorer and far less advanced without creative people. You put in, you get it back in different ways. Simple really.

Really not, I like art, well some art. 
At no point did I state that I feel Art is to blame for societies ills, what I do think, is that funding some bloke following the election around the country producing simply childish works, when that money could be better used elsewhere is a no brainer. 

You are an artist, well done, congratulations, I'm sure you are contributing and bettering society in every way, me? I'm an electrician, I fix lights so people don't fall over and hurt themselves in the dark, or that people can see things to buy in shops. 

Its not my profession that puts me in a position of judgement, it's having a rational awareness of the world we live in that makes me judge situations and concepts as either good or bad. 

Public money funding art = bad
Public money funding education = good

its really quite simple, I'm surprised it's such a difficult concept for you to grasp. 

Ask the average man on the street how "The Fighting Temeraire" has bettered his life this year, or how the election art of Simon Roberts ( this gem https://imgur.com/gallery/8owWK)
and im sure you will be greeted with a blank look. 

So maybe you can illuminate and educate me as to the advances that the election art has brought society?
this is your chance, I'm willing and open to see your point. 

Budgie

professorben said:

Really not, I like art, well some art. 
At no point did I state that I feel Art is to blame for societies ills, what I do think, is that funding some bloke following the election around the country producing simply childish works, when that money could be better used elsewhere is a no brainer. 

To much emotive baggage here to bother making a considered response.

You are an artist, well done, congratulations, I'm sure you are contributing and bettering society in every way, me? I'm an electrician, I fix lights so people don't fall over and hurt themselves in the dark, or that people can see things to buy in shops. 

I haven't said I am bettering society at all. You simply made that up. As I mentioned, I have no interest in what you do for a living and you seem to insist on mentioning it to somehow reinforce the fact that you are an average bloke on the street... well, so am I. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder about this. You make rooms brighter with lighting and I make rooms brighter by other means. One is not better than the other (probably).

Its not my profession that puts me in a position of judgement, it's having a rational awareness of the world we live in that makes me judge situations and concepts as either good or bad. 

Again, this is simply untrue. You have invented a scenario and are now pushing your opinion as being somehow factual - it isn't. It's a hastily conceived judgement based on something you clearly have a dislike for, cobbled together with various emotive comparisons in an attempt to validate for point of view.

Public money funding art = bad
Public money funding education = good

Your second point is good, your first point could do with a little more work.

its really quite simple, I'm surprised it's such a difficult concept for you to grasp. 

As above really. There is no concept, you made it up.

Ask the average man on the street how "The Fighting Temeraire" has bettered his life this year, or how the election art of Simon Roberts ( this gem https://imgur.com/gallery/8owWK)
and im sure you will be greeted with a blank look. 

Again, another hastily invented scenario and the person is a figment of your imagination. It does not support your point of view in any way.

So maybe you can illuminate and educate me as to the advances that the election art has brought society?
this is your chance, I'm willing and open to see your point. 

But what would be the point of adding to what I wrote earlier? You are a closed book on the subject and the fact you state you are 'open' and willing' is again, another fabrication... you clearly aren't. Why would you conclude that your education is my responsibility?

professorben

Budgie said:

professorben said:

Really not, I like art, well some art. 
At no point did I state that I feel Art is to blame for societies ills, what I do think, is that funding some bloke following the election around the country producing simply childish works, when that money could be better used elsewhere is a no brainer. 

To much emotive baggage here to bother making a considered response.

You are an artist, well done, congratulations, I'm sure you are contributing and bettering society in every way, me? I'm an electrician, I fix lights so people don't fall over and hurt themselves in the dark, or that people can see things to buy in shops. 

I haven't said I am bettering society at all. You simply made that up. As I mentioned, I have no interest in what you do for a living and you seem to insist on mentioning it to somehow reinforce the fact that you are an average bloke on the street... well, so am I. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder about this. You make rooms brighter with lighting and I make rooms brighter by other means. One is not better than the other (probably).

Its not my profession that puts me in a position of judgement, it's having a rational awareness of the world we live in that makes me judge situations and concepts as either good or bad. 

Again, this is simply untrue. You have invented a scenario and are now pushing your opinion as being somehow factual - it isn't. It's a hastily conceived judgement based on something you clearly have a dislike for, cobbled together with various emotive comparisons in an attempt to validate for point of view.

Public money funding art = bad
Public money funding education = good

Your second point is good, your first point could do with a little more work.

its really quite simple, I'm surprised it's such a difficult concept for you to grasp. 

As above really. There is no concept, you made it up.

Ask the average man on the street how "The Fighting Temeraire" has bettered his life this year, or how the election art of Simon Roberts ( this gem https://imgur.com/gallery/8owWK)
and im sure you will be greeted with a blank look. 

Again, another hastily invented scenario and the person is a figment of your imagination. It does not support your point of view in any way.

So maybe you can illuminate and educate me as to the advances that the election art has brought society?
this is your chance, I'm willing and open to see your point. 

But what would be the point of adding to what I wrote earlier? You are a closed book on the subject and the fact you state you are 'open' and willing' is again, another fabrication... you clearly aren't. Why would you conclude that your education is my responsibility?

So given the opportunity to illustrate ( see what I did there) your point, you won't.

You can see how I can only assume you can't. 

Again im not angry with Art, well mostly not, but rather the notion of Electoral Art paid for with public money which IMO ( note lack of humble) is a wasteful and pointless thing. 

Art itsself can be wonderful, a lot possibly most of it isn't in my view, but hey that's me. 

You were the one that dragged professions into it from your first post, you happen to be an artist, and so it's difficult for you to see things as anything other than as an artist. 

Heartfeltdawn

professorben said:

Its not my profession that puts me in a position of judgement, it's having a rational awareness of the world we live in that makes me judge situations and concepts as either good or bad. 

Public money funding art = bad
Public money funding education = good

its really quite simple, I'm surprised it's such a difficult concept for you to grasp. 

Ask the average man on the street how "The Fighting Temeraire" has bettered his life this year, or how the election art of Simon Roberts ( this gem https://imgur.com/gallery/8owWK)
and im sure you will be greeted with a blank look. 

So maybe you can illuminate and educate me as to the advances that the election art has brought society?
this is your chance, I'm willing and open to see your point. 

1. This 'rational awareness'... if situations are judged simply as good versus bad, then once again it's adopting a black and white mentality to things. 

2. With this equation, there is a problem:

Public money funding art = bad
Public money funding education = good

You assume that there is no value derived from funding the art, that the end users don't get anything from it. That is quite possible. 

However, like the 'nurses save lives' argument, you automatically believe that funding education produces an inherent value, whether it's lives saved or kids learning. It isn't true. There are no guarantees that spending £17k on a nurse will save a life or that £17k on a teaching assistant will produce better exam results. In other words, spending that money still might produce no tangible improvements for the end user/s. Like the first round, it's simply emotive reasoning.

So if you want to exist on the purely emotive, then that £17k should be sent straight to a charity in Africa for starving people and not spent on people in this country on the grounds. 

3. It's a bit rich saying that other people can't grasp simple concepts when your own approach is so rigid. 

4. And then it's talking about the average man on the street... well, the average man in the street is statistically unlikely to be treated by that extra £17k nurse or to have any benefit from that £17k extra for education so it becomes a moot point, and the notion of "the average man on the street" without any statistics or analysis as to what the average man on the street is renders the whole notion void. You might as well write "the average large-bollocked rainbow-shitting unicorn on the street". At least we could have some fun with that testicular abnormality. 

5. Four new submarines capable of carrying Trident missiles have a Government costing of £31 billion spread over 35 years with a £10 billion contingency. Those figures work out as 0.2% of total Government budget. In the grand scale of things, there are far greater targets for ire than £17k on some pictures every five years. 

Budgie

professorben said:

Budgie said:

professorben said:

Really not, I like art, well some art. 
At no point did I state that I feel Art is to blame for societies ills, what I do think, is that funding some bloke following the election around the country producing simply childish works, when that money could be better used elsewhere is a no brainer. 

To much emotive baggage here to bother making a considered response.

You are an artist, well done, congratulations, I'm sure you are contributing and bettering society in every way, me? I'm an electrician, I fix lights so people don't fall over and hurt themselves in the dark, or that people can see things to buy in shops. 

I haven't said I am bettering society at all. You simply made that up. As I mentioned, I have no interest in what you do for a living and you seem to insist on mentioning it to somehow reinforce the fact that you are an average bloke on the street... well, so am I. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder about this. You make rooms brighter with lighting and I make rooms brighter by other means. One is not better than the other (probably).

Its not my profession that puts me in a position of judgement, it's having a rational awareness of the world we live in that makes me judge situations and concepts as either good or bad. 

Again, this is simply untrue. You have invented a scenario and are now pushing your opinion as being somehow factual - it isn't. It's a hastily conceived judgement based on something you clearly have a dislike for, cobbled together with various emotive comparisons in an attempt to validate for point of view.

Public money funding art = bad
Public money funding education = good

Your second point is good, your first point could do with a little more work.

its really quite simple, I'm surprised it's such a difficult concept for you to grasp. 

As above really. There is no concept, you made it up.

Ask the average man on the street how "The Fighting Temeraire" has bettered his life this year, or how the election art of Simon Roberts ( this gem https://imgur.com/gallery/8owWK)
and im sure you will be greeted with a blank look. 

Again, another hastily invented scenario and the person is a figment of your imagination. It does not support your point of view in any way.

So maybe you can illuminate and educate me as to the advances that the election art has brought society?
this is your chance, I'm willing and open to see your point. 

But what would be the point of adding to what I wrote earlier? You are a closed book on the subject and the fact you state you are 'open' and willing' is again, another fabrication... you clearly aren't. Why would you conclude that your education is my responsibility?

So given the opportunity to illustrate ( see what I did there) your point, you won't.

You can see how I can only assume you can't. 

Again im not angry with Art, well mostly not, but rather the notion of Electoral Art paid for with public money which IMO ( note lack of humble) is a wasteful and pointless thing. 

Art itsself can be wonderful, a lot possibly most of it isn't in my view, but hey that's me. 

You were the one that dragged professions into it from your first post, you happen to be an artist, and so it's difficult for you to see things as anything other than as an artist. 

Just refer to the last point in the previous post again in reponse. Is that it, are we done?

Heartfeltdawn

Budgie said:

Just refer to the last point in the previous post again in reponse. Is that it, are we done?

I reckon so

I don't like this art so it shouldn't be funded by public money seems to be the verdict for one source. 

Me:  hate kids so they shouldn't be funded from public money either Burn the lot of them, freeloading bastards. 

Now where's that unicorn?

professorben

Heartfeltdawn said:

Budgie said:

Just refer to the last point in the previous post again in reponse. Is that it, are we done?

I reckon so

I don't like this art so it shouldn't be funded by public money seems to be the verdict for one source. 

Me:  hate kids so they shouldn't be funded from public money either Burn the lot of them, freeloading bastards. 

Now where's that unicorn?

But...but...but I'm still Angry!!!!!!!!!

professorben

https://imgur.com/gallery/bdLkR

Heartfeltdawn

professorben said:

But...but...but I'm still Angry!!!!!!!!!

Burn a couple of street artists, That'll get the rage out for now and provide a means of toasting crumpets. 

professorben

Heartfeltdawn said:

professorben said:

But...but...but I'm still Angry!!!!!!!!!

Burn a couple of street artists, That'll get the rage out for now and provide a means of toasting crumpets. 

Hmmmm trouble is they are all in the JobCentre or the Library where it's warm. 

I thought id found one creating an installation but he turned out to be a homeless guy taking a shit in an alleyway. 

professorben

professorben said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

professorben said:

But...but...but I'm still Angry!!!!!!!!!

Burn a couple of street artists, That'll get the rage out for now and provide a means of toasting crumpets. 

Hmmmm trouble is they are all in the JobCentre or the Library where it's warm. 

I thought id found one creating an installation but he turned out to be a homeless guy taking a shit in an alleyway. 

I've since photographed it on a vintage Polaroid camera.

Titled "Dreaming of England (the fall of the steel industry)"

I've submitted it for the Turner Prize. 

57Deluxe

...cutbacks...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9nUGpdW0AYEuuQ.jpg

professorben

57Deluxe said:

...cutbacks...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9nUGpdW0AYEuuQ.jpg

I feel she's really taking risks with the composition there. 

axisus

I know who they should have got in:

Budgie

axisus said:

I know who they should have got in:

Hahah this always cracks me up... I love the story behind this. 

Heartfeltdawn

All art is useless. My gear is on up for sale in the Classifieds. Will trade for a coal scuttle and a donkey jacket. 

professorben

Heartfeltdawn said:

All art is useless. My gear is on up for sale in the Classifieds. Will trade for a coal scuttle and a donkey jacket. 

Hipster.