Art poll

[wellinghall]

Titian's Diana and Actaeon saved for the nation
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/feb/02/titian-diana-actaeon-saved

[Poll #1342795]

Comments

[beckyc.livejournal.com]

If it will keep its value, it's probably better than the government investing in other things that won't. (Mentioning no banks...)

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

That only makes sense if the government plans to sell it a future date though.

[osymandias.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily - you can simply have it there backing up the currency, even if there's no expectation that it'll ever be sold.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

Instead of a foreign currency reserve you mean?

But why do we need a foreign currency / old painting reserve when we have a floating exchange rate?

[osymandias.livejournal.com]

I was thinking more along terms of gold reserves. However, I suspect we start to move way beyond my economic understanding as to why exactly one needs such things :-) I'd assumed that the central bank/government keeps such things in the same way that banks need a certain amount of reserve currency - am I naieve here?

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

The currency literally was backed by gold in the days of the Gold Standard, but that was decades ago.

More recently, central banks held reserves of other currencies to use to manipulate the value of their own currency. (That is, if the Bank of England wanted the pound to be stronger, it could use reserves of dollars, yen etc to buy Sterling on the foreign currency markets, thus pushing the 'price' of Sterling higher.)

Nowadays, we're all more enlightened and central banks (or at least the sensible ones) no longer try to manipulate the markets this way. Instead they leave currencies to find their natural value. Because of this, we don't actually need reserves of gold or foreign currency any more. When he was chancellor, Gordon Brown sold off a large part of Britain's remaining reserves. He can be criticised for doing so when some of the assets he was selling (especially gold) were at a lower than usual price, but I don't think you can criticise him just for selling off reserves.

[didiusjulianus.livejournal.com]

Hm. IMO we might not need reserves when things are going all right, but it's common sense to keep sensible reserves of everything from gold to oil to capacity for food production in case the sh*t REALLY hits the fan.

While I'm on the fence over whether they SHOULD stump up the money (ie. be morally obliged to kind of thing), I have no particular objection to some government money going towards the Titian, after all they waste enough on botched IT projects, wild schemes for this and that, and goodness knows what else, at least the Titian has both cultural and monetary value.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

There might be a reason to keep reserves of commodities which have a real value like oil or food, but not gold. What are you going to do with gold reserves in a world of floating exchange rates? Much more sensible to have a basket of foreign currency reserves.

[tigerfort.livejournal.com]

Sell them to computer companies?

(Not a serious suggestion, given the tiny amount of gold you need for a typical computer. But it does have more industrial uses than you might think, and many of them are vital to a modern economy. Of course, since Britain doesn't manufacture anything any more....)

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

A painting by a Venetian, commissioned by the king of Spain, so I'm not sure why it should be saved for this nation. It was only in this country in the first place because it was bought on the open market, so allow it to be sold on the open market.

[segh.livejournal.com]

I think you should have had an "I don't know" button.

[overconvergent.livejournal.com]

Given the "it's complicated" button, what do you expect me to tick?

I think that saving works for the nation is generally good (I'm a member of the Art Fund, which kicked in £1m to this) but I am not sure if spending all the money in one big lump is the best use of resources ...

[pellegrina.livejournal.com]

In principle I am in favour of public spending on the arts, but not when it is because some aristocrat is looking to flog a painting for which he would presumably need to arrange an export licence, and probably leaning on friends in high places to smooth his way.

The reason I should have ticked "it is complicated" is that it would be sad if the painting entered into private hands and was never seen again. But if a gallery was going to buy it, there is no particular reason for it to stay in Britain.

My boss would probably sack me for this...!

[el-staplador.livejournal.com]

it would be sad if the painting entered into private hands and was never seen again. But if a gallery was going to buy it, there is no particular reason for it to stay in Britain

This.

[kargicq.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. It's not even a very good Titian compared to those that the NG already has, and I thought that the NG's acquisition policy was (historically) to favour breadth rather than depth.

[didiusjulianus.livejournal.com]

Hm, while I see that your point might well have some validity (I'm fairly cynical) I seem to remember it being valued at likely much more than the £50m price tag, were it to go to auction.

Maybe the chap needs the money (on some level at least), not all these titled folk have as much as one might think, often it is all tied up in inherited Grade I listed real estate which they can't fix up because they have no readies. Until I hear otherwise I'm giving a little benefit of the doubt.

[muuranker.livejournal.com]

Complex, because '£50 million' as a proportionate part of government funding for culture is one thing. But it isn't.

Complex, because it depends on the picture.

Complex, because it depends who/where the foreign buyer is.

Complex, because usually government monies are only a part of the mix in these cases - which makes for complicated economics.

[tree_and_leaf]

Mm. While I'm in favour of art being kept in public ownership

(a) it's an awful lot of money for a rather mediocre painting, and

(b) it belonged to the bloody Sutherlands, and I'm half inclined to say it ought to count as reparations for the Clearances.

[frandowdsofa.livejournal.com]

I'm with this one.

[purplecat]

But I wasn't voting in this poll!!!!

bl**dy LJ!

[rosathome.livejournal.com]

I don't think that the government did spend the best part of £50m. According to that article, the government gave £12.5m directly and the rest came from various other trusts, funds and public donations.