wellinghall (
wellinghall) wrote2009-02-03 01:14 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Art poll
Titian's Diana and Actaeon saved for the nation
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/feb/02/titian-diana-actaeon-saved
[Poll #1342795]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/feb/02/titian-diana-actaeon-saved
[Poll #1342795]
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
But why do we need a foreign currency / old painting reserve when we have a floating exchange rate?
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
(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....)
no subject
no subject
no subject
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 ...
no subject
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...!
no subject
This.
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
(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.
no subject
no subject
bl**dy LJ!
no subject