|
| Thread: Priorities: art or the people? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · NEXT» |
|
Dies_Irae
Supreme Hero
with the perfect plan
|
posted September 22, 2015 04:50 PM |
bonus applied by Corribus on 24 Sep 2015. |
|
Priorities: art or the people?
(Coming from VW where it shouldn't be, posted here where it belongs).
--
Introduction
In a time of crisis and budget cuts, there are priorities to keep in mind. When money is scarce, and there are many things to support, what should be given the highest of priorities? In this topic, I would like to address and discusss a situation that is going on as we speak: the purchase of two portraits by the Dutch 17th-century painter Rembrandt van Rijn.
Case
These two portraits, from 1634, depict a married couple. The left half shows Maerten Soolmans. The right half is the portrait of his wife Oopjen Coppit. The portraits are currently in possession of the wealthy banking family Rothschild (a French branch of the family, to be precise). When it became known that the Rothschilds wanted to sell these portraits, the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam (where the famous Nightwatch is located) was quick to react. The portraits have a price tag of 160 million euros, half of which will be paid by…the government. The Rijksmuseum itself will cover the other half, with the help of as many funds as they can find to augment their own budget. 80 million euros to be paid by the state, an astronomically large amount of money. Needless to say, this has met with mixed views from people. It is claimed that this money is now gone to waste, and that it should have been invested in care for the elderly, education, and the sheltering of the many immigrants and refugees who have come to the Netherlands in the past month. On the other hand, art historians and experts are thrilled to see that two Rembrandts are 'coming home' again. As a student of art history, currently doing the Master’s, I am torn between the two sides.
Background information: how art left the Netherlands.
In the 19th century, when nations were looking for ways to identify themselves, we see the rise of a so-called Denkmalkultur. A typical German word that is hard to translate in English. It means the immense rise of statues of illustrious men of the nation. A cult of statues, so to speak. In Germany, for instance, we see statues of Otto von Bismarck being erected, but also of Arminius (Hermann in German). The latter one is an interesting case, for although he is seen as a hero of Germany, there was no such thing as a Germany in his days. Nevertheless, he managed to defeat a Roman legion, and in the 19th century he was considered the forefather of many German emperors and rulers. The same happened in the Netherlands as well, albeit with different kinds of people. Poets such as Joost van den Vondel were honored and commemorated, but also Rembrandt van Rijn was ‘rediscovered’ and became a hero of the Dutch Golden Age, and of the Netherlands in general. Rembrandt became cultural heritage, which was shown, among other things, by depicting him on the façade of the Rijksmuseum (click).
The Netherlands had suffered a loss of important artworks at the death of king Willem II (r. 1840-1849). During his reign, Willem II had a soft spot for art, and didn’t mind spending lavishly on it. Economic interests were of little concern to him, he rather spent his time showing off his collection. This resulted in an enormous debt at his death, leading to a necessary auctioning of most of his collection. None of those works remained in the Netherlands, and were scattered over Europe. I don’t know if there were any Rembrandts in that collection, though. What is known, is that his predecessor Willem I wanted to spend all the money gained from a large auction (selling works from both the Mauritshuis and the Rijksmuseum) on a work by Rembrandt, in 1828. Earlier, at the beginning of the 18th century, our Golden Age was done and over, and we see a lot of masterpieces becoming available on the art market. As true Dutch people, ‘we’ just wanted to make money and be done with it, and as a result al lot of foreign rulers etc seized their opportunity to buy away Dutch masterpieces, and ‘we’ simply did nothing to prevent it. The Rijksmuseum had to buy back a lot from the moment of its foundation.
Arguments, to and fro
Part of me sees this as an enormous opportunity, something that should be done immediately. Taking history into account, it's about time some of Rembrandt's works find their way back. One can argue that buying these portraits is important for our cultural heritage, our identity, and maybe for trying to undo what has been done in ages past. Rembrandt as a national icon draws tourists to Amsterdam from all over the world. But then there is the other side of the coin. We’re talking about 80 million euros, money that could have been spent on the more pressing problems in society, as listed above. I agree that there is need for money on these sectors, as currently we are dealing with problems on several fronts. There was a funny cartoon about this in today’s newspaper, showing two elderly people in their retirement home talking about the portraits. The woman says that she’s willing to go out and see them, but that there’s no one to help her dress / prepare. In other words: while the government pays millions for art (despite budget cuts in the cultural section), they seemingly don’t care about the elderly and their wellbeing. Whether or not this cartoon exaggerates the situation, it is still food for thought. This quote also illustrates that:
Quote:
In feite lijkt het te gaan om de vraag of we een “brede cultuur” willen, waarin iedereen van iets moois kan genieten, of dat we een cultuur willen hebben van topstukken. Die laatste trekt toeristen en brengt geld in het laatje. Die eerste maakt ons zelf gelukkiger. Voor allebei valt iets te zeggen. Ik kan me echter niet aan de indruk onttrekken dat we inmiddels zó ver zijn doorgeschoten naar de topstukken, dat de brede cultuur ronduit in het gedrang raakt. Voor Amsterdam, waar ik woon, wil dat zeggen: een stadscentrum dat stervensdruk is met toeristen die van alle moois kunnen genieten, en daar omheen een cirkel van buitenwijken waar mensen wonen die de kans niet hebben gekregen de waarde van cultuur te leren kennen. Zo bezien is de aankoop van twee Rembrandts een klap in het gezicht van de burger.
Apparently it seems to be about the question whether we want a "widespread culture", in which everyone can enjoy something beautiful, or a culture of the masterpieces. The latter one attracts the tourists, and earns us money. The former one makes us happier. Something can be said for both of them. However, I can't shake the feeling that we've gone way too far towards the masterpieces, in such a way that the widespread culture is being pushed aside. For Amsterdam, where I live, this means: a city centre which crawls with tourists who can enjoy every beautiful thing, while the people living around it never got a chance to even know the value of culture. Looked at it this way, the purchase of these two Rembrandts is a punch in the face of the common man.
This is also a general feel I get when reading comments on news articles about this. There is dissatisfaction, and people have the right of it.
Arguments in favor of the purchase, as can be read in this article (Dutch), deal with the assumption that the government should be allowed to afford itself a purchase like this every fifteen to twenty years. Furthermore, the art historical value is to be taken into consideration: the portrait is a pair, still together, complete, which in itself is unique already. The pair is also depicted in full view, rather than as a bust or just their heads. In the article, Rembrandt-expert Ernst van de Wetering informs us about how the couple paid Rembrandt 500 guilders (or florins) for the painting back then, which was a similar kind of fortune as the price of the works is today.
Your opinion on the matter
I'd like to challenge you to shed your light on this. What do you think? What side are you on, or do you find yourself in middle ground as well? Can we use this case as an example to discuss broader problems in society? Is it decadence or neccesity to buy these paintings? I'd like to hear your thoughts on it, and don't hesitate to discuss with one another. Please try to stay ontopic for as much as possible.
____________
|
|
elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 12:48 AM |
|
|
Buying artwork is not a function of government. If a private party wishes to buy the art and donate it to the nation that would be fine. But using money taken from the people for such a thing is in my opinion misuse of taxes. Taxes should be spent on things for the common good of all of the people.
____________
Revelation
|
|
eutow
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 01:02 AM |
|
|
My first thought, as a person who likes art, was that Rijksmuseum / Netherlands should buy the painting. But then I asked myself what those 80 million euros mean to the Netherlands. That's a very rich country so that sum might be acceptable... Or not?
Here's a problem - I'm not an economist and I have no idea what those eighty million actually mean to the Netherlands ("an astronomically high price" doesn't say much). Many questions popped up. (Would paying for the painting affect anyone's everyday life? Where does that money come from anyway? If the money wasn't spent on the painting, where would it go? Do those elders and education in the Netherlands actually need more money and support? Like, aren't those people already printing the most up-to-date schoolbooks on pages made of banknotes?) I still feel that Netherlands should buy the painting, but if I had to go to a voting booth tomorrow and decide about this issue, I'd be very uncertain about it.
[/my random thoughts]
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 01:29 PM |
|
|
Compared to the cost of the opening ceremony of the Olympics in London (110 million euro) or the cost of the new islands we are going to 'build' in the Markermeer (300 million euro) the contribution of 80 million euro does not seem thát extravagant. Still it is a whole lot of money. I myself find these paintings ridiculously overpriced (as much art in general) and don't really see why we need them so badly (you as an art student are probably a better judge of their quality). Of course the paintings keep their value, so the money isn't really lost.
My question to you is: do you think the quality of the Rijsmuseum's collection is much improved with this purchase? I.e. will the museum attract significantly more visitors with these pieces?
____________
Can you make a faction including these units?
Join the Finding Harmony competition 2.0!
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 01:48 PM |
|
|
I cant estimate what 80 million euros mean to the economy of Netherlands, yes, it's a lot of money but is it so for their government? If there is controversy about this, it is certainly not an unimportant sum but the thing is, I think it's misleading to present the situation as "art or people" since the artistic value of the paintings is not the only parameter here. From what I've read, I have the impression that Netherlands sees these paintings as a significant part of their national, cultural heritage, it's not like they are buying a contemporary work of art, a modern masterpiece. The paintings have a historicity that makes them more than art to the people.
Imagine, 200 years from now, the USA goes through a devastating economic crisis and a Chinese billionare buys the Statue of Liberty from the government and 400 years later, they are back on their feet again. Would America purchasing the statue back only be buying art?
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 03:22 PM |
|
|
|
Is heartbreaking to see those paintings now billions worth, while their creator was buried in anonymity and lived a whole life of scarcity. Same goes for Mozart, Michelangelo, and many others, almost all of them. To meditate for those who yell "art should be free", and when history teach us that good art finally ends worth billions later.
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 04:19 PM |
|
|
I support the art purchase. Sticking only with quantifiable metrics that support a country is for monkeys, not men.
I don't buy the argument that the money could and should have gone towards more fundamental needs, like roads or schools. There is an unquantifiable value in extraneous beauty such as art or fine cooking or sports that meet an essential need in the psyche of the human person. Take all of that away and there will be depression and apathy. In the most "primitive" societies there is a richness of ritual and storytelling that is essential to the health of the tribe. Or, you could say: these extraneous investments aren't so extraneous.
It's not an "either or". Supporting human expression is to support humanity itself. If you just care about bread and butter and the trains arriving on time, talk to Il Duce.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 04:56 PM |
|
|
The government shouldn't spend money on art. These are 80 million Euros that would've likely been spent better elsewhere, or better yet left in taxpayers' pockets. If people want art, let them pay for it of their own accord. If they're not willing to, then the government shouldn't do it either - people don't want it, so it's inefficient to do it.
Blizz, do you really think we'll have "depression and apathy" if the government doesn't spend money on art? It seems highly unlikely - it's not something most people get much value from.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 05:01 PM |
|
|
Well is the purchase coming from an already established cultural budget? Or is the government taking a loan or something?
Generally I'd favour the purchase but if you are in an economic distress then that would be unwise.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Dies_Irae
Supreme Hero
with the perfect plan
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 05:56 PM |
|
|
Elodin said:
Buying artwork is not a function of government.
It is kind of an exceptional case, I think. In the Netherlands we have a number of independant or semi-independent funds and foundations that are the ones usually 'helping' museums buy works of art. Whenever there's an exhibition, you'll find a list of funds that have supported it and whatever new purchase has been made. An example is the Mondriaanfonds, which receives an annual budget of 26 million euros from the Department of Education, Culture and Science. So yes, the government is involved in some way, but only indirectly. The Rembrandt Foundation is an independant organisation that is known for also buying works (minor ones such as drawings for instance) and donating it to museums. The fact that the government now steps in directly, shows the significance of the purchase at hand. The reason for the negative responses is due to the fact that there are certain budget cuts, especially on the Cultural front (estimated 200 million).
Eutow said:
That's a very rich country so that sum might be acceptable... Or not?
Well, if 'we' really could not afford it, this would not have happened. So in a way, I think there is room for a purchase of this magnitude. This brings me to Steyn's post, who has a good point in showing the several projects having being done and planned in the past and the future. 80 million compared to 300 is almost insignificant, for sure. I don't know if a project such as the Markermeer is going to cause a similar kind of outrage. The whole question is: "Where should the money go the most?" And it's clear that "the people" have priorities not matching that of the government.
I really find it hard to make something of this myself...I think it's a complicated matter. Is 80 million extravagant? One says it is, one says it isn't. I'm not familiar with the Markermeer project, what the goal of it actually is. Should look into that, really  . I'm not exactly at home in economics, so maybe I should have done more extensive research before even beginning to think about posting this case study here  .
Steyn said:
My question to you is: do you think the quality of the Rijsmuseum's collection is much improved with this purchase? I.e. will the museum attract significantly more visitors with these pieces?
Yes, I do believe that the Rijksmuseum and its collection will benefit from these paintings. The museum has important 17th century works of art in its Gallery of Honor (Vermeer's Milkmaid and of course the Nightwatch itself). From an art historical view, these paintings are important, not only for what they depict, the way it is depicted, and as an early work of Rembrandt. They would be at home in the Rijksmuseum, and I think the staff will make sure that visitors keep coming. Museums have a whole department dedicated to those things, and tourists who want to see Rembrandt will not want to miss this opportunity. Through exhibitions, promotions etc they'll make sure that everyone knows about them . Significantly more visitors? Only time will tell (but it would help to study the numbers, how many people visit each year etc).
artu said:
I think it's misleading to present the situation as "art or people" since the artistic value of the paintings is not the only parameter here. From what I've read, I have the impression that Netherlands sees these paintings as a significant part of their national, cultural heritage, it's not like they are buying a contemporary work of art, a modern masterpiece. The paintings have a historicity that makes them more than art to the people.
I see what you mean, and it's definately a valid point to make. The idea behind making this distinction was based on the problem I try to address: should the government be so directly involved in the purchase of art, whereas the same money could have been used to invest in a, b, c. etc. From what I've read, I get the idea that people feel 'cheated', maybe. That the government should do anything to support them rather than art. You can say that the purchase is still for the people, the People in general. It is for our identity, and should do well in attracting tourists, both domestic and foreign.
Salamandre said:
Is heartbreaking to see those paintings now billions worth, while their creator was buried in anonymity and lived a whole life of scarcity. Same goes for Mozart, Michelangelo, and many others, almost all of them. To meditate for those who yell "art should be free", and when history teach us that good art finally ends worth billions later.
That's the true Romantic view on the artist  . An introvert figure, bohemian, outcast, living in poverty, not understood by his contemporaries. I don't think Rembrandt fits that profile (after all, he got paid a nice sum for the portraits although he died poor), but painters such as Van Gogh absolutely do. Let's just say that prices are not always just made up: it is a combination of a lot of factors, actually. You may find that prices for early work by artist A are lower than the work he/she made decades later. An early Mondrian will likely fetch less than his famous compositions you'll probably be familiar with.
Minion said:
Well is the purchase coming from an already established cultural budget? Or is the government taking a loan or something?
I don't think there is a loan involved, so it's probably the former option.
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 23, 2015 06:36 PM |
|
|
Well, if we are talking about state supporting art through museums, education and sponsorship in general, of course, I would classify that as a necessity not a luxury for any developed country. People who are alien to any art are almost always two-dimensional, shallow and emotionaly less sophisticated. There are things about everyone's self-consciousness that can only be explored through artistic expression and insight.
People from more developed countries may not always notice that if they are not especially into art because in such countries everyone already gets a fair share of that spontaneous education even through high school programs and even the entertainment sector has many products with some level of artistic quality. But just take a look at societies that give less importance to museums, festivals, literature etc and you'll immediately sense there is a huge difference. So, in general, I'm totally with Blizz on that one. The ideal amount (percentage from the budget) of that support would be the only thing to debate in such a situation.
But an amount of 80 million euros for a few paintings is a more specific matter and the historicity of them matters more in that aspect, would your government be paying the same amount for, say, a few Salvador Dali paintings, I wouldnt assume so.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 12:57 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
If people want art, let them pay for it of their own accord. If they're not willing to, then the government shouldn't do it either - people don't want it, so it's inefficient to do it.
Plenty of people are okay with it, otherwise it wouldn't be a controversy. Either way, this statement is asinine.
The government (taxpayers) pay for things whether everybody (or even a majority) want it or not. If they don't like it, they can move to another country or flee to Antarctica, or they can deal with it. No matter how a government spends its money its going to piss some people off. It's inescapable.
We fund a more intensive reading curriculum whether most children want it or not, or even (in certain neighborhoods) whether most parents want it or not. We do prison or school or transportation reform whether most people are on board or not. We do plenty of things with or without people's consent, because consent and development frequently don't parallel.
Quote:
Blizz, do you really think we'll have "depression and apathy" if the government doesn't spend money on art? It seems highly unlikely - it's not something most people get much value from.
"Art" in its broadest sense: even nations with impoverished people that are dying of malnutrition, such as India, absolutely need to set aside a portion of their budget on grants/funds/acquisition for culture/history/art/music/archeology. Naturally, more affluent nations will set aside a larger percentage than less affluent ones. Spending all of your money on feeding people will make you ineffective at feeding people, since you will be neglecting the more sophisticated aspects of society that allow it to develop and become efficient and intelligent.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 01:05 AM |
|
|
|
Aside from the national value of the painting, would it be a better case of letting some group of artists make a new painting instead?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 01:08 AM |
|
|
There's no need to force taxpayers to pay for what politicans consider art that's worth subsidizing, because art easily survives on the market, especially in these days of crowdfunding. Funding art with taxpayer's money is also problematic because its such an arbitrary thing to do due to the subjective nature of what art is. Why does let's say opera get funding but not video games? The easiest, most fair thing to do is to just to get rid off public financing in this area, deregulate and lower taxes to make art independent of taxpayers' money.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 01:24 AM |
|
|
blizzardboy said:
mvassilev said:
If people want art, let them pay for it of their own accord. If they're not willing to, then the government shouldn't do it either - people don't want it, so it's inefficient to do it.
Plenty of people are okay with it, otherwise it wouldn't be a controversy. Either way, this statement is asinine.
Forgive me for not putting a treatise on political philosophy in my short post. I see that you're not interested in interpreting me charitably, so I won't engage with you further.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 02:36 AM |
|
|
It is quite easy to spend "free money." The money in the case in question being hard earned money taken through taxation. Politicians thus tend to be big spenders and need ever higher taxes.
____________
Revelation
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 06:26 AM |
|
|
elodin said:
It is quite easy to spend "free money." The money in the case in question being hard earned money taken through taxation. Politicians thus tend to be big spenders and need ever higher taxes.
Such as money for an Oklahoma City Bombing National Museum? People visit it all the time and I'm assuming whatever museum these paintings are going to is a little bit equivalent to a Dutch Smithsonian.
80 million is a small fraction of the cost to build an aircraft carrier (simply the construction itself: nevermind the ongoing cost), which I understand you're okay with because you're a "big spender" when it comes to military investments, or anything else that you fancy. "Big spending" isn't a bad thing if you can succeed at justifying it. This isn't so much a question of political philosophy as it is what you value in your budget. There weren't any generals or politicians or contractors knocking on my door, asking my permission to waste "my" money on sending expensive, adult boy toys to cut down Iraqis, but it happened, and nobody asked your permission to spend money on a museum, but it happened. As adults, you learn to accept that you don't get everything you want, because government wouldn't be functional if you did. The idea that everybody can be a winner in politics is a myth, and this doesn't just include where money goes, but it even includes people's rights.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 09:22 AM |
|
|
80 million for a couple of paintings is idiotic, whether you're a private collector or a government. I'd automatically vote against anybody that did it as well as anybody that supported it for the rest of their lives.
Speaking of which, I've come to the conclusion that old art like this is in a speculative bubble. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the bubble popped in the next 10 to 15 years.
[edit]
This makes me think, if your goal is to celebrate your artistic heritage for that 80 million you could instead build a museum with a hundred replicas so careful that nobody but the top experts would be able to tell the difference.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 09:43 AM |
|
|
Well I don't know about painting, but I can attest that no one in the 7 billions we are would be able to make a replica of Mozart music, or Beethoven, not even speaking about Bach. Technically yes they can put the notes in the right order, but for the perfection of form, construction and harmonies, no one can.
Or take a more prosaic example, the cost of Stradivarius violins: several millions each. No one can make successful replicas, with or without all the technology we have, proved, tested, failed. So while I agree that the art cost is Much Exaggerated, my side would be to change the whole pricing system. Because a soccer player who costs more than a Da Vinci isn't normal neither. And the list is long.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 24, 2015 09:59 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
A soccer player who costs more than a Da Vinci isn't normal neither. And the list is long.
+1 x 100
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
| |
|
|
