Art and Unethical Money

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • doversoul1
    Ex Member
    • Dec 2010
    • 7132

    Art and Unethical Money

    Nan Goldin’s opioid protest campaign means Sackler money is no longer welcome at the Tate, and the National Portrait Gallery is now poorer by £1m



    Where do we draw the line? Or can we? Or should we?
  • oddoneout
    Full Member
    • Nov 2015
    • 9272

    #2
    It's a difficult question isn't it, not least if one considers that the art itself may have come into being through less than desirable means(where did the money come from to pay for it) and an art collection may exist because of 'tainted' money.
    As to drawing the line, for some the use of Lottery Fund money is problematic as it's proceeds of gambling, although the majority of people wouldn't even think about that aspect.

    Comment

    • doversoul1
      Ex Member
      • Dec 2010
      • 7132

      #3
      Originally posted by oddoneout View Post
      It's a difficult question isn't it, not least if one considers that the art itself may have come into being through less than desirable means(where did the money come from to pay for it) and an art collection may exist because of 'tainted' money.
      As to drawing the line, for some the use of Lottery Fund money is problematic as it's proceeds of gambling, although the majority of people wouldn't even think about that aspect.
      Speaking to the Observer on Saturday, Goldin’s fellow activist, LA Kauffman said the public would judge the museum harshly if it failed to act. “The tide has definitively turned against the Sackler family, and it won’t be long before every institution that has ever taken funding from them and celebrated their name will consider it a great error and stain on their reputation
      […]
      The decision to turn down cash was easy, said Frayling, the chair of Arts Council England between 2005 to 2009, when it came from “a tobacco company or a tyrannical regime”. “But it is very difficult to lay down principles more generally,” he added, pointing out that the Renaissance was funded by the Medici family.
      […]
      Campaigners warn of ‘world’s disapproval’ as Greenwich museums present newly restored exhibition space bearing drug maker’s family name


      I would take the protesters more seriously if they offered some practicable alternatives. A good point Re: Lottery fund.

      Comment

      • Richard Barrett
        Guest
        • Jan 2016
        • 6259

        #4
        Originally posted by oddoneout View Post
        It's a difficult question isn't it, not least if one considers that the art itself may have come into being through less than desirable means(where did the money come from to pay for it)
        .. and of course something similar could be said about government funding too. There isn't very much money floating around that isn't "tainted" in some way or other. Perhaps a more fundamental aspect of this whole problem is the stupidly astronomical amounts of money that attend the art world, such that institutions like museums can hardly function without receiving enormous grants from somewhere or other which are then spent on artworks with the expenditure going... where? To other wealthy individuals and institutions. Historically, art has been used by the wealthy to put a supposedly human and cultured face on their greed, and these Sackler people are only a particularly well-publicised example. Perhaps the publicity received by the case will encourage more people to rethink what the art "market" is really all about.

        Comment

        • oddoneout
          Full Member
          • Nov 2015
          • 9272

          #5
          Originally posted by Richard Barrett View Post
          .. and of course something similar could be said about government funding too. There isn't very much money floating around that isn't "tainted" in some way or other. Perhaps a more fundamental aspect of this whole problem is the stupidly astronomical amounts of money that attend the art world, such that institutions like museums can hardly function without receiving enormous grants from somewhere or other which are then spent on artworks with the expenditure going... where? To other wealthy individuals and institutions. Historically, art has been used by the wealthy to put a supposedly human and cultured face on their greed, and these Sackler people are only a particularly well-publicised example. Perhaps the publicity received by the case will encourage more people to rethink what the art "market" is really all about.
          Perhaps it's time to have a rethink about the whole business of what art galleries are for and about and how they adapt to modern constraints. There are far more artworks in storage in this country than are on display - what's the point of that? I know perfectly well that exhibiting art can be very expensive, and that there isn't enough display space for all that's in storage, and that when mounting exhibitions a big 'hook' is considered essential to get the footfall, but...this isn't an ideal world, so perhaps it's time to rethink the acquisition of astronomically expensive star items and creating statement display places, in favour of making the most of what already exists. Even, shock horror, getting more art out into the benighted provinces of 'not-London' for the great unwashed to enjoy(OK I know that won't fly).

          Comment

          • Richard Barrett
            Guest
            • Jan 2016
            • 6259

            #6
            Originally posted by oddoneout View Post
            Perhaps it's time to have a rethink about the whole business of what art galleries are for and about and how they adapt to modern constraints. There are far more artworks in storage in this country than are on display - what's the point of that? I know perfectly well that exhibiting art can be very expensive, and that there isn't enough display space for all that's in storage, and that when mounting exhibitions a big 'hook' is considered essential to get the footfall, but...this isn't an ideal world, so perhaps it's time to rethink the acquisition of astronomically expensive star items and creating statement display places, in favour of making the most of what already exists. Even, shock horror, getting more art out into the benighted provinces of 'not-London' for the great unwashed to enjoy(OK I know that won't fly).
            For sure. Most other countries manage to have meaningful* galleries/museums outside their capital cities.

            * obviously meant in the original sense, not the Theresa May sense

            Comment

            • richardfinegold
              Full Member
              • Sep 2012
              • 7737

              #7
              Art Patronage has always been associated with taint. Nobility or Churchmen would acquire huge fortunes on the backs of exploitation of the masses and then commission Artists. Military conquerors would rape and pillage and steal the Cultural Heritage of other People. Monopolistic Capitalistic Robber Barons patronized the Impressionists. Are nineteenth century British Industrialists that made fortunes from the Opium Wars and funneled some of that back into Art Galleries any better than the Sackler Family

              Comment

              • Richard Barrett
                Guest
                • Jan 2016
                • 6259

                #8
                Originally posted by richardfinegold View Post
                Are nineteenth century British Industrialists that made fortunes from the Opium Wars and funneled some of that back into Art Galleries any better than the Sackler Family
                Yes, in so far as they're all dead.

                Comment

                • pastoralguy
                  Full Member
                  • Nov 2010
                  • 7799

                  #9
                  I remember all those CfP Lps I bought in the 1970's that were sponsored by W.D & H.O Wills the tobacco manufacturers. In fact, there was a famous set of the Beethoven Symphonies that had the tobacco companies logo as the artwork on the set!

                  And not forgetting that, in Edinburgh, our main concert hall was built from the proceeds of a brewing dynasty headed by Andrew Usher.

                  Comment

                  • doversoul1
                    Ex Member
                    • Dec 2010
                    • 7132

                    #10
                    Beyoncé effect fills galleries with a new generation of art devotees
                    Fame sells: that’s the lesson in a survey revealing the world’s most popular exhibitions during a bumper year



                    Maybe it’s time we packed away our dusty ideas about Art into a museum then, we may find a brave new way to keep ART alive

                    Comment

                    • richardfinegold
                      Full Member
                      • Sep 2012
                      • 7737

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Richard Barrett View Post
                      Yes, in so far as they're all dead.

                      Comment

                      • jayne lee wilson
                        Banned
                        • Jul 2011
                        • 10711

                        #12
                        Originally posted by pastoralguy View Post
                        I remember all those CfP Lps I bought in the 1970's that were sponsored by W.D & H.O Wills the tobacco manufacturers. In fact, there was a famous set of the Beethoven Symphonies that had the tobacco companies logo as the artwork on the set!

                        And not forgetting that, in Edinburgh, our main concert hall was built from the proceeds of a brewing dynasty headed by Andrew Usher.
                        ....IIRC that was the Philharmonia/Kurt Sanderling red/white Du Maurier thing? Like a Grand Prix car of the epoch...God yes, those really were the days.....

                        Comment

                        • Forget It (U2079353)
                          Full Member
                          • Nov 2010
                          • 132

                          #13
                          Sarah Dunant did a point of view over on R4 on this v. subject:
                          Sarah Dunant on the thorny relationship between culture and the money that supports it.
                          Last edited by Forget It (U2079353); 24-03-19, 15:15. Reason: typo

                          Comment

                          • pastoralguy
                            Full Member
                            • Nov 2010
                            • 7799

                            #14
                            Originally posted by jayne lee wilson View Post
                            ....IIRC that was the Philharmonia/Kurt Sanderling red/white Du Maurier thing? Like a Grand Prix car of the epoch...God yes, those really were the days.....
                            I don't mind saying that I found the covers very seductive. Well, in terms of records/music - NOT tobacco! Having grown up in a family where everyone smoked I learnt to hate the constant fug of cigarette smoke. Even today, if I catch a cold it goes straight into my chest which I attribute to the effects of all the second hand smoke.

                            Comment

                            • ardcarp
                              Late member
                              • Nov 2010
                              • 11102

                              #15
                              Has anyone mentioned 'The Princes of the Church' in Renaissance Italy? A good job their arguably unethical disregard for the poverty and humility which the Gospels proclaim hasn't proscribed Michelangelo, Bernini...etc

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X