Interesting idea.....

[550Hep]

Not sure if it has been posted up yet but this seems to have some merit...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-11837...

Not that I would condone the wholesale destruction of the Art collections of the UK's museums etc but I can see his point. I suppose the balance would be lets not do what Winky did with the gold reserves though!!!

[paulrockliffe]

Most art doesn't have any inherent value, value is in the eye of the beholder etc. It's best to keep these sort of ideas quiet because you know that if the Government decided it was a good idea they'd announce it months in advance, then flood the market and drive prices down.

I would expect that art values are currently relatively low anyway?

[Corsair7]

paulrockliffe said:

Most art doesn't have any inherent value, value is in the eye of the beholder etc. It's best to keep these sort of ideas quiet because you know that if the Government decided it was a good idea they'd announce it months in advance, then flood the market and drive prices down.

I would expect that art values are currently relatively low anyway?

Hummm, didnt some painting recently reach record prices at auction, and some old dears cookie jar went for £42 million.....


I'm inclind to agree actually. Art stored away and not seen has no value, most of this art never gets seen by the public. Huge amounts are spent maintaing, securing and insuring it, and yet the owners (the people) never get to see it.

Bought time the country ahd a maahoossive car boot sale, its what we do when we want to get money for something we have no real need for, and when times are tight.


Although as you said, the government has a dreadful record on this stuff. I remember some years ago when Spitfires were worth millions, the government decided to take the few remaining genuine gate guardians and flog them off, replacing with plastic copies instead. They flooded the market and droove down prices....

[thinfourth2]

Might raise 10 million which is a drop in the ocean but it would take 15million to carry out the scheme

[Corsair7]

thinfourth2 said:

Might raise 10 million which is a drop in the ocean but it would take 15million to carry out the scheme

It would raise much more than 10 million. Most museums only exhibit around 5% of their collections, and their insurance premims are so high on their good stuff they cant actually afford to put them on public display becuase the risk, and therefore the premium, goes up.

If a museum has 10,000 works of art and only exhibts 5% of it then theres an awful lot of stuff that never gets seen. So whats the point the tax payer maintaining it? Stuff gets put into storage for decades....

But equally, I guess its on their books somewhere and is probably colateral for the loans they need to take out to cover the storage expenses....... madness.

[dreamz]

bury council a few years ago sold some lowry paintings that had been donated which i thought was a shame - especially as the artist was native to the region and it wouldnt be often people would see the paintings of that quality.

[crankedup]

paulrockliffe said:

Most art doesn't have any inherent value, value is in the eye of the beholder etc. It's best to keep these sort of ideas quiet because you know that if the Government decided it was a good idea they'd announce it months in advance, then flood the market and drive prices down.

I would expect that art values are currently relatively low anyway?

The complete opposite, art values, like high quality historic cars rise in value in times of uncertainty.Cash is no good in the bank.

[Derek Smith]

This is Sewell remember.

But one point is that exhibits are rotated. They are also loaned which means reciprocation.

There is also the question as to which items the galleries and museums would part with: the quality gear that everyone wants to see or the rubbish that no one wants. If it is the former then no point in going to view the debris. If the latter then no point in selling them.

I was up in London in September and paid a visit to the National Gallery and saw three Turners.

But my main point is that it is Sewell. My belief is that it will not have been costed, the implications would not have been thought through and all that he wants is for those items he feels are beneath his dignity to be in the same country with should be sold.

Hence this quote:

"The public [that's you and me] doesn't know good from bad. For this city to be guided by the opinion of people who don't know anything about art is lunacy. It doesn't matter if they [the public] like it."

In digging out that quote I also found this description of Sewell from Clive Anderson: "a man intent on keeping his Christmas card list nice and short."

I would find it difficult to describe Sewell in a sentence that did not give the impression that he threw things in the air.

Edited by Derek Smith on Monday 29th November 14:32

[ninja-lewis]

Derek Smith said:

But one point is that exhibits are rotated. They are also loaned which means reciprocation.

And of course, just because they're not on public display does not mean they're unavailable to academics and researchers to study.