Posts by DCBCauchi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Muse: Indecision 2011: Writing Policy on…, in reply to Ben Clark,
Let's take one specific example of how a narrow economic focus on arts funding affects things.
As I understand it, a gallery like the City Gallery in Wellington is funded by various sources, most of it public money from central government and the city council, supplemented by sponsorship. Now, I'd imagine each of these funding sources wants something in return for their dosh. The people spending tax and rate money need to show that it's been well spent. They need what I think is called 'measurable outcomes'.
For something like the City Gallery, as far as I can tell, those 'measurable outcomes' are simply bums through the door. You pay some keen art history student peanuts to sit there with a clicker, then you go 'Look! This exhibition that cost $X00,000 had a X% successful outcome [against projected figures].'
As a result, we get bollocks shows. Shows that are intentionally designed to be innocuous and populist, and to easily fit into pre-existing narratives of national identity. And, I ask you, what is the point of that?
The measures that the politicians have set in place produce perverse outcomes. Ones that are papered over by the people trying to give the pollies what they want and still keep a modicum of self-respect with a load of crap about 'challenging' art. Black = white.
In short: your answer gives me the shits.
-
Muse: Indecision 2011: Writing Policy on…, in reply to Ben Clark,
Some questions in lieu of wading through a pdf:
If I’m 18 years old and want to be a painter, how would the apprenticeship work? Do I need to go to art school first? Who would I be apprenticed to? Do I need to find someone willing to take me on? And why would they do that?
And I very much dislike the line about ‘develop[ing] NZ artists so that they can be an important part of contributing to the NZ economy’. For quite some time Labour has tried to justify arts funding this way. But what if all the studies showed that investing in art had a negligible effect in economic terms? Would that then be justification for eliminating art?
I submit that the value of art is not economic at all. A society without art would be like an insect colony. Art’s value is quite separate from economics. A focus on those arts that provide an easily measurable economic return, I suggest, is completely wrong-headed.
Re: the Regional Museums Fund – you talk about investing in infrastructure, but do not mention anything about maintaining and enhancing the national collections for current and future generations. What is Labour’s policy on collecting paintings for the nation?
You can have all the infrastructure and training schemes you like, but to make good paintings a painter needs to be able to look at a wide range of good art first. At the moment, the dealer galleries, unfunded and going it alone, are way ahead of the public galleries on that score. What’s Labour going to do about that?
-
Cracker: Spotted, in reply to Russell Brown,
Oh, please. If you think it’s such a clique, piss off.
If you’re going to stick around, show some respect for the place, and stop blaming the community because people sometimes find your arguments strange.
The media/political consensus that's so freaked out by Winston. Should've been clearer. The consensus that dismisses him as a clown and belittles his achievements.
But I don't want to argue over arguing, nor do I want to persuade anyone of anything. Obviously, I have nothing worthwhile to say here. That's ok.
Cheers.
-
Cracker: Spotted, in reply to Sacha,
You said it, my egg-sucking chum
Nice! I even have a grandmother-teaching outfit.
But, yeah, I'm over it.
-
Cracker: Spotted, in reply to Damian Christie,
Back to this again? I give up.
Keep it cosy kids.
-
Try listening to people with an open mind. Don’t assume you know what they really mean. Don’t judge them on appearances. You might be surprised. You don’t actually know it all. No-one does. However, everyone has something of value to contribute. If you let them.
The cosy consensus makes things easier but it is wrong.
Unwanted advice #99075.
-
Cracker: Spotted, in reply to andin,
Try reading.
Did I say stare him down?
-
Cracker: Spotted, in reply to Sacha,
Where did I ask you to admire his methods?
I recall saying something about not agreeing with them in fact.
And as for media manipulation, well. He knows how to deal with lying pricks too. Give as good as you get.
The man’s got style.
(Oh right, those methods I do admire.)
-
Cracker: Spotted, in reply to Sacha,
Totally.
But let's get real. He is not a fool and he has achieved things he said he would do. Anyone's parents or grandparents use a gold card on the bus to get them places they couldn't go to otherwise?
I think you thank Winston for that. Something real and tangible. That benefits many people and by benefiting them benefits everyone.
But don't mind me. Snide comment away.
Obviously surface matters, not substance. Oh no! Just judge the surface.
-
Cracker: Spotted, in reply to andin,
Have you met said politician? Looked him in the eye as you ask your questions?
I have.
I don't agree with how he's gone about it, but I get where he's coming from. He speaks for the old, for those no-one else speaks for or listens to.
And what is wrong with that?
Open eyes indeed!