Should taxpayers spend £100m for a painting?

Discussion in 'The NAAFI Bar' started by ukdaytona, Aug 28, 2008.

  1. Yes, lets all wonder in its glory

    0 vote(s)
  2. My Arrse it is, dont waste a penny on it

    0 vote(s)
  3. Buy it with Tax Payers money then sell it on for a realistic value and a hugh profit

    0 vote(s)
  4. Why are we surprised on yet another hugh feckin waste of tax payers money

    0 vote(s)

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    Stick in a poll?

    My own view is no, not for the guff I saw on the box at Lunch
  2. Nothing in the least leading about your poll question then? :roll

    How much would you spend to save a life. And have you given this amount to every single charity/hospital/hospice/etc etc in the whole world?

    A lot depends on which painting it is, I wouldn't give you the steam off my sh1t for something by the vast majority of modern artists but some of the old masters are worth the price.

    Plus of course being the 5th wealthiest nation on the planet we don't have to choose between either a painting or a kidney machine - we can have both.
  3. If we did everything on the grounds of "could the money be better spent" then we should probably move Sandhurst, Cranwell and Dartmouth into portacabins and sell the old buildings to pay for kidney machines. The same would go for every other old building or national treasure.
  4. TheIronDuke

    TheIronDuke LE Book Reviewer

    Pretty well what I was going to say. Anybody want to equate the spend on the London Olympics with number of hospitals / schools / Chinooks?

    This is Great Britain and we aint on the bones yet. So lets cough up £100m before Abromovich buys them to hang in his frigate. Yacht. Not frigate.

    And since they are up in Wife Beater country, I'll quote a Jock.

    "Life without industry is sloth. Industry without art is brutality"
    Charles Renne Macintosh.
  5. I thought that the National Lottery sorted crap like this out, they take enough off the hopeful masses each week to buy it out of petty cash, after all it is a NATIONAL concern, not just a highly lucrative method of lining certain pockets.

    Just read the link, at least its a worthwhile Titian, and not some modern Hirst inspired, Emin endorsed pile of sh1te. Price is probably reasonable but my commment stands. If HMG pay a single groat of my taxes for this whilst our troops serve minus vital equipment I will throw a tit, harumph.
  6. TheIronDuke

    TheIronDuke LE Book Reviewer

    Diana and Actaeon were not gay, disabled or from an opressed ethnic minority or religion so they dont qualify.
  7. No wonder Rolf Harris kept knocking out those sh'it pictures:...Oooh....Ah.....Ahah....wobble...wobble.....Uh!......when I was a kid i fell in the creek......Oh!...........Ahah!......did you get it yet?

    I'm of to the cellar to find some old tins of Dulux!

    On a more practical point blowing taxation, the city of Essen is spending 400,000 euro on an all singing and dancing fanny batter circuit in the old fair ground (Kirmesplatz). The idea will stop the hundreds of streetwalkers from pestering mums with kids on the Pferdemarkt, Helenestr, Bottroperstr, and will improve road safety and the safety of both the brasses and the punters. Nuff sed. (I do have shares in both Durex and Google Maps by the way!)
  8. No wonder your wife has you on short leash!
  9. 'I thought that the National Lottery sorted crap like this out, they take enough off the hopeful masses each week to buy it out of petty cash, after all it is a NATIONAL concern, not just a highly lucrative method of lining certain pockets.'

    Not so, I am reliably informed that it is pretty hard to get anything out of the lottery these days as it is earmarked for the Olympics. Less, of course, the generous salaries being paid out of lottery funds for part-time Labour hangers-on to sit on the Lottery committees.
  10. All told, I couldn't give a stuff if it stays in UK or not. I've never seen it fro real, probably never will. If I want to admire the artist's technique, I can buy a print - good enough for my level of art criticism. Much as I appreciate good painting and especially the Old Masters, they're only paintings when all's said and done. They were created to feed a rich bloke's vanity and they've been doing the same ever since.

    The money could be far better spent on infrastructure, policing or just a great big pissup for some lucky town whose name's pulled out a hat.
  11. Despite liking fine art I stand by my earlier drone; whilst our troops face daily peril ON BEHALF OF THIS GOVERNMENT, whilst lacking the correct equipment, the Exchequer have no place in even considering this purchase.

    This nation is rapidly going to Hell in a handcart, the loonies at the wheel are so far out of touch with reality that internal memoranda are delivered by spiritualists. The word powderkeg springs to mind.
  12. So why does Sutherland need to raise 100m?
  13. Maybe he's going to spend the lot on scratchcards, he might win a few quid. :)
  14. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Being offered to the galleries at 1/3rd of the commercial value - with options on more in four years time.

    Sounds like the sale of the century - but on the other hand - only if they then wait another 6 years and flog the whole lot off to some uber-rich twerp (er, sorry, collector) for loads and loads of wedge whilst retaining the rights to reproduction of the images and paintings for educational use.

    This way, the people get their art, the buyer gets his originals, and the taxpayer gets back a load of wedge, with a good degree of interest too.