This is art?

[sodderboy]

Our federal government hacks are really need to have their allowances cut, and sure, lets start with State.
For a million simoleans, couldn't we have gotten something more artistic?

 

[pucho812]

what happened to the old American embassy in London? Why is their a new one in the first place. I don't know art but maybe someone around here does. Could anyone explain how a bunch of granite in a pile is worth 1 million dollars?

 

[sahib]

There is a Turkish expression saying "if suckers did not exist how would the conmen make a living?" which pretty much sums up the great majority of modern art for me.

 

[sodderboy]

I think they could have spent 50 g's on something real nice from a young, talented artist in the UK for the embassy, and used the rest to keep our senators pampered and then maybe feed some hungry kids with whats left. . .

Stick a fork in US, we are quite done.

 

[pucho812]

only thing missing is the president playing a fiddle while the country burns.

 

[12afael]

isn`t that a replica of Homer Simpson modern art

“You mean this hunk of junk?  This isn’t art, it’s just a barbeque that pushed me over the edge.” – Homer Simpson

 

[JohnRoberts]

I wish those were just the small handful of examples of government waste and complete lack of spending discipline, but they are the rule and not the exception. It is the nature of government bureaucracies to grow and expand (like cancers). The size of their budgets is how they keep score to determine whether they are winning or losing. They do not have the self imposed discipline of private business having to be profitable or cease to exist. 

This is not good or bad, it just is, but ample reason to limit government to important tasks that only they can do, leaving the private sector unfettered, to do what they do far better. We are wealthy, but no so wealthy that we can afford to let the government waste so large a fraction of that wealth.

JR

 

[Gustav]

THIS is art...



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/arts/design/record-auction-price-for-barnett-newman-at-sothebys.html?_r=0

Gustav

 

[rob_gould]

THIS is art...



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/arts/design/record-auction-price-for-barnett-newman-at-sothebys.html?_r=0

Gusta

This makes me want to be in the auctioneering business. $43.8m here, 293.6m there... It's surely the auction house that's the winner here...

 

[12afael]

definitely money is not in the music...  :-\

 

[L´Andratté]

Hey, happens that I am artist, painting, and I say art lies in the eye of the beholder.
So, yes, maybe that stone stuff is art to someone and I have no problem with that.

It´s really the 1 million, that compromises it all.

Like I am told countless times, ´You would be much more successful´(I am not ;D )´if you would
fixate yourself on one thing and repeat that on and on, so collectors can get used to it, and
keep it simple too!´ Boring. This art is made for people who actually know shit about it.
Pictures need to be BIG and abstract colour fields are always good, like it was new fifty year ago. :'(
It´s really that stupid...

Sometimes artists need to do things that are strange and not understood by most people, that´s ok.
It´s easy to hate stuff, like van Gogh was hated in his time, he was an abomination to most, but a great painter,
when the restrictions of fashion of the time are left behind.

But you can always criticize the prize tag, I´m with you there (I personally know lots of people who commit
themselves to great and strange stuff, and hardly make a living). Art scene is bigmouth territory.

Anyway nevermind. It´s just peanuts in the big scheme. Maybe someone purchased that, well, object?,
so you can rave about while billions are spent for the real bullshit.

 

[mushy]

I don't understand.  What is the problem with this?  You can maybe think of a better way to spend the money?  Government funded art and architecture are not new concepts. 

Also, let's not confuse the facts.  The Dept of State did not pay a million dollars for the granite piece. They commissioned a series of pieces made by the same artist. 

The Daily Mail sensationalize something???  Never!!!

 

[pucho812]

I don't understand.  What is the problem with this?  You can maybe think of a better way to spend the money?  Government funded art and architecture are not new concepts. 

Also, let's not confuse the facts.  The Dept of State did not pay a million dollars for the granite piece. They commissioned a series of pieces made by the same artist. 

The Daily Mail sensationalize something???  Never!!!

The agency's 2013 spending included $1 million for a single granite sculpture set to adorn the new American Embassy in London.


unless I missed something here they did in fact spend 1 million on that pile of rocks. Could the money be used elsewhere, sure, I can think of better uses for that considering the state the country is in. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

I don't understand.  What is the problem with this?  You can maybe think of a better way to spend the money?  Government funded art and architecture are not new concepts. 

The critical point is that the government does not have any money of their own to spend, but is spending taxpayer money, OUR money, or increasingly borrowed money that we taxpayers will have to pay back.

A few million dollars here and there are table scraps, wile I would prefer to see some of that embassy budget spent to fortify the embassy facility in Benghazi that was so easily over-run. Maybe drop a few of those granite blocks on top of the attacking terrorists.

Also, let's not confuse the facts.  The Dept of State did not pay a million dollars for the granite piece. They commissioned a series of pieces made by the same artist. 

The Daily Mail sensationalize something???  Never!!!

I agree this is like quibbling over crumbs compared to entitlement spending... While the people working for the government spending our money lack the judgement of the vast majority of taxpayers who would not embrace such largess, not to mention the total lack of any spending discipline when spending other peoples money. 

This is just an example of things we would not spend our money on if we were asked.

JR

 

[mushy]

unless I missed something here they did in fact spend 1 million on that pile of rocks. Could the money be used elsewhere, sure, I can think of better uses for that considering the state the country is in.

http://www.sean-scully.com/en/art/sculpture/WallofLightCubed2%7C3055%7C2%7CD%7C1#

"Wall of Light Cloned 2" is a privately owned piece and is presented in the article as an example of Sean Skully's work.  NO WHERE in this or any other article I can find on the subject is there any evidence that the million dollars is for one piece or this particular piece.  I'm sure the actual piece or pieces will be no more appealing to Mike or John, but that doesn't make this commission any less legit.  It's not like this guy is some schmo tinkering in his garage on the weekends.  Sean Skully is an established and highly collected artist. 

The critical point is that the government does not have any money of their own to spend, but is spending taxpayer money, OUR money, or increasingly borrowed money that we taxpayers will have to pay back.

A few million dollars here and there are table scraps, wile I would prefer to see some of that embassy budget spent to fortify the embassy facility in Benghazi that was so easily over-run. Maybe drop a few of those granite blocks on top of the attacking terrorists.

I agree this is like quibbling over crumbs compared to entitlement spending... While the people working for the government spending our money lack the judgement of the vast majority of taxpayers who would not embrace such largess, not to mention the total lack of any spending discipline when spending other peoples money. 

This is just an example of things we would not spend our money on if we were asked.

JR

Again with Benghazi?  There were 16 consulate attacks under Bush, but I can't seem to find any posts in the Brewery that mention those. But you digress...

And to correct your statement: This is just another example of things YOU would not spend money on if we were asked.  I vote yea. 

Fortunately, we don't get to vote on every expense.

 

[pucho812]

Fortunately, we don't get to vote on every expense.

I disagree I wish we did, then maybe we wouldn't have purchased the 800 dollar toilet seats back in the regan era or the secret service partying with Colombian hookers that happen when Hilarious was Sec of State  along with any other sort of nonsense spending our government has done with our money.  Last I checked they are supposed to be of service to us.  Not us subject to their whim of nonsense. But anyway I have found several references beyond the daily mail that note the 1 million dollar price tag of said art work. So it might actually have cost that much.

 

[sodderboy]

It all adds up, that is the problem.  There is no accountability.  Specifically, how many Senators could get their mani-pedi's with that $$, or actually provide government services?  Borrow 900K less from our future- thats a good idea.

It's the price tag, not the "art".  If people want to bid-up Skully pile or Warhol print it is their egos and biz.  I don't want US government hacks doing it.  It just adds to the list of stupidities weighing us down.

They closed US embassies around the world because there was "no money to keep the government open"- look, here is a mil that should get the saving started.

It all adds up at a time when there should be more subtracting.
Mike

 

[JohnRoberts]

Again with Benghazi?  There were 16 consulate attacks under Bush, but I can't seem to find any posts in the Brewery that mention those. But you digress...

These seemed like fair dots to connect since they were talking about embassy spending. In case you were not paying attention, before the attack in Benghazi the US ambassador to Libya requested increased security and was rejected, presumably for budgetary reasons. In hindsight this "art" money could have been better spent elsewhere within the same agency.

The refusal to properly account for how Benghazi was handled is just one of a list this administration is responsible for. Sorry about the veer into security and accountability, this thread is about spending discipline. 

And to correct your statement: This is just another example of things YOU would not spend money on if we were asked.  I vote yea. 

Fortunately, we don't get to vote on every expense.

You are correct, this is something I would not spend my money on.  The last time I checked we were still running in the ballpark of $1T(?) annual budget deficits, with a $16T (?) total debt. Call me old fashioned but when deeply in debt IMO we need to be more disciplined about marginal spending. Art for an embassy while pretty is not a critical expense. Embassy security OTOH seems more important. (While I have not looked into this, perhaps those granite blocks were an artistic treatment of the physical barriers typically used to keep car/truck bombs from getting too close to embassy buildings.) 

Your vote is registered. Without making a judgement call about the specific art, i disagree with the seemingly frivolous spending, during these weak economic times with more government spending than revenue.

JR

PS, Perhaps a more timely question about government art is Detroit's museum art collection worth millions of dollars, while the city has filed for bankruptcy. If they sell the art to meet some of their debt obligations, that art does not get destroyed, it just changes ownership and helps that local government meet at least part of their obligations.   

 

[lassoharp]

That the sculptor actually got paid a mil for it . . . . I can't be anything but happy about that.  Weren't they supposed to wait until he died first? . . . . . in abject poverty.


The last time I checked the definition of what Art really is was still being debated among scholars.  I just see a guy who did some work he loved to do and got paid a bundle for it.  Seems kind of a rarity these days at any level.  At least in America.

That the state is spending that kind of money on any non essentials is another POV.  But once the tax dollars leave your hand, they're not yours anymore . They are somebody elses. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

That the state is spending that kind of money on any non essentials is another POV.  But once the tax dollars leave your hand, they're not yours anymore . They are somebody elses.

NO, the money is always ours, spent in our name, supposedly for our benefit. While there seems to be much disagreement about what actually benefits us, and what doesn't.

A classic principle in economics (Hayek, et al) is that individuals will always manage resources more wisely for their specific interests than central planners ever could because of the impossibility to understand and satisfy that many different individual needs.  The big lie in nanny state central planning is that the individuals do not know what is good for them and government does. Evidence suggests that many individuals may not, but government surely does not have much of a track record, despite good intentions.

Our personal liberty regarding spending decision making seems worth defending..

JR