Anyone got £100m for two paintings?

I don’t particularly like or rate these actual paintings – the experts quoted below are over egging it a lot, to say the least either in general art criticism or popularity terms. They certainly do not equate in any way to the Mona Lisa.

Hear hear. Surely Constable’s Haywain, the Tate’s Turners etc are for more important/relevant.

Well apart from anything else, the paintings are a good investment. Something I doubt preserving an old RAF airfield will ever be.

The paintings aren’t ‘on the open market’ and once bought by Britain in the form of the NG and NGS, presumably there’d be a few words if they tried to sell them on, quickly or later.

They’ve been an investment for the Duke but will not be for the galleries who will buy them. They will have consitutions which prevent sale – if they close the collections are given free to other National collections. There was a huge fuss recently when Bury Council sold a Lowry from its museum. They were expelled from the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) and, as a result, were not allowed to apply for some grants.

Translating the BBC’s report, it seems that the Duke’s decided to dangle a price tag with a deadline out of the blue, for paintings currently on public show since 1945. If the gallery cough up, they get the option of getting shafted again – sorry another chance to buy the second painting which they are also already showing – and, bonus, to keep showing the rest of the collection. And the Duke clears a cool 100 mil without even any ‘moving the paintings cost’.

A bit simplistic. Unlikely to have landed it “out of the blue”. He’s probably been in talks for a few months and agreed a short deadline to get attentionf or the fundraising campaign. Nothing creates a crisis like a short deadline. But the deadline for the next one is four years. Why? I suspect donors might drop a large sum from a crisis fund and then agree that they can give a smaller sum every year for four years to secure the next one, from revenue.
I think he’s got a good grip of how people fund “saving art for the nation” – to use that horrid phrase.

Now, on the other hand can he sell them ‘on the open market’? No. If there was an attempt to sell them overseas, then:

Yes, he can sell it on the open market. The way it works is all 50-year-old art needs a licence to be allowed overseas – even on loan. If an overseas buyer wins an auction for these and they are deemed important, then the liecence to export is deferred. That allows for it to be saved for the nation. If nobody comes up with the money then it can be assumed “the nation” didn’t really want it and it goes overseas. See this explanation from the BBC

However, in this case, if the paintings are really worth £300m, then by the time there is a post auction intervention the galleries would have to raise a lot more money. The Duke’s gift for the nation is the difference between what he is asking and what they’d go for at auction. (Mind you, quite easy to be generous when you still get £100m!)

Well donate them to the nation, then.

Yes – I’m with you on that. Strike me he is in the classic upper-class position: asset-rich and cash poor and wants a bit more disposable to indulge his interests.

My views? The whole thing makes me very uncomfortable. First, this happened recently with the Duke of Northumberland’s Madonna painting. If it works, then I’d lay good money that another Duke will cash in. Where is the money going to keep coming from?

Also the idea that it is possible to find that much money for two paintings when so many other museums (good ones – designated and/or accredited) struggle for a few thousands. There is a huge inequality in funding. Getting money for art is comparatively easy compared even to Shakespeare or Wordsworth manuscripts or books – for which objects there are no organisations similar to the Art Fund.

And then obviously aircraft are seen as modern, industrial, dirty – hey, lets just be very grateful for those who do put money towards the things we’re interested in.

Allan

The RAF museums would see a substantial public funding each year. Its unlikely that the RAF museums (there are two, right?) can run entirely on ticket sales.

As mentioned above, I would like to see where public funding supports historic aviation in Britain. I think people would be surprised.

Good post – there is probably more money from the taxpayer going into aviation than ever before. I believe admission to Cosford and Hendon are now free courtesy of HMG?

As always there are competing priorities for funding as we just haven’t got enough and that is bound to raise passionate responses. Don’t think trying to denigrate others call for money would help though.

£100m for those paintings does seem an awful lot though…..

I prefer artists like Chadwick, Mitchell, Camm. Far more stirring and evocative.

I fully agree with Megalith’s (Steve) notion about aviation (in particular historic aviation) being a fringe interest, that’s unlikely to ever attract fundings equal to art.

BUT, as I understand it (being Johnny foreigner here) quite a lot of public spending is already going towards historic aviation in Britain.

The BBMF is operated on government monies (and has been for years).

The RAF museums would see a substantial public funding each year. Its unlikely that the RAF museums (there are two, right?) can run entirely on ticket sales.

Please correct me if im wrong.

Im pretty sure there are plenty of other places/organisations related to Historic aviation, that receive funding each year. Maybe we should make a list, so it can be made clear, what is spend on historic aviation (or at least where monies are spend).

I seem to remember there are a few air fields, that have been made historic landmarks. Thats not free and it furthermore prevents the area to be used for development (thus not making the money it could have made).

How about Duxford, is that running 100% on private funding?

Im pretty sure, that there are art museums/organisations/interest groups, who feel this investment could be used better on other things. You just can’t please everyone in cases like this.

Maybe you should be pleased, that you live in a country, that takes its history and cultural heritage seriously enough, to cough up a cool 100M to support parts of it. Even if its a part of culture, that you don’t really enjoy too much.

As mentioned above, I would like to see where public funding supports historic aviation in Britain. I think people would be surprised.

Blind spots.

I’m curious as to how buying something you won’t be allowed to sell is ‘a good investment’ in financial terms? They paintings aren’t ‘on the open market’ and once bought by Britain in the form of the NG and NGS, presumably there’d be a few words if they tried to sell them on, quickly or later.

On the other hand, shifting them on quick would at least do to the Duke what he’s trying to do to the country with what’s basically an arbitrary ransom demand from an adequately rich man.

The Duke’s non-art assets were valued by The Sunday Times Rich List at £30m. The two Titians are thought to be worth £300m on the open market, while the rest of the Bridgewater Collection is reportedly worth £1bn.

Translating the BBC’s report, it seems that the Duke’s decided to dangle a price tag with a deadline out of the blue, for paintings currently on public show since 1945. If the gallery cough up, they get the option of getting shafted again – sorry another chance to buy the second painting which they are also already showing – and, bonus, to keep showing the rest of the collection. And the Duke clears a cool 100 mil without even any ‘moving the paintings cost’.

Now, on the other hand can he sell them ‘on the open market’? No. If there was an attempt to sell them overseas, then:

If the National Galleries fail to secure funding for the Titian by New Year’s Eve, and if the Duke was to receive an offer for the painting from abroad, it is likely the DCMS would be approached about the possibility of imposing a similar export ban.

Essentially no one from overseas is likely to offer any cash for them, as they’re unlikely to be able to get them. There’s also no other offers on the table or likely to be. I’d like to be able to pull a stunt like the Duke’s.

Not someone I’m inviting for tea.

Personally, I’d rather have Andy’s W.W.II airfield, which at least I’d want one that I could operate aircraft from, and not surrounded by nimbies – which is obviously complete fantasy; but then so’s the claim these are, ‘a bargain’.

The Duke’s spokesman, Terence Fane-Saunders, said he was “very keen” to see the collection kept together and on public view in the UK.

Well donate them to the nation, then. ‘Not keen’ would be a better translation.

‘Landed Gentry – shafting the UK for millennia.’

Back to aviation, sorry for the digression.

The real question is why no one’s flaming the Duke for basically demanding a very large lump of cash to continue / convert a loan?

I cannot blame him for that. If I thought I had two bits of canvas with some paint on that were worth £100m, I would be trying to flog them as well, especially if I knew some noddy was willing to fund raise for them.

Then I could look really generous when they got to the their target, I could agree to sell them for £90m and they could keep the rest to further add to their collection, or build a new building to house them.

I would get a Knighthood!

Of course there are two sides to every story………………..

It is easy to dismiss such expenditure as ‘obscene’ as indeed it is on some levels. However the arts are and always have been an integral part of any civilised society, which almost every citizen enjoys at some point during the year; be this a visit to a theatre or gallery, rock concerts, painting themselves, amateur dramatics, reading a novel or simply watching a film on television or cinema.

It is also worth noting that most dictators at some point attempt to ban/control the work of various artists – which really shows the influence that art has over society.

If you look at the bottom of the following link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4732056.stm

You will see that whilst The National Gallery, Tate Modern , V&A, British Museum, National Gallery and Tate Britain all feature with over a million visitors, NO purely aeronautical attraction is on the list, indeed the only attraction with an aeronautical content is the Science Museum. To this you might add the two castles listed as having a ‘military link.’ The simple conclusion is that compared to the arts, aviation and indeed military history as a whole is a fringe interest.

This is born out by looking around the office where I work (50+ people), half the staff are female and have zero interest in aeronautics, but they do organise collective trips to the theatre etc. Of the men there a far more motorcycle enthusiasts, with cars and football running them a close second. Indeed I am the only person here with more than a passing interest in aircraft, and have to admit to having gone to the theatre with the ladies, as have most of the other chaps in the office at various times.

I would suggest that in a democracy money should be spent where the majority will benefit from or enjoy the expenditure.

Of course that is not a justification of this particular case.

So let us look at the facts – and start by reading the following link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7584902.stm

The first thing one should notice is that this is an appeal for funding; as ever the bulk of this will not come from public money but sources such as national art funds, private individuals and companies. Remember John Paul Getty?

Next the market value of this painting is not £100m but closer to £300m, which would be a good investment in anyone’s book. The value of these paintings also shows how people value art in comparison to say a Spitfire. In addition as part of this package, a number of other notable works will remain in this country’s public galleries.
Finally even if the half the large number of visitors to this country’s major art institutions were foreign tourists and not Brits, it would only illustrate how important such attractions are to this country’s tourist industry. And if they are that important in that way then investing in them is essential.

Ultimately we have to admit that we are aficionados of a fringe interest and that often in life we can not understand other people’s enthusiasms. I can’t understand how anyone could enjoy risking their neck on a motorbike, or why to my girlfriend a £125 designer blouse is superior to one that looks the same in Matalan.

The bottom line though is that if we want others to respect our quirks, we should respect other peoples view on life and that to a great many people these paintings are extremely important. Any other approach smacks of pig ignorance, bigotry or worse.

Steve.

On the news bulletin I saw last night they were asking for public donations – £10 per person to fund the purchases. A bit like TVOC!

One of the paintings is with the Museum of Scotland [aren’t they involved with East Fortune??:confused:] – so let’s hope they raise the money by donation and keep their other budget for the planes, like Concorde. :diablo:

Well apart from anything else, the paintings are a good investment.
Something I doubt preserving an old RAF airfield will ever be.

I’m also sorry to say that the level of interest in art outweighs the interest in aviation by a ratio of about 1000:1.
I do also happen to think we’d live in something of a very grey World if it wasn’t for the arts.

Story from the BBC here…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7584902.stm

Andy.
PS. And Philip, on the subject of philosophy–there is no point–never was, never will be.

isnt this an aviation discussion forum?

isn’t this thread a bit pointless if the decision is already made.

and what has it got to do with aviation anyway.

am i missing the point or something.

IMO this is not the correct place for this kind of thing………lets keep on topic AVIATION NOT ART

I actually quite like vintage aviation, opera and art. Each shows we are somewhere more than living as brute animals. Forums seem to function to show otherwise, at times.

Personally I’ve yet to need to choose between the arts and aviation, and my hard earned, and efforts are spent among both these and more.

If you think it’s easy fund-raising for an opera house or Renaissance painting, go ahead – try it. For each of these big ticket items there’s a lot of tough graft for the rest, yes, just like in aviation.

Specifically, I don’t particularly like or rate these actual paintings – the experts quoted below are over egging it a lot, to say the least either in general art criticism or popularity terms. They certainly do not equate in any way to the Mona Lisa.

In an interview in 2001, Lucian Freud described the paintings – which can be seen in Edinburgh’s National Gallery of Scotland (NGS) – as “simply the most beautiful pictures in the world”.

NGS director general John Leighton said losing Diana and Actaeon would be like France having to give up the Mona Lisa.

“I think it would be hard to exaggerate the misfortune it would be. In our terms it would be like the Mona Lisa being taking out of the Louvre, or the Uffizi gallery in Florence losing its Botticellis,” he told the BBC.

Utter rubbish. Turner’s Fighting Temeraire was voted the country’s most popular painting, and I don’t recall either of these even making the shortlist.

The real question is why no one’s flaming the Duke for basically demanding a very large lump of cash to continue / convert a loan? They are his, and it is a free country, particularly if you are a very wealthy member of the landed gentry. :rolleyes: Maybe he needs the cash to support an opera house or fly a V bomber.:p

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7585640.stm

It’s easy and pointless to winge about other’s efforts and success. The judgement is on whether you succeed.

Regards,

£100M just so a handful of people can go “ooh” and “aah” at a painting?

Jesus wept. And the funny thing is, Tracy Emin was giving it her full support. Yeah, Tracy Emin, her of the manky bedroom “art”….

That said, if I had £100m to spare, I would buy these two paintings. I would cut them up into 2in squares and buried each piece on a forgotten airfield. A few years ago a group of artists burnt £1m. I’ve met these artists and seen the video the made. I thought they were loonies. I now understand. Sometimes you really have to scream and fight and draw blood to get people to take note, and to…

…what’s the bleeding point.

Your action would be an act of total vandalism. The paintings need to be preserved for the nation……..[/QUOTE]

Why? he was Italian and you won’t get thousands of people in a traffic queue on a motorway to see them – its the old class based perception of its classic and old and therefore must be good. £100 million, I find that sort of spend offensive:mad:

That said, if I had £100m to spare, I would buy these two paintings. I would cut them up into 2in squares and buried each piece on a forgotten airfield. A few years ago a group of artists burnt £1m. I’ve met these artists and seen the video the made. I thought they were loonies. I now understand. Sometimes you really have to scream and fight and draw blood to get people to take note, and to…

…what’s the bleeding point.[/QUOTE]

Your action would be an act of total vandalism. The paintings need to be preserved for the nation……..

I really, really understand your anger. I feel the same all the time, albeit in a different country:rolleyes:
I´ll never understand the the hold the f*cking tree hugging “artistic” clan has on the purse of the authorities. For an example, here in Iceland, an opera building is being built for (estimated, sure to overrun by 150%) 10 billion Icelandic kronurs. If we, historical aviation enthusiasts, were given 10% of that figure, we could build a museum to house all the irreplaceable treasures of Icelandic aviation. But NO!!! We do not even get a planning permission for a museum which we would fund ourselvs!! (You can add all the known curses within these brackets). All the while, irreplaceable treasures are left to rot in less than ideal conditions. We are doing our outmost to preserve them of course, but it is only so much you can do with out propper housing, particulary for the larger exhibits.

Like I said in one argument with a civil servant, the history of aviation in Iceland is volatile, it will disappear with time if not cared for properly. The operas of Bach, Motzart etc. will not go away, you can always make them happen. That argument fell on deaf ears. He is known to be in the f*cking tree hugging department.

Rant about conditions in a different country over!