Band dedicate song to Glasgow School of Art after fire

A great shame. I once did a short spell in Glasgow (working in IT) and had chance to visit the Scotland Street School. A very impressive building.

One can't help wondering why the School of Art did not have a sprinkler system.

It was an old building. It has mostly been saved. No person was killed. Get over it.

No building is worth one human life. Not a tragedy.

To think so is pure sentimentality. and sentimentality is pure weakness.

ATB from George

Is there a point to this post, other than to be annoying?

They didn't have a sprinkler system and weren't going to have one fitted when the building was going to get some fire prevention work done this summer because they didn't want "water damage".

Not sure it's any worse than fire damage.

Glasgow School of Art, which was severely damaged by fire, has revealed that a new fire suppression system was due to be fitted in the Mackintosh building over the summer.

The school said it was "tragically ironic", but said there was no way of knowing if the system would have made a difference to the spread of the blaze.

Friday's fire completely destroyed the school's iconic library.

But fire crews managed to preserve most of the building and its contents.

They include the archives, museum and and lecture theatre.

The Glasgow School of Art (GSA) said the new system would have enhanced the fire safety measures in place, but did not include sprinklers due to the risk of water damage.

 

The main damage was to the west wing of the building, built between 1907-09, Professor Tom Inns, Director of the GSA said.

The 1897-99 part of the site, including the Mackintosh Museum and Mackintosh Room, has "survived intact", he added.

Dear Greg,

Of course there is a point.

Sentimentality will mean that money that could be spent on important things [tax payers money I mean] will be spent on restoring a relic in stead of looking after the old, educating the young, or helping the work-place challenged.

Look forward, not back to some imagined Elisium ...

ATB from George

It's not a 'relic'. It's a - fantastically important - part of our shared heritage.

Barbarians, primitives and even some animals look after their old and sick. Only the civilised looks after its heritage. Fortunately a lot of private money has already been pledged for its restoration, but it is definite that the taxpayer should make up the rest. Glasgow School of Art (not the building pictured above) has been voted the most important building architecturally of the last 150 years. That's subjective of course, and I'm not sure myself that Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, Jørn Utzon and others mightn't be legitimately upset, but nevertheless if Falling Water or Sydney Opera House were to burn tomorrow and some politician claimed that it was not a tragedy, and money should be spent on something other than restoring a 'relic', then they would become unpopular instantaneously. And rightly so.

The idea that we should not spend money on art, or sport, or humanities simply because the money could instead be spent on a hospital is a ridiculous, false, and slightly offensive one.

I'm very surprised that a musician does not feel the same. GSA was an important part of my education, as it has been of many millions of people since its inception. And will be again.

Dear Rod,

I would happily abolish the Arts Council and stop all State subsidy of of music, and other Art frippery.

I have long thought this. The Arts would soon find their level if they were supported by private and corporate money without the monstrosity of it being supported by Tax-payers via the State.

Just an opinion, but one that I held consistently for thirty years. 

I am not sure who actually coined it, but when you mention civilisation, I am reminded of the quotation, "Civilisation is great idea. We should invent it sometime."

It iks hard yo justify when Football players wages are not State supported for example.

ATB from George

I think this would be awful. Galleries would become gift shops with small galleries attached, covered in corporate branding and way beyond the financial means of anyone other than the rich.

They are already moving in this direction, and everyone hates it. 

I'm glad my taxes contribute to the arts, to public sculpture, to subsidised music, parks, gardens, carnivals and festivals. It's essential that my taxes contribute to hospitals, schools, and making sure that the working life of a train driver is no more than twelve years of mainly strikes and holiday (I pay taxes in France), but beyond the essential, my taxes pay for life-enhancing things, not just life-sustaining ones. This is itself essential for a society to prosper. Art therapy is more effective than Prozac. It's certainly not monstrous.

I cannot share your vision of Utopia. The so-called golden ages of when the arts were propped up only by wealthy patrons depended on the wealthy patrons wanting to support the arts, which was mainly either self-aggrandisement or the performance of some religious obligation. The former is hideous, and the latter has gone. A great many of the great works from those times were actually made by mavericks bending rules and risking everything in the process.

George

Your reaction really suprises me-as somebody I know to be thoughtful and considered.

The building is genuinely delightful-and the artist a major figure in his particular movement. His design language is genuinely iconic and I would place a small bet that something in your house will echo it in some way.

I don't believe art can be left to commercial forces. Much art is produced in poverty and struggle, many famous artists died paupers yet their work enriches the world now. I don't trust corporate funding to support creativity and diversity. It tends not to be a shareholder priority.

I don't consider works of art (buildings or otherwise) to be holy relics but I do think we should value and cherish them. This weekend we returned from holiday in france via Bayeux and viewed the Tapestry. A splendid thing, full of artistic merit as well as historical importance. Who knows how what we produce now will be seen in a further 1000 years?

Bruce

Dear Rod,

I don't expect you to agree with my view.

But I hold this view firmly. I believe that there are certain things the State must do, such as health, education, care for the poor elderly, basic state pension, Fire Services, Police, Judiciary, and so on.

I think Art is robust enough not to need a leg up from Tax-payers. There are many lowly paid tax-payers who could never take the opportunity to avail themselves of at least some of the things funded from their tax take. When was the last time you heard of people on the National Minimum Wage regularly attending the Royal Opera House Covent Garden for example?

So long as there are poor people paying tax, and essential services being less than well provided such as care for the elderly, then the State Funding of Arts is something I would happily see abolished.

Dear Bruce,

I have arrived at this conclusion after much thought on the topic. Something along the lines that thirty years ago people were dying for the lack of dialysis machines while London had four Symphony Orchestras supported by the Tax payer through the Arts Council.

As a lover of music I was appalled by this nonsense.

When we achieve perfection in provision of essential State Services then I would think we can "consider" the possibility of spending a very limited amount of Tax payers money on things which though very nice are nothing other than a luxury. Once there are no obvious problems with essential State services!

If I want to attend a Symphony Concert. I am happy to pay the full cost of it myself, rather than expect people who are even less well off than I was then to subsidise my entertainment. If I cannot afford the full cost then I cannot afford it. The logic is clear. I don't care for Tax payers money to be spent on luxuries by so called experts, when I am certain that the general Tax payer, him or herself, is completely capable of deciding much better what they want to spend money on. If that happens to be on the Arts, then the Arts will flourish. If it is not them clearly the public does not support the Arts as much as the experts think it should be. And some aspects of the Arts will decline. No harm in that if people don't support it.

The greatest art has often been as the result of private patronage. I would be happy to see this become the norm once again.

ATB from George

Whilst I have no problem with the state intervening in arts funding I would agree with George that some of the handwringing over the building was a bit OTT. I agree that if we spent as much time worrying about people as we do buildings life would no doubt be better for it.

Tog

"When we achieve perfection in provision of essential State Services then I would think we can "consider" the possibility of spending a very limited amount of Tax payers money on things which though very nice are nothing other than a luxury. Once there are no obvious problems with essential State services!"

I find myself agreeing with this.

Oddly I don't-yet it seems such a sensible suggestion.

One simple reason-such 'perfection' will never happen, we can always do more in state services, there is no finite endpoint. Indeed too much on various things would be actively bad (and I include healthcare in that).

One complex reason. Take some of the most imperfect societies of the world. Art (often religious) inspires and elevates some utterly miserable existencies beyond the drudgery of their personal poverty. In the developed world I think a world with the arts would be utterly inconceivable-some sort of Orwellian horror actually. It is artistic expression as much as intellectual advances that define us as humans, higher animals if you will.

My job is about adding life to years-art does this too. I don't think individual patronage now (as opposed to in the Middle Ages) would work.

Interesting debate

Bruce

https://docs.google.com/file/d...FdSb3M/preview?pli=1

UK Government expenditure - Arts & Culture includes the Olympic spend in that year.

G

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint George, and it is obviously well considered and heartfelt. And I do see what you mean.

But I do wonder where you might draw the line?

What about parks and gardens for example?

On no criteria can these be described as essentials, and there will always be privately owned gardens, some of it possibly available for free. But I cannot help but think that a population deprived of public green space would be poorer for it, and possibly unhealthier, too.

I watched the NHS keep my mum alive for several years beyond what anyone could have described as natural. I don't know what it cost - lots probably - but in retrospect I fail to see what she, us, the health service, or society, gained in the process. She was never going to get better, and drawing out the process of dying - which is what at a basic level medicine actually does - doesn't seem to me to be any better a use of the public resources than growing some plants. Most importantly, I think she would have felt the same.

I can accept that the public purse subsidising yet another orchestra might seem ill-judged when there are people starving or ill, or unable to get education, but the lack of a hospital or school should be an invective for more tax, rather than less art, or sport, or horticulture or whatever, surely?

History will judge us by the cultural impact we leave behind, not the life expectancy statistics.

I love art, watercolour fine art, sculptures, attractive public builings (as opposed to utilitariarian office factories) etc etc.

I have a few original paintings on my walls at home, done by my daughter's father-in-law. They are beautiful and fortunately not expensive.

But I would never be able to afford a classical painting, or sculpture and it would be a shame if I could and I subsequently removed it from the public stage and reserved it for myself and friends only.

So I have no problem with the idea of "clubbibg together" with lots of other people to buy art, create a beautiful building in which to display the art and allowing the entire nation access to enjoy.

Let's call "clubbing together" the tax-payer, the organisation organising the art/buildings "arts council" and the entire nation, well - the entire nation.

I wouldn't vote for any politician who fostered the idea of withdrawing all funding from the arts.

we'll be getting confused with the "Dealer" thread in the Hi-Fi Corner

Dear Don,

I am not planning to stand for election!

But it is a question that I have been know to ask a candidate.

Usually they set off assuming I meant they should spend more on the Arts, but why it can only be a tiny bit more!

You can imagine the scene as I castigate them for wasting my hard earned Tax-take to support those who want to look at 200 year old pieces of canvass covered in oil-paint! [Or attend subsidised music or theatrical performances!]

Give that any picture of any significance can now be viewed in excellent photos in prints of on the net, and far better than the kind of viewing you get in an exhibition, I personally would happily disperse the entire national collection of sculpture and paintings - over time so as not to flood the market and optimise the return for the Tax-payer.

I am sure that much would remain available to the public though it might require visiting China or Russia to do so in certain cases, and why not? After all the poor Greeks have had to visit London to look at the Parthenon Marbles for rather a long time! These Marbles. of course, should be given back with all possible expedition!

ATB from George

We live with two original pictures by an artist of modest renown. Looking at photos online is not even close-not least as one is about 3metres square. it also fails to do justice to more 3 dimensional media such as sculpture or ceramics/glass.

If you love a piece of art nothing beats having it around or at the least seeing it in 'the flesh'. Our big picture still fascinates me after 10 years.

Bruce

....errr, only half of the marbles are in London. The other half are still on the Parthenon. - but I suspect the Greek version of George Fredrik wouldn't have much use for our half since he would have demolished the Parthenon and used the stone for a new Greek hospital....

Dear Don,

Of course I would not demolish the Parthenon any more than I'd demolish the Art School that caught fire.

But I would certainly not go wasting lots of Tax-payers money on restoring them.

There are plenty of Philanthropists out there for this sort of thing/

ATB from George

George, you really do come out with some philistine, ill-considered rot sometimes. Especially for a self-declared lover of great music.

I find it extra-ordinary that the generation of politicians that were Shirley William's cohort was University educated for free, and then hauled up the ladder for the next generation, while maintaining the Art funding that allows these people to enjoy subsidised Arts paid for by any who pays tax and this Art being of almost no interest whatsoever to most who pay for it.

I'd prefer the education subsidy to have carried on and the Arts subsidy to have been cut instead. 

At least education adds value for a population, while Art just bring joy to a small minority, who ought to pay for it rather than expect others to subsidise them in the pleasures.

ATB from George

What about all the taxpayer money lavished on pointless vanity projects like HS2, Trident or Help to Buy? Or bailing out institutions that did not deserve to be saved? The cost of repairing the Glasgow library (or indeed an entire year's arts subsidy) is infinitesimally small compared to this profligate use of our money.

And at least there is some public benefit to arts subsidy, rather than these hare-brained schemes; and there is no benefit in subsidising tax-dodging wealthy individuals and supra-national corporations. Why not save your wrath for them?

I agree Kevin.

A great many hair-brained schemes for spending ordinary Tax-payers money, which are either plain wasteful, or worse, jobs for the "cronies."

I don't think public funding of the Art is any more sensible.

ATB from George