Should council sell off art to stop services and jobs being axed

A prized Rodin sculpture is part of Southampton's art collection

A prized Rodin sculpture is part of Southampton's art collection

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Politics and business reporter

CASH strapped chiefs in Southampton have been urged to rethink the sale of public art to pay the bills after one of London’s poorest boroughs decided to sell a £20m sculpture.

A controversial plan to sell off valuable masterpieces lying hidden in Southampton’s Civic Centre was shelved two years ago in the face of fierce opposition.

But last night there were renewed calls for art to be sold in the city as Labour council leaders finalise plans to tackle the city’s worst ever financial crisis.

It comes after a decision by a London council with a £100m funding gap agreed to sell of a bronze by Henry Moore bronze valued at up to £20m.

For the full story click here

Comments (43)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:20am Fri 9 Nov 12

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Absolutely no way should we be selling off our assets, such as the art collection.

You can only make money from selling assets once, and then they are gone, leaving the city impoverished, and not fixing the underlying problem. You will still have the same problem next year.

The only solution is to cut the ongoing council costs so they are in line with receipts.

It is such a shame for council workers that Labour got control of the council. It would have been far better for workers to each lose a little money, and for many more to keep their jobs.

We knew what was going to happen if Labour got in, but the turkeys voted for Christmas, and the council workers will now sadly reap what they have sown with their strikes and campaigns against the councillors who were doing their level best to preserve jobs.
Absolutely no way should we be selling off our assets, such as the art collection. You can only make money from selling assets once, and then they are gone, leaving the city impoverished, and not fixing the underlying problem. You will still have the same problem next year. The only solution is to cut the ongoing council costs so they are in line with receipts. It is such a shame for council workers that Labour got control of the council. It would have been far better for workers to each lose a little money, and for many more to keep their jobs. We knew what was going to happen if Labour got in, but the turkeys voted for Christmas, and the council workers will now sadly reap what they have sown with their strikes and campaigns against the councillors who were doing their level best to preserve jobs. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

11:36am Fri 9 Nov 12

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

The message we need to send to such "senior council members" is that by selling off our art, they will not be buying votes, but advertising that they are not competent to run the council finances

If these councillors are not brave enough to take the tough decisions to balance the budget, then maybe they should resign, and leave the job to people who can.

One off asset sales will NOT solve the problem, just brush it under the carpet for a year or so, by which time it will have got worse, and there will be no art to sell next time.

In my view anyone who advocates selling the city's art treasures betrays the city and its heritage.

Council income and outgoings must be balanced within each year, councillors should not be able to get away with ignoring this fundamental issue.

Labour councillors made unrealistic and unaffordable promises before they were elected. They should not be allowed hide the problem for a short time by selling off the city's heritage.
The message we need to send to such "senior council members" is that by selling off our art, they will not be buying votes, but advertising that they are not competent to run the council finances If these councillors are not brave enough to take the tough decisions to balance the budget, then maybe they should resign, and leave the job to people who can. One off asset sales will NOT solve the problem, just brush it under the carpet for a year or so, by which time it will have got worse, and there will be no art to sell next time. In my view anyone who advocates selling the city's art treasures betrays the city and its heritage. Council income and outgoings must be balanced within each year, councillors should not be able to get away with ignoring this fundamental issue. Labour councillors made unrealistic and unaffordable promises before they were elected. They should not be allowed hide the problem for a short time by selling off the city's heritage. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

11:43am Fri 9 Nov 12

Lone Ranger. says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
The message we need to send to such "senior council members" is that by selling off our art, they will not be buying votes, but advertising that they are not competent to run the council finances

If these councillors are not brave enough to take the tough decisions to balance the budget, then maybe they should resign, and leave the job to people who can.

One off asset sales will NOT solve the problem, just brush it under the carpet for a year or so, by which time it will have got worse, and there will be no art to sell next time.

In my view anyone who advocates selling the city's art treasures betrays the city and its heritage.

Council income and outgoings must be balanced within each year, councillors should not be able to get away with ignoring this fundamental issue.

Labour councillors made unrealistic and unaffordable promises before they were elected. They should not be allowed hide the problem for a short time by selling off the city's heritage.
Your last paragraph consists of ... Quote:- They should not be allowed hide the problem for a short time by selling off the city's heritage.
.
Its Cllr Hannides who is making the running on this (again) not Labour.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: The message we need to send to such "senior council members" is that by selling off our art, they will not be buying votes, but advertising that they are not competent to run the council finances If these councillors are not brave enough to take the tough decisions to balance the budget, then maybe they should resign, and leave the job to people who can. One off asset sales will NOT solve the problem, just brush it under the carpet for a year or so, by which time it will have got worse, and there will be no art to sell next time. In my view anyone who advocates selling the city's art treasures betrays the city and its heritage. Council income and outgoings must be balanced within each year, councillors should not be able to get away with ignoring this fundamental issue. Labour councillors made unrealistic and unaffordable promises before they were elected. They should not be allowed hide the problem for a short time by selling off the city's heritage.[/p][/quote]Your last paragraph consists of ... Quote:- They should not be allowed hide the problem for a short time by selling off the city's heritage. . Its Cllr Hannides who is making the running on this (again) not Labour. Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

11:44am Fri 9 Nov 12

Frank28 says...

Has the Council forgotten the legal Caveat that prevents them flogging off the City's Art Collection? They can only sell it illegally.
Has the Council forgotten the legal Caveat that prevents them flogging off the City's Art Collection? They can only sell it illegally. Frank28
  • Score: 0

11:49am Fri 9 Nov 12

loosehead says...

Sorry but in times of need all families are having to tighten their belts & sell or do away with luxuries.
I've done away with Sky I walk rather than drive ( if not a great distance).
I by Basic foods ( Sainsbury's) & I grow as much as possible.
Unless this Art is by a Southampton person or shows historical times in the City why not sell it to say The London Art Museum ( don't know it's name)?
It would be on display instead of in vaults & would be seen after all wasn't that the reason it was produced?
Yes it might be a short term measure but it would give the council leeway to sort out it's overheads wouldn't it?
I was for it when my party suggested it & couldn't believe the left & so called art lovers reaction to the proposal ( I'm a Tory)
Sorry but in times of need all families are having to tighten their belts & sell or do away with luxuries. I've done away with Sky I walk rather than drive ( if not a great distance). I by Basic foods ( Sainsbury's) & I grow as much as possible. Unless this Art is by a Southampton person or shows historical times in the City why not sell it to say The London Art Museum ( don't know it's name)? It would be on display instead of in vaults & would be seen after all wasn't that the reason it was produced? Yes it might be a short term measure but it would give the council leeway to sort out it's overheads wouldn't it? I was for it when my party suggested it & couldn't believe the left & so called art lovers reaction to the proposal ( I'm a Tory) loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:56am Fri 9 Nov 12

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Loosehead,

Maybe it could be justified to fund the major capital project like the new arts quarter, but absolutely no way should it ever be allowed to prop up an unsustainable revenue budget.

The Arts quarter should go a long way towards boosting the cultural offering in Southampton which is sorely needed if we wish to generate more money from tourism and bring in money from people spending when visiting Southampton from outlying areas.
Loosehead, Maybe it could be justified to fund the major capital project like the new arts quarter, but absolutely no way should it ever be allowed to prop up an unsustainable revenue budget. The Arts quarter should go a long way towards boosting the cultural offering in Southampton which is sorely needed if we wish to generate more money from tourism and bring in money from people spending when visiting Southampton from outlying areas. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Fri 9 Nov 12

Subject48 says...

Lets sack more police officers and drown in our own rubbish as long as we have a lump of stone that looks like a naked man in a vault somewhere.

Well done, we have totaly moved into the new age mind frame.....(NOT)

Exactly whats wrong with the world...

Sell it, give me £200 and ill make you a statue...
Lets sack more police officers and drown in our own rubbish as long as we have a lump of stone that looks like a naked man in a vault somewhere. Well done, we have totaly moved into the new age mind frame.....(NOT) Exactly whats wrong with the world... Sell it, give me £200 and ill make you a statue... Subject48
  • Score: 0

12:17pm Fri 9 Nov 12

sarfhamton says...

We could sell our souls too but I would rather think about how we can use our Art to bring tourists to the city and inspire our young people
We could sell our souls too but I would rather think about how we can use our Art to bring tourists to the city and inspire our young people sarfhamton
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Fri 9 Nov 12

owen_thesaints says...

"It comes after a decision by a London council with a £100 funding gap agreed to sell of a bronze by Henry Moore bronze valued at up to £20m."

What will they do with the £19,999,900 surplus from the sale?
"It comes after a decision by a London council with a £100 funding gap agreed to sell of a bronze by Henry Moore bronze valued at up to £20m." What will they do with the £19,999,900 surplus from the sale? owen_thesaints
  • Score: 0

12:27pm Fri 9 Nov 12

4-front says...

Re turkeys voting for Christmas, I don't suppose politicians across the whole of Hampshire would consider reducing the number of councils from about 15 to say 4 - wow, what trauma?

This would cut the annual Councillor expenses budget from c£7 million to c£2million, chop 11 sets of Chief Executives and their Directors' entourages, cut the number of hot air generating council and committee meetings plus the admin support for such meetings AND save the County and City(ies) heritage art and related collections. Oh, and it might save support services for the elderly, youth and social servcies and essential basic safety and housing services which councils are supposed to provide by law .... and loads of jobs!! ...... but I can't see turkey headed politicians locally or nationally voting for Christmas!

Hey, ho!
Re turkeys voting for Christmas, I don't suppose politicians across the whole of Hampshire would consider reducing the number of councils from about 15 to say 4 - wow, what trauma? This would cut the annual Councillor expenses budget from c£7 million to c£2million, chop 11 sets of Chief Executives and their Directors' entourages, cut the number of hot air generating council and committee meetings plus the admin support for such meetings AND save the County and City(ies) heritage art and related collections. Oh, and it might save support services for the elderly, youth and social servcies and essential basic safety and housing services which councils are supposed to provide by law .... and loads of jobs!! ...... but I can't see turkey headed politicians locally or nationally voting for Christmas! Hey, ho! 4-front
  • Score: 0

12:39pm Fri 9 Nov 12

andyfidler1966 says...

That fire extinguisher needs at least 1 metre clear space from any angle (so that it can be accessed easily if there is a fire)....
To address the main topic...selling our art collection to "the London Art Museum" would only work if there is space in London to exhibit the artworks. Also this would mean that tourists would visit London rather that Southampton...
Selling it to avoid sacking police officers would only work if the city employed police officers...
And merging councils might work, but that would take years to sort through, and my understanding is that it is the 2013/14 budget that needs sorting out.
That fire extinguisher needs at least 1 metre clear space from any angle (so that it can be accessed easily if there is a fire).... To address the main topic...selling our art collection to "the London Art Museum" would only work if there is space in London to exhibit the artworks. Also this would mean that tourists would visit London rather that Southampton... Selling it to avoid sacking police officers would only work if the city employed police officers... And merging councils might work, but that would take years to sort through, and my understanding is that it is the 2013/14 budget that needs sorting out. andyfidler1966
  • Score: 0

12:41pm Fri 9 Nov 12

George4th says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Absolutely no way should we be selling off our assets, such as the art collection.

You can only make money from selling assets once, and then they are gone, leaving the city impoverished, and not fixing the underlying problem. You will still have the same problem next year.

The only solution is to cut the ongoing council costs so they are in line with receipts.

It is such a shame for council workers that Labour got control of the council. It would have been far better for workers to each lose a little money, and for many more to keep their jobs.

We knew what was going to happen if Labour got in, but the turkeys voted for Christmas, and the council workers will now sadly reap what they have sown with their strikes and campaigns against the councillors who were doing their level best to preserve jobs.
"You can only make money from selling assets once, and then they are gone, leaving the city impoverished, and not fixing the underlying problem."

Very true and a lesson learned too late by many who have gone down that road. You have to run the council/business/clu
b/etc as you run your home - fit your life around the money in equalling the money going out - if you have to make cuts to do it then do it and don't wait for a miracle that is never going to come!
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Absolutely no way should we be selling off our assets, such as the art collection. You can only make money from selling assets once, and then they are gone, leaving the city impoverished, and not fixing the underlying problem. You will still have the same problem next year. The only solution is to cut the ongoing council costs so they are in line with receipts. It is such a shame for council workers that Labour got control of the council. It would have been far better for workers to each lose a little money, and for many more to keep their jobs. We knew what was going to happen if Labour got in, but the turkeys voted for Christmas, and the council workers will now sadly reap what they have sown with their strikes and campaigns against the councillors who were doing their level best to preserve jobs.[/p][/quote]"You can only make money from selling assets once, and then they are gone, leaving the city impoverished, and not fixing the underlying problem." Very true and a lesson learned too late by many who have gone down that road. You have to run the council/business/clu b/etc as you run your home - fit your life around the money in equalling the money going out - if you have to make cuts to do it then do it and don't wait for a miracle that is never going to come! George4th
  • Score: 0

12:50pm Fri 9 Nov 12

Taskforce 141 says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Absolutely no way should we be selling off our assets, such as the art collection.

You can only make money from selling assets once, and then they are gone, leaving the city impoverished, and not fixing the underlying problem. You will still have the same problem next year.

The only solution is to cut the ongoing council costs so they are in line with receipts.

It is such a shame for council workers that Labour got control of the council. It would have been far better for workers to each lose a little money, and for many more to keep their jobs.

We knew what was going to happen if Labour got in, but the turkeys voted for Christmas, and the council workers will now sadly reap what they have sown with their strikes and campaigns against the councillors who were doing their level best to preserve jobs.
the pay cut would only have save approx 15 jobs and only accounts to 2% of the budget cut, so i would not blame job cuts on labour but on central government for clawing back too much too soon!

It will be the people of southampton who will suffer when entire services are lost.

Watch for the fallout next week...
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Absolutely no way should we be selling off our assets, such as the art collection. You can only make money from selling assets once, and then they are gone, leaving the city impoverished, and not fixing the underlying problem. You will still have the same problem next year. The only solution is to cut the ongoing council costs so they are in line with receipts. It is such a shame for council workers that Labour got control of the council. It would have been far better for workers to each lose a little money, and for many more to keep their jobs. We knew what was going to happen if Labour got in, but the turkeys voted for Christmas, and the council workers will now sadly reap what they have sown with their strikes and campaigns against the councillors who were doing their level best to preserve jobs.[/p][/quote]the pay cut would only have save approx 15 jobs and only accounts to 2% of the budget cut, so i would not blame job cuts on labour but on central government for clawing back too much too soon! It will be the people of southampton who will suffer when entire services are lost. Watch for the fallout next week... Taskforce 141
  • Score: 0

12:50pm Fri 9 Nov 12

nedscrumpo says...

So what's the point of having assets? They are there for hard times. Short of war things couldn't get much worse. Sell the dust-laden, rarely seen art ( apart from the picture in the CEO's office). It's a boon time for pawnbrokers because people are realising their own assets. Do the same SCC
So what's the point of having assets? They are there for hard times. Short of war things couldn't get much worse. Sell the dust-laden, rarely seen art ( apart from the picture in the CEO's office). It's a boon time for pawnbrokers because people are realising their own assets. Do the same SCC nedscrumpo
  • Score: 0

12:55pm Fri 9 Nov 12

andyfidler1966 says...

nedscrumpo wrote:
So what's the point of having assets? They are there for hard times. Short of war things couldn't get much worse. Sell the dust-laden, rarely seen art ( apart from the picture in the CEO's office). It's a boon time for pawnbrokers because people are realising their own assets. Do the same SCC
Do you have any evidence that the Chief Executive has artwork displayed in his office?
As to the "boon" time for pawnbrokers, do you understand how they make their money?
[quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: So what's the point of having assets? They are there for hard times. Short of war things couldn't get much worse. Sell the dust-laden, rarely seen art ( apart from the picture in the CEO's office). It's a boon time for pawnbrokers because people are realising their own assets. Do the same SCC[/p][/quote]Do you have any evidence that the Chief Executive has artwork displayed in his office? As to the "boon" time for pawnbrokers, do you understand how they make their money? andyfidler1966
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Fri 9 Nov 12

sarfhamton says...

andyfidler1966 wrote:
That fire extinguisher needs at least 1 metre clear space from any angle (so that it can be accessed easily if there is a fire)....
To address the main topic...selling our art collection to "the London Art Museum" would only work if there is space in London to exhibit the artworks. Also this would mean that tourists would visit London rather that Southampton...
Selling it to avoid sacking police officers would only work if the city employed police officers...
And merging councils might work, but that would take years to sort through, and my understanding is that it is the 2013/14 budget that needs sorting out.
i thought that extinguisher was another piece of art
[quote][p][bold]andyfidler1966[/bold] wrote: That fire extinguisher needs at least 1 metre clear space from any angle (so that it can be accessed easily if there is a fire).... To address the main topic...selling our art collection to "the London Art Museum" would only work if there is space in London to exhibit the artworks. Also this would mean that tourists would visit London rather that Southampton... Selling it to avoid sacking police officers would only work if the city employed police officers... And merging councils might work, but that would take years to sort through, and my understanding is that it is the 2013/14 budget that needs sorting out.[/p][/quote]i thought that extinguisher was another piece of art sarfhamton
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Fri 9 Nov 12

Northamboy says...

If its sat in the depths of the Civic Centre and seen by no one then sell it. What's the point of having it?

However ALL monies received should go to the people of Southampton and NOT to support taking on more highly paid executives or paying expenses to councillors or council leaders.

A group of local ordinary people should oversee the spending of any monies gained. Don't leave it to any councillors to sort it out as it will just disappear amongst the rest of the councils money. Sell it and spend it wisely for the people gets my vote
If its sat in the depths of the Civic Centre and seen by no one then sell it. What's the point of having it? However ALL monies received should go to the people of Southampton and NOT to support taking on more highly paid executives or paying expenses to councillors or council leaders. A group of local ordinary people should oversee the spending of any monies gained. Don't leave it to any councillors to sort it out as it will just disappear amongst the rest of the councils money. Sell it and spend it wisely for the people gets my vote Northamboy
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Fri 9 Nov 12

4-front says...

Northamboy wrote:
If its sat in the depths of the Civic Centre and seen by no one then sell it. What's the point of having it?

However ALL monies received should go to the people of Southampton and NOT to support taking on more highly paid executives or paying expenses to councillors or council leaders.

A group of local ordinary people should oversee the spending of any monies gained. Don't leave it to any councillors to sort it out as it will just disappear amongst the rest of the councils money. Sell it and spend it wisely for the people gets my vote
Perhaps the art work in the CEO's office will inspire him and councillors in solving the problem ;-)

...... and there was I thinking "the group of local ordinary people overseeing the spending of any monies gained" was the councillors we elect! Silly me :-(

Hey ho!
[quote][p][bold]Northamboy[/bold] wrote: If its sat in the depths of the Civic Centre and seen by no one then sell it. What's the point of having it? However ALL monies received should go to the people of Southampton and NOT to support taking on more highly paid executives or paying expenses to councillors or council leaders. A group of local ordinary people should oversee the spending of any monies gained. Don't leave it to any councillors to sort it out as it will just disappear amongst the rest of the councils money. Sell it and spend it wisely for the people gets my vote[/p][/quote]Perhaps the art work in the CEO's office will inspire him and councillors in solving the problem ;-) ...... and there was I thinking "the group of local ordinary people overseeing the spending of any monies gained" was the councillors we elect! Silly me :-( Hey ho! 4-front
  • Score: 0

2:18pm Fri 9 Nov 12

mr.southampton says...

Oh God Echo, not this AGAIN...

Selling off Art isn't going to make the city's finances any more sustainable, at most it will just push any crisis 2-3 years in the future.

Then we'll have the same problems, but the art collection - as other people point out something which could well be a valuable asset in the future - will be lost forever.
Oh God Echo, not this AGAIN... Selling off Art isn't going to make the city's finances any more sustainable, at most it will just push any crisis 2-3 years in the future. Then we'll have the same problems, but the art collection - as other people point out something which could well be a valuable asset in the future - will be lost forever. mr.southampton
  • Score: 0

2:19pm Fri 9 Nov 12

freemantlegirl2 says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Absolutely no way should we be selling off our assets, such as the art collection.

You can only make money from selling assets once, and then they are gone, leaving the city impoverished, and not fixing the underlying problem. You will still have the same problem next year.

The only solution is to cut the ongoing council costs so they are in line with receipts.

It is such a shame for council workers that Labour got control of the council. It would have been far better for workers to each lose a little money, and for many more to keep their jobs.

We knew what was going to happen if Labour got in, but the turkeys voted for Christmas, and the council workers will now sadly reap what they have sown with their strikes and campaigns against the councillors who were doing their level best to preserve jobs.
I won't point out that this is Hannides again as someone already has.

BUT, the austerity measures and council cuts were ALWAYS going to be worse in the third year which is what is coming up in the next financial year 2013/14. Councils are under even more pressure to make cuts. Expect to see some very crucial services being cut in the next few months, including those for children..... meanwhile no-one is allowed to put up council tax! A small, affordable rise, for everyone would be the way to go but the government would rather see services cut and areas dive down into even further problems... makes sense doesn't it... NOT. Soton has always been a city that has made small CT rises in comparison to other areas, they should have been allowed to continue in this vein, at least for this and next financial years where the pressure is mounting.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Absolutely no way should we be selling off our assets, such as the art collection. You can only make money from selling assets once, and then they are gone, leaving the city impoverished, and not fixing the underlying problem. You will still have the same problem next year. The only solution is to cut the ongoing council costs so they are in line with receipts. It is such a shame for council workers that Labour got control of the council. It would have been far better for workers to each lose a little money, and for many more to keep their jobs. We knew what was going to happen if Labour got in, but the turkeys voted for Christmas, and the council workers will now sadly reap what they have sown with their strikes and campaigns against the councillors who were doing their level best to preserve jobs.[/p][/quote]I won't point out that this is Hannides again as someone already has. BUT, the austerity measures and council cuts were ALWAYS going to be worse in the third year which is what is coming up in the next financial year 2013/14. Councils are under even more pressure to make cuts. Expect to see some very crucial services being cut in the next few months, including those for children..... meanwhile no-one is allowed to put up council tax! A small, affordable rise, for everyone would be the way to go but the government would rather see services cut and areas dive down into even further problems... makes sense doesn't it... NOT. Soton has always been a city that has made small CT rises in comparison to other areas, they should have been allowed to continue in this vein, at least for this and next financial years where the pressure is mounting. freemantlegirl2
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Fri 9 Nov 12

Ford Prefect says...

Dear Echo

Running this story every couple of months is not going to make it happen

All that will happen is you will get more clicks on the page so you can sell mnore advertising. Surely that's not your intention? That would be cynical and dishonourable.
Dear Echo Running this story every couple of months is not going to make it happen All that will happen is you will get more clicks on the page so you can sell mnore advertising. Surely that's not your intention? That would be cynical and dishonourable. Ford Prefect
  • Score: 0

2:34pm Fri 9 Nov 12

Ted Rogers says...

Subject48 wrote:
Lets sack more police officers and drown in our own rubbish as long as we have a lump of stone that looks like a naked man in a vault somewhere.

Well done, we have totaly moved into the new age mind frame.....(NOT)

Exactly whats wrong with the world...

Sell it, give me £200 and ill make you a statue...
Intelligence,culture and reason are alive and well - thank goodness.
[quote][p][bold]Subject48[/bold] wrote: Lets sack more police officers and drown in our own rubbish as long as we have a lump of stone that looks like a naked man in a vault somewhere. Well done, we have totaly moved into the new age mind frame.....(NOT) Exactly whats wrong with the world... Sell it, give me £200 and ill make you a statue...[/p][/quote]Intelligence,culture and reason are alive and well - thank goodness. Ted Rogers
  • Score: 0

2:47pm Fri 9 Nov 12

nedscrumpo says...

andyfidler1966 wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
So what's the point of having assets? They are there for hard times. Short of war things couldn't get much worse. Sell the dust-laden, rarely seen art ( apart from the picture in the CEO's office). It's a boon time for pawnbrokers because people are realising their own assets. Do the same SCC
Do you have any evidence that the Chief Executive has artwork displayed in his office?
As to the "boon" time for pawnbrokers, do you understand how they make their money?
Yes, the Echo reported on him selecting a picture for his office; at the same time thousands were spent on a new carpet.
[quote][p][bold]andyfidler1966[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: So what's the point of having assets? They are there for hard times. Short of war things couldn't get much worse. Sell the dust-laden, rarely seen art ( apart from the picture in the CEO's office). It's a boon time for pawnbrokers because people are realising their own assets. Do the same SCC[/p][/quote]Do you have any evidence that the Chief Executive has artwork displayed in his office? As to the "boon" time for pawnbrokers, do you understand how they make their money?[/p][/quote]Yes, the Echo reported on him selecting a picture for his office; at the same time thousands were spent on a new carpet. nedscrumpo
  • Score: 0

3:13pm Fri 9 Nov 12

good-gosh says...

No assets = no treasure. No treasure = no esteem. No esteem = no respect.
No assets = no treasure. No treasure = no esteem. No esteem = no respect. good-gosh
  • Score: 0

3:32pm Fri 9 Nov 12

Vonnie says...

Here we go again. Cllr John Hannides sabre rattling and promoting himself when he knows that without the Trust's permission Southampton's donated art treasures cannot be sold en masse. The Council does not have control over the Art Collection. It is only one of a number of members of the Trust. It is a totally different legal situation to the one in Tower Hamlets, and he knows it is.
I don't disagree that some of the items could do with a bit more public viewing but mounting exhibitions costs money, cash that is clearly begrudged. The ignorant, urbane, ill-educated, and uncivilised comments made by some of those above just illustrates how far down at the bottom of the bucket they are. Plebeian is a description that fits, in its literal sense.

All any member of Southampton's public has to do if they want to see a particular work of art - and there is an illustrated online catalogue - is to ask. You will have to make an appointment, but it is as simple as that. I suggest that some of you actually look on the SCC gallery pages and see how varied are the activities that go on there, both from a learning and pleasure point of view.

I would bet a pound to a pinch of snuff that most of those who are chuntering on about selling what has been donated to the City and its people have never set foot in the Art Gallery. In 1998 the Government ‘designated the Permanent Collection as having pre-eminent national significance'. That tag should be used to promote the Art Collection, not be a reason for selling it.
Robert Chipperfield, whose bequest is the backbone of, and was the start of the collection, would turn in his grave, as would other donors if they could hear Cllr John Hannides, or read some of the comments on this forum.
They will certainly put off any would-be benefactors who might consider donating a work of art to Southampton.
Here we go again. Cllr John Hannides sabre rattling and promoting himself when he knows that without the Trust's permission Southampton's donated art treasures cannot be sold en masse. The Council does not have control over the Art Collection. It is only one of a number of members of the Trust. It is a totally different legal situation to the one in Tower Hamlets, and he knows it is. I don't disagree that some of the items could do with a bit more public viewing but mounting exhibitions costs money, cash that is clearly begrudged. The ignorant, urbane, ill-educated, and uncivilised comments made by some of those above just illustrates how far down at the bottom of the bucket they are. Plebeian is a description that fits, in its literal sense. All any member of Southampton's public has to do if they want to see a particular work of art - and there is an illustrated online catalogue - is to ask. You will have to make an appointment, but it is as simple as that. I suggest that some of you actually look on the SCC gallery pages and see how varied are the activities that go on there, both from a learning and pleasure point of view. I would bet a pound to a pinch of snuff that most of those who are chuntering on about selling what has been donated to the City and its people have never set foot in the Art Gallery. In 1998 the Government ‘designated the Permanent Collection as having pre-eminent national significance'. That tag should be used to promote the Art Collection, not be a reason for selling it. Robert Chipperfield, whose bequest is the backbone of, and was the start of the collection, would turn in his grave, as would other donors if they could hear Cllr John Hannides, or read some of the comments on this forum. They will certainly put off any would-be benefactors who might consider donating a work of art to Southampton. Vonnie
  • Score: 0

3:40pm Fri 9 Nov 12

loosehead says...

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
Sotonians_lets_pull_

together
wrote:
Absolutely no way should we be selling off our assets, such as the art collection.

You can only make money from selling assets once, and then they are gone, leaving the city impoverished, and not fixing the underlying problem. You will still have the same problem next year.

The only solution is to cut the ongoing council costs so they are in line with receipts.

It is such a shame for council workers that Labour got control of the council. It would have been far better for workers to each lose a little money, and for many more to keep their jobs.

We knew what was going to happen if Labour got in, but the turkeys voted for Christmas, and the council workers will now sadly reap what they have sown with their strikes and campaigns against the councillors who were doing their level best to preserve jobs.
I won't point out that this is Hannides again as someone already has.

BUT, the austerity measures and council cuts were ALWAYS going to be worse in the third year which is what is coming up in the next financial year 2013/14. Councils are under even more pressure to make cuts. Expect to see some very crucial services being cut in the next few months, including those for children..... meanwhile no-one is allowed to put up council tax! A small, affordable rise, for everyone would be the way to go but the government would rather see services cut and areas dive down into even further problems... makes sense doesn't it... NOT. Soton has always been a city that has made small CT rises in comparison to other areas, they should have been allowed to continue in this vein, at least for this and next financial years where the pressure is mounting.
So you consider the yearly council tax rises to increase a Labour councils pay packet acceptable?
Because that's what we as tax payers were expected to do under June Bridles Labour Council.
FM2 after tax & NI stamp most refuse workers saw hardly any cut in take home pay yet now 1-10 could see a whole wage packet go plus your council tax could rise by 3.5%.
exactly how high do you think it should rise?
[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Absolutely no way should we be selling off our assets, such as the art collection. You can only make money from selling assets once, and then they are gone, leaving the city impoverished, and not fixing the underlying problem. You will still have the same problem next year. The only solution is to cut the ongoing council costs so they are in line with receipts. It is such a shame for council workers that Labour got control of the council. It would have been far better for workers to each lose a little money, and for many more to keep their jobs. We knew what was going to happen if Labour got in, but the turkeys voted for Christmas, and the council workers will now sadly reap what they have sown with their strikes and campaigns against the councillors who were doing their level best to preserve jobs.[/p][/quote]I won't point out that this is Hannides again as someone already has. BUT, the austerity measures and council cuts were ALWAYS going to be worse in the third year which is what is coming up in the next financial year 2013/14. Councils are under even more pressure to make cuts. Expect to see some very crucial services being cut in the next few months, including those for children..... meanwhile no-one is allowed to put up council tax! A small, affordable rise, for everyone would be the way to go but the government would rather see services cut and areas dive down into even further problems... makes sense doesn't it... NOT. Soton has always been a city that has made small CT rises in comparison to other areas, they should have been allowed to continue in this vein, at least for this and next financial years where the pressure is mounting.[/p][/quote]So you consider the yearly council tax rises to increase a Labour councils pay packet acceptable? Because that's what we as tax payers were expected to do under June Bridles Labour Council. FM2 after tax & NI stamp most refuse workers saw hardly any cut in take home pay yet now 1-10 could see a whole wage packet go plus your council tax could rise by 3.5%. exactly how high do you think it should rise? loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:41pm Fri 9 Nov 12

kingnotail says...

Nothing would surprise me in the culture-less abyss that is Southampton.
Nothing would surprise me in the culture-less abyss that is Southampton. kingnotail
  • Score: 0

3:51pm Fri 9 Nov 12

loosehead says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Loosehead,

Maybe it could be justified to fund the major capital project like the new arts quarter, but absolutely no way should it ever be allowed to prop up an unsustainable revenue budget.

The Arts quarter should go a long way towards boosting the cultural offering in Southampton which is sorely needed if we wish to generate more money from tourism and bring in money from people spending when visiting Southampton from outlying areas.
We've had several people insisting the Sea City Museum & other projects by the last council were funded by council tax money.
it has also been suggested if it wasn't then there would be no need to cut wages?
I know this was a lie I also totally agree with you on the Art Quarter.
Also maybe it could be used to finance the repairs to Oaklands Swimming pool?
By no means did I mean it should go to finance pay restoration or pay rises.
Labour saw the books new the level of Government funding way before the last elections.
He ( Williams) came here & on Telly saying what the job cuts were ( 1,500 permanent no mention on temps) also who they were (1-10 refuse workers) he also told us the cut in services ( Fortnightly bin collections) but then said he never said it?
Just another one of his lies.Mike Tucker must have known of his plans surely?
after all it was a political strike by the Unions that helped Labour seize power wasn't it?
I just feel it's a waste this art in Vaults sell it to one of the big National Art Gallery's/museums? & let more people actually see them or open an Art Gallery near the Docks so the cruise ship passengers can see them?
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Loosehead, Maybe it could be justified to fund the major capital project like the new arts quarter, but absolutely no way should it ever be allowed to prop up an unsustainable revenue budget. The Arts quarter should go a long way towards boosting the cultural offering in Southampton which is sorely needed if we wish to generate more money from tourism and bring in money from people spending when visiting Southampton from outlying areas.[/p][/quote]We've had several people insisting the Sea City Museum & other projects by the last council were funded by council tax money. it has also been suggested if it wasn't then there would be no need to cut wages? I know this was a lie I also totally agree with you on the Art Quarter. Also maybe it could be used to finance the repairs to Oaklands Swimming pool? By no means did I mean it should go to finance pay restoration or pay rises. Labour saw the books new the level of Government funding way before the last elections. He ( Williams) came here & on Telly saying what the job cuts were ( 1,500 permanent no mention on temps) also who they were (1-10 refuse workers) he also told us the cut in services ( Fortnightly bin collections) but then said he never said it? Just another one of his lies.Mike Tucker must have known of his plans surely? after all it was a political strike by the Unions that helped Labour seize power wasn't it? I just feel it's a waste this art in Vaults sell it to one of the big National Art Gallery's/museums? & let more people actually see them or open an Art Gallery near the Docks so the cruise ship passengers can see them? loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:59pm Fri 9 Nov 12

Vonnie says...

Freemantlegirl wrote in reply to loosehead who then also replied
"So you consider the yearly council tax rises to increase a Labour councils pay packet acceptable?
Because that's what we as tax payers were expected to do under June Bridles Labour Council.
FM2 after tax & NI stamp most refuse workers saw hardly any cut in take home pay yet now 1-10 could see a whole wage packet go plus your council tax could rise by 3.5%.
exactly how high do you think it should rise?”
********************
********************


Somewhat veering off subject. The debate is about whether or not Southampton's public art collection should be sold. Isn't it??
Freemantlegirl wrote in reply to loosehead who then also replied "So you consider the yearly council tax rises to increase a Labour councils pay packet acceptable? Because that's what we as tax payers were expected to do under June Bridles Labour Council. FM2 after tax & NI stamp most refuse workers saw hardly any cut in take home pay yet now 1-10 could see a whole wage packet go plus your council tax could rise by 3.5%. exactly how high do you think it should rise?” ******************** ******************** Somewhat veering off subject. The debate is about whether or not Southampton's public art collection should be sold. Isn't it?? Vonnie
  • Score: 0

4:02pm Fri 9 Nov 12

George4th says...

Vonnie wrote:
Here we go again. Cllr John Hannides sabre rattling and promoting himself when he knows that without the Trust's permission Southampton's donated art treasures cannot be sold en masse. The Council does not have control over the Art Collection. It is only one of a number of members of the Trust. It is a totally different legal situation to the one in Tower Hamlets, and he knows it is.
I don't disagree that some of the items could do with a bit more public viewing but mounting exhibitions costs money, cash that is clearly begrudged. The ignorant, urbane, ill-educated, and uncivilised comments made by some of those above just illustrates how far down at the bottom of the bucket they are. Plebeian is a description that fits, in its literal sense.

All any member of Southampton's public has to do if they want to see a particular work of art - and there is an illustrated online catalogue - is to ask. You will have to make an appointment, but it is as simple as that. I suggest that some of you actually look on the SCC gallery pages and see how varied are the activities that go on there, both from a learning and pleasure point of view.

I would bet a pound to a pinch of snuff that most of those who are chuntering on about selling what has been donated to the City and its people have never set foot in the Art Gallery. In 1998 the Government ‘designated the Permanent Collection as having pre-eminent national significance'. That tag should be used to promote the Art Collection, not be a reason for selling it.
Robert Chipperfield, whose bequest is the backbone of, and was the start of the collection, would turn in his grave, as would other donors if they could hear Cllr John Hannides, or read some of the comments on this forum.
They will certainly put off any would-be benefactors who might consider donating a work of art to Southampton.
Good post.

>

"I would bet a pound to a pinch of snuff that most of those who are chuntering on about selling what has been donated to the City and its people have never set foot in the Art Gallery"

And you would win judging by how many good citizens of Southampton haven't even used their FREE tickets to visit the SeaCity Museum! (A visit well worth making!)
[quote][p][bold]Vonnie[/bold] wrote: Here we go again. Cllr John Hannides sabre rattling and promoting himself when he knows that without the Trust's permission Southampton's donated art treasures cannot be sold en masse. The Council does not have control over the Art Collection. It is only one of a number of members of the Trust. It is a totally different legal situation to the one in Tower Hamlets, and he knows it is. I don't disagree that some of the items could do with a bit more public viewing but mounting exhibitions costs money, cash that is clearly begrudged. The ignorant, urbane, ill-educated, and uncivilised comments made by some of those above just illustrates how far down at the bottom of the bucket they are. Plebeian is a description that fits, in its literal sense. All any member of Southampton's public has to do if they want to see a particular work of art - and there is an illustrated online catalogue - is to ask. You will have to make an appointment, but it is as simple as that. I suggest that some of you actually look on the SCC gallery pages and see how varied are the activities that go on there, both from a learning and pleasure point of view. I would bet a pound to a pinch of snuff that most of those who are chuntering on about selling what has been donated to the City and its people have never set foot in the Art Gallery. In 1998 the Government ‘designated the Permanent Collection as having pre-eminent national significance'. That tag should be used to promote the Art Collection, not be a reason for selling it. Robert Chipperfield, whose bequest is the backbone of, and was the start of the collection, would turn in his grave, as would other donors if they could hear Cllr John Hannides, or read some of the comments on this forum. They will certainly put off any would-be benefactors who might consider donating a work of art to Southampton.[/p][/quote]Good post. > "I would bet a pound to a pinch of snuff that most of those who are chuntering on about selling what has been donated to the City and its people have never set foot in the Art Gallery" And you would win judging by how many good citizens of Southampton haven't even used their FREE tickets to visit the SeaCity Museum! (A visit well worth making!) George4th
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Fri 9 Nov 12

loosehead says...

Vonnie wrote:
Freemantlegirl wrote in reply to loosehead who then also replied
"So you consider the yearly council tax rises to increase a Labour councils pay packet acceptable?
Because that's what we as tax payers were expected to do under June Bridles Labour Council.
FM2 after tax & NI stamp most refuse workers saw hardly any cut in take home pay yet now 1-10 could see a whole wage packet go plus your council tax could rise by 3.5%.
exactly how high do you think it should rise?”
********************

********************



Somewhat veering off subject. The debate is about whether or not Southampton's public art collection should be sold. Isn't it??
Only responding to a suggestion we won't mind our tax going up I would.
Vonnie if this money raised by selling off some art could be used to pay off the PFI school buildings I for one would be in total favour of it
[quote][p][bold]Vonnie[/bold] wrote: Freemantlegirl wrote in reply to loosehead who then also replied "So you consider the yearly council tax rises to increase a Labour councils pay packet acceptable? Because that's what we as tax payers were expected to do under June Bridles Labour Council. FM2 after tax & NI stamp most refuse workers saw hardly any cut in take home pay yet now 1-10 could see a whole wage packet go plus your council tax could rise by 3.5%. exactly how high do you think it should rise?” ******************** ******************** Somewhat veering off subject. The debate is about whether or not Southampton's public art collection should be sold. Isn't it??[/p][/quote]Only responding to a suggestion we won't mind our tax going up I would. Vonnie if this money raised by selling off some art could be used to pay off the PFI school buildings I for one would be in total favour of it loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Fri 9 Nov 12

sotonboy84 says...

Not sure why this story is featured twice? Nout sure where to comment now!

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/10038158
.Call_for_city_bosse
s_to_start_selling_o
ff_part_of_Southampt
on_s_art_collection/
Not sure why this story is featured twice? Nout sure where to comment now! http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/10038158 .Call_for_city_bosse s_to_start_selling_o ff_part_of_Southampt on_s_art_collection/ sotonboy84
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Fri 9 Nov 12

sotonboy84 says...

Absolutely no way should any of the city's art work be sold off. Once it's gone. It's gone forever.

I know this is just a view from the vile waste of space that is Hannides who has no control over the decision but it does raise the important issue that we need to protect our collection for good, once and for all so future councils can't keep dipping into it when they're cash strapped. The collection belongs to the city, and not the council as the Echo have printed. We have one of the best collections outside of London and we should be taking full advantage of that. Yes, a lot of work isn't on display but rotating the collection is easy enough to do but not if the art work is sold as there would be none left to rotate. With such an important and valuable collection it's not just about putting everything on display at one time as this wouldn't attract returning visitors and also it would be too high a target for theft and damage to have such a huge collection on display at any one time. The art gallery was designed and built about 80 years ago, and the collection and people's perception of it was a lot smaller. If the council used the collection properly then they could have masses of visitors to the city. They could even have extended the gallery into the old law courts which would have been a wonderful addition to the gallery, instead of a monstrous museum that seems to focus on a sunken ship that passed through Southampton…

Who cares if Tower Hamlets has sold a piece of art, they're nothing to do with Southampton and do not have an art collection as important as ours. The collection should not suffer and the people of this city denied what is there's due to the failings of the running of the council's.

Hopefully there will be no way that the art can be sold and hopefully somebody will realise how much money can be realised from the collection through displaying it and loaning pieces of it.
Absolutely no way should any of the city's art work be sold off. Once it's gone. It's gone forever. I know this is just a view from the vile waste of space that is Hannides who has no control over the decision but it does raise the important issue that we need to protect our collection for good, once and for all so future councils can't keep dipping into it when they're cash strapped. The collection belongs to the city, and not the council as the Echo have printed. We have one of the best collections outside of London and we should be taking full advantage of that. Yes, a lot of work isn't on display but rotating the collection is easy enough to do but not if the art work is sold as there would be none left to rotate. With such an important and valuable collection it's not just about putting everything on display at one time as this wouldn't attract returning visitors and also it would be too high a target for theft and damage to have such a huge collection on display at any one time. The art gallery was designed and built about 80 years ago, and the collection and people's perception of it was a lot smaller. If the council used the collection properly then they could have masses of visitors to the city. They could even have extended the gallery into the old law courts which would have been a wonderful addition to the gallery, instead of a monstrous museum that seems to focus on a sunken ship that passed through Southampton… Who cares if Tower Hamlets has sold a piece of art, they're nothing to do with Southampton and do not have an art collection as important as ours. The collection should not suffer and the people of this city denied what is there's due to the failings of the running of the council's. Hopefully there will be no way that the art can be sold and hopefully somebody will realise how much money can be realised from the collection through displaying it and loaning pieces of it. sotonboy84
  • Score: 0

4:33pm Fri 9 Nov 12

sotonboy84 says...

It does need to be utilised more but the important thing is that we have a wonderful collection of 3500 pieces, last valued at £180 million.
The subject of selling shouldn't ever be a possibility as utilising the collection and showing more and rotating more will bring people from all over the country and the world to see it, more than any museum or arts complex will.
I remember seeing Henri Rousseau's 'Tiger in a Tropical Storm' at the gallery about 20 years ago which was on loan from the National Gallery, I believe. This one painting was an exhibit on its own and attracted thousands of visitors from all over the country. Just imagine that if our very own collection was utilised more, what an attraction it could be and how much revenue that could create. We would still have our collection, be making money from it and give Southampton a name in the art world – more than an arts complex/quarter could ever do on its own
It does need to be utilised more but the important thing is that we have a wonderful collection of 3500 pieces, last valued at £180 million. The subject of selling shouldn't ever be a possibility as utilising the collection and showing more and rotating more will bring people from all over the country and the world to see it, more than any museum or arts complex will. I remember seeing Henri Rousseau's 'Tiger in a Tropical Storm' at the gallery about 20 years ago which was on loan from the National Gallery, I believe. This one painting was an exhibit on its own and attracted thousands of visitors from all over the country. Just imagine that if our very own collection was utilised more, what an attraction it could be and how much revenue that could create. We would still have our collection, be making money from it and give Southampton a name in the art world – more than an arts complex/quarter could ever do on its own sotonboy84
  • Score: 0

9:07pm Fri 9 Nov 12

loosehead says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
It does need to be utilised more but the important thing is that we have a wonderful collection of 3500 pieces, last valued at £180 million.
The subject of selling shouldn't ever be a possibility as utilising the collection and showing more and rotating more will bring people from all over the country and the world to see it, more than any museum or arts complex will.
I remember seeing Henri Rousseau's 'Tiger in a Tropical Storm' at the gallery about 20 years ago which was on loan from the National Gallery, I believe. This one painting was an exhibit on its own and attracted thousands of visitors from all over the country. Just imagine that if our very own collection was utilised more, what an attraction it could be and how much revenue that could create. We would still have our collection, be making money from it and give Southampton a name in the art world – more than an arts complex/quarter could ever do on its own
Exactly what art was done by a southampton Artist? What piece of Art depicts scenes of Southampton & surrounding areas?
Exactly how many citizens of our city go to the Art Gallery?
Do we advertise this great Art to tourists on the ships or in this country?
Exactly what good is it doing us stored in vaults?
Sell a couple use the money to pay off the Pfi school loans & use the remaining monies to expand the gallery to show off the rest & get Tourists interested in it.
or leave it in the vaults & let no good come from it
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: It does need to be utilised more but the important thing is that we have a wonderful collection of 3500 pieces, last valued at £180 million. The subject of selling shouldn't ever be a possibility as utilising the collection and showing more and rotating more will bring people from all over the country and the world to see it, more than any museum or arts complex will. I remember seeing Henri Rousseau's 'Tiger in a Tropical Storm' at the gallery about 20 years ago which was on loan from the National Gallery, I believe. This one painting was an exhibit on its own and attracted thousands of visitors from all over the country. Just imagine that if our very own collection was utilised more, what an attraction it could be and how much revenue that could create. We would still have our collection, be making money from it and give Southampton a name in the art world – more than an arts complex/quarter could ever do on its own[/p][/quote]Exactly what art was done by a southampton Artist? What piece of Art depicts scenes of Southampton & surrounding areas? Exactly how many citizens of our city go to the Art Gallery? Do we advertise this great Art to tourists on the ships or in this country? Exactly what good is it doing us stored in vaults? Sell a couple use the money to pay off the Pfi school loans & use the remaining monies to expand the gallery to show off the rest & get Tourists interested in it. or leave it in the vaults & let no good come from it loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:08pm Fri 9 Nov 12

loosehead says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
It does need to be utilised more but the important thing is that we have a wonderful collection of 3500 pieces, last valued at £180 million.
The subject of selling shouldn't ever be a possibility as utilising the collection and showing more and rotating more will bring people from all over the country and the world to see it, more than any museum or arts complex will.
I remember seeing Henri Rousseau's 'Tiger in a Tropical Storm' at the gallery about 20 years ago which was on loan from the National Gallery, I believe. This one painting was an exhibit on its own and attracted thousands of visitors from all over the country. Just imagine that if our very own collection was utilised more, what an attraction it could be and how much revenue that could create. We would still have our collection, be making money from it and give Southampton a name in the art world – more than an arts complex/quarter could ever do on its own
So how would we let these tourists/visitors know what we've got?
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: It does need to be utilised more but the important thing is that we have a wonderful collection of 3500 pieces, last valued at £180 million. The subject of selling shouldn't ever be a possibility as utilising the collection and showing more and rotating more will bring people from all over the country and the world to see it, more than any museum or arts complex will. I remember seeing Henri Rousseau's 'Tiger in a Tropical Storm' at the gallery about 20 years ago which was on loan from the National Gallery, I believe. This one painting was an exhibit on its own and attracted thousands of visitors from all over the country. Just imagine that if our very own collection was utilised more, what an attraction it could be and how much revenue that could create. We would still have our collection, be making money from it and give Southampton a name in the art world – more than an arts complex/quarter could ever do on its own[/p][/quote]So how would we let these tourists/visitors know what we've got? loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:42am Sat 10 Nov 12

Bowmore says...

The vast majority of the collection can not legally be sold unless the money is used to buy alternative works of art. as for "valuable masterpieces lying hidden in Southampton’s Civic Centre" they are all displayed in the galleries on rotation which means that every time you visit the gallery you are likely to see something different.

When spending exceeds income there only two things that can be done. Increase income, in this case by increasing the Council Tax; reduce spending by cutting the number of services provided or more likely a mixture of these.
The vast majority of the collection can not legally be sold unless the money is used to buy alternative works of art. as for "valuable masterpieces lying hidden in Southampton’s Civic Centre" they are all displayed in the galleries on rotation which means that every time you visit the gallery you are likely to see something different. When spending exceeds income there only two things that can be done. Increase income, in this case by increasing the Council Tax; reduce spending by cutting the number of services provided or more likely a mixture of these. Bowmore
  • Score: 0

9:35am Mon 12 Nov 12

sotonboy84 says...

loosehead wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: It does need to be utilised more but the important thing is that we have a wonderful collection of 3500 pieces, last valued at £180 million. The subject of selling shouldn't ever be a possibility as utilising the collection and showing more and rotating more will bring people from all over the country and the world to see it, more than any museum or arts complex will. I remember seeing Henri Rousseau's 'Tiger in a Tropical Storm' at the gallery about 20 years ago which was on loan from the National Gallery, I believe. This one painting was an exhibit on its own and attracted thousands of visitors from all over the country. Just imagine that if our very own collection was utilised more, what an attraction it could be and how much revenue that could create. We would still have our collection, be making money from it and give Southampton a name in the art world – more than an arts complex/quarter could ever do on its own
Exactly what art was done by a southampton Artist? What piece of Art depicts scenes of Southampton & surrounding areas? Exactly how many citizens of our city go to the Art Gallery? Do we advertise this great Art to tourists on the ships or in this country? Exactly what good is it doing us stored in vaults? Sell a couple use the money to pay off the Pfi school loans & use the remaining monies to expand the gallery to show off the rest & get Tourists interested in it. or leave it in the vaults & let no good come from it
I don't quite understand the point in your comment - what art was by a Southampton artist?
It's an important art collection that belongs to Southampton. It would be a pretty pointless and boring collection if it only had paintings of Southampton. Like that would attract a large crowd...
Does that mean then that every art collection needs to only contain images, based on it's location? The Tate or National Gallery only containing images of London? I don't think so.
We have a wonderful, important collection of art and it should be used to attract visitors to the city.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: It does need to be utilised more but the important thing is that we have a wonderful collection of 3500 pieces, last valued at £180 million. The subject of selling shouldn't ever be a possibility as utilising the collection and showing more and rotating more will bring people from all over the country and the world to see it, more than any museum or arts complex will. I remember seeing Henri Rousseau's 'Tiger in a Tropical Storm' at the gallery about 20 years ago which was on loan from the National Gallery, I believe. This one painting was an exhibit on its own and attracted thousands of visitors from all over the country. Just imagine that if our very own collection was utilised more, what an attraction it could be and how much revenue that could create. We would still have our collection, be making money from it and give Southampton a name in the art world – more than an arts complex/quarter could ever do on its own[/p][/quote]Exactly what art was done by a southampton Artist? What piece of Art depicts scenes of Southampton & surrounding areas? Exactly how many citizens of our city go to the Art Gallery? Do we advertise this great Art to tourists on the ships or in this country? Exactly what good is it doing us stored in vaults? Sell a couple use the money to pay off the Pfi school loans & use the remaining monies to expand the gallery to show off the rest & get Tourists interested in it. or leave it in the vaults & let no good come from it[/p][/quote]I don't quite understand the point in your comment - what art was by a Southampton artist? It's an important art collection that belongs to Southampton. It would be a pretty pointless and boring collection if it only had paintings of Southampton. Like that would attract a large crowd... Does that mean then that every art collection needs to only contain images, based on it's location? The Tate or National Gallery only containing images of London? I don't think so. We have a wonderful, important collection of art and it should be used to attract visitors to the city. sotonboy84
  • Score: 0

9:37am Mon 12 Nov 12

sotonboy84 says...

loosehead wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: It does need to be utilised more but the important thing is that we have a wonderful collection of 3500 pieces, last valued at £180 million. The subject of selling shouldn't ever be a possibility as utilising the collection and showing more and rotating more will bring people from all over the country and the world to see it, more than any museum or arts complex will. I remember seeing Henri Rousseau's 'Tiger in a Tropical Storm' at the gallery about 20 years ago which was on loan from the National Gallery, I believe. This one painting was an exhibit on its own and attracted thousands of visitors from all over the country. Just imagine that if our very own collection was utilised more, what an attraction it could be and how much revenue that could create. We would still have our collection, be making money from it and give Southampton a name in the art world – more than an arts complex/quarter could ever do on its own
So how would we let these tourists/visitors know what we've got?
Quite simply. By putting the work on display and advertising.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: It does need to be utilised more but the important thing is that we have a wonderful collection of 3500 pieces, last valued at £180 million. The subject of selling shouldn't ever be a possibility as utilising the collection and showing more and rotating more will bring people from all over the country and the world to see it, more than any museum or arts complex will. I remember seeing Henri Rousseau's 'Tiger in a Tropical Storm' at the gallery about 20 years ago which was on loan from the National Gallery, I believe. This one painting was an exhibit on its own and attracted thousands of visitors from all over the country. Just imagine that if our very own collection was utilised more, what an attraction it could be and how much revenue that could create. We would still have our collection, be making money from it and give Southampton a name in the art world – more than an arts complex/quarter could ever do on its own[/p][/quote]So how would we let these tourists/visitors know what we've got?[/p][/quote]Quite simply. By putting the work on display and advertising. sotonboy84
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Mon 12 Nov 12

loosehead says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: It does need to be utilised more but the important thing is that we have a wonderful collection of 3500 pieces, last valued at £180 million. The subject of selling shouldn't ever be a possibility as utilising the collection and showing more and rotating more will bring people from all over the country and the world to see it, more than any museum or arts complex will. I remember seeing Henri Rousseau's 'Tiger in a Tropical Storm' at the gallery about 20 years ago which was on loan from the National Gallery, I believe. This one painting was an exhibit on its own and attracted thousands of visitors from all over the country. Just imagine that if our very own collection was utilised more, what an attraction it could be and how much revenue that could create. We would still have our collection, be making money from it and give Southampton a name in the art world – more than an arts complex/quarter could ever do on its own
Exactly what art was done by a southampton Artist? What piece of Art depicts scenes of Southampton & surrounding areas? Exactly how many citizens of our city go to the Art Gallery? Do we advertise this great Art to tourists on the ships or in this country? Exactly what good is it doing us stored in vaults? Sell a couple use the money to pay off the Pfi school loans & use the remaining monies to expand the gallery to show off the rest & get Tourists interested in it. or leave it in the vaults & let no good come from it
I don't quite understand the point in your comment - what art was by a Southampton artist?
It's an important art collection that belongs to Southampton. It would be a pretty pointless and boring collection if it only had paintings of Southampton. Like that would attract a large crowd...
Does that mean then that every art collection needs to only contain images, based on it's location? The Tate or National Gallery only containing images of London? I don't think so.
We have a wonderful, important collection of art and it should be used to attract visitors to the city.
Okay I'll put it another way.
Exactly why should we the people of Southampton have Art that some times is on show that most citizens of this city have no interest in at all when we could sell say 2 pieces & pay off the PFI on several of our schools?
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: It does need to be utilised more but the important thing is that we have a wonderful collection of 3500 pieces, last valued at £180 million. The subject of selling shouldn't ever be a possibility as utilising the collection and showing more and rotating more will bring people from all over the country and the world to see it, more than any museum or arts complex will. I remember seeing Henri Rousseau's 'Tiger in a Tropical Storm' at the gallery about 20 years ago which was on loan from the National Gallery, I believe. This one painting was an exhibit on its own and attracted thousands of visitors from all over the country. Just imagine that if our very own collection was utilised more, what an attraction it could be and how much revenue that could create. We would still have our collection, be making money from it and give Southampton a name in the art world – more than an arts complex/quarter could ever do on its own[/p][/quote]Exactly what art was done by a southampton Artist? What piece of Art depicts scenes of Southampton & surrounding areas? Exactly how many citizens of our city go to the Art Gallery? Do we advertise this great Art to tourists on the ships or in this country? Exactly what good is it doing us stored in vaults? Sell a couple use the money to pay off the Pfi school loans & use the remaining monies to expand the gallery to show off the rest & get Tourists interested in it. or leave it in the vaults & let no good come from it[/p][/quote]I don't quite understand the point in your comment - what art was by a Southampton artist? It's an important art collection that belongs to Southampton. It would be a pretty pointless and boring collection if it only had paintings of Southampton. Like that would attract a large crowd... Does that mean then that every art collection needs to only contain images, based on it's location? The Tate or National Gallery only containing images of London? I don't think so. We have a wonderful, important collection of art and it should be used to attract visitors to the city.[/p][/quote]Okay I'll put it another way. Exactly why should we the people of Southampton have Art that some times is on show that most citizens of this city have no interest in at all when we could sell say 2 pieces & pay off the PFI on several of our schools? loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Mon 12 Nov 12

sotonboy84 says...

Because the art has either been given to the city of Southampton or bought through money given to Southampton for the purpose of buying art or through lottery grants, which again were only for the purpose of buying art. Each piece was bequeathed to or bought for the collection to enhance it for the enjoyment of the people. We have a nationally significant collection and just because some people like you appear to have no interest in art does not mean it can be sold to pay for other deficits in the city. If you're concerned about PFI debts then this is down to the council's so you should think more carefully about who you vote for. The art collection should not, and will not suffer because of failings of previous administrations.

By most citizens of this city, I really don't see how you could be speaking for them or have any idea what 'most people' of this city think. For the record, I have no interest in the finances of the city's schools, they know what their budgets are so should run their finances better so they don't find themselves in any difficulty. If they do find themselves in difficulty, then they need to find a way to get out of it, simple. I don't know if you've ever visited the art gallery, as it's evident that you haven't visited their website because if you did then you would know that any work from the collection is available for any city resident to see when an appointment is requested. The whole point of a collection of this size it to rotate it which means that you see different works on a regular basis. Even if we had a large enough gallery to show all 3500 pieces, this would be impossible due to the enormous value of the collection and the security needed. After all, the collection was last valued at £180 million, but thought to be worth significantly more now.

Selling any art would reduce the significance of the collection and also put any future bequeaths or grants in jeopardy. And once the art has been sold, it is gone forever and any sale would only be a short term solution to any problem. You should be proud to be a resident of a city that boats such an important asset rather than trying to destroy one of the few avenues of culture that this city has.
Because the art has either been given to the city of Southampton or bought through money given to Southampton for the purpose of buying art or through lottery grants, which again were only for the purpose of buying art. Each piece was bequeathed to or bought for the collection to enhance it for the enjoyment of the people. We have a nationally significant collection and just because some people like you appear to have no interest in art does not mean it can be sold to pay for other deficits in the city. If you're concerned about PFI debts then this is down to the council's so you should think more carefully about who you vote for. The art collection should not, and will not suffer because of failings of previous administrations. By most citizens of this city, I really don't see how you could be speaking for them or have any idea what 'most people' of this city think. For the record, I have no interest in the finances of the city's schools, they know what their budgets are so should run their finances better so they don't find themselves in any difficulty. If they do find themselves in difficulty, then they need to find a way to get out of it, simple. I don't know if you've ever visited the art gallery, as it's evident that you haven't visited their website because if you did then you would know that any work from the collection is available for any city resident to see when an appointment is requested. The whole point of a collection of this size it to rotate it which means that you see different works on a regular basis. Even if we had a large enough gallery to show all 3500 pieces, this would be impossible due to the enormous value of the collection and the security needed. After all, the collection was last valued at £180 million, but thought to be worth significantly more now. Selling any art would reduce the significance of the collection and also put any future bequeaths or grants in jeopardy. And once the art has been sold, it is gone forever and any sale would only be a short term solution to any problem. You should be proud to be a resident of a city that boats such an important asset rather than trying to destroy one of the few avenues of culture that this city has. sotonboy84
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Mon 12 Nov 12

loosehead says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
Because the art has either been given to the city of Southampton or bought through money given to Southampton for the purpose of buying art or through lottery grants, which again were only for the purpose of buying art. Each piece was bequeathed to or bought for the collection to enhance it for the enjoyment of the people. We have a nationally significant collection and just because some people like you appear to have no interest in art does not mean it can be sold to pay for other deficits in the city. If you're concerned about PFI debts then this is down to the council's so you should think more carefully about who you vote for. The art collection should not, and will not suffer because of failings of previous administrations.

By most citizens of this city, I really don't see how you could be speaking for them or have any idea what 'most people' of this city think. For the record, I have no interest in the finances of the city's schools, they know what their budgets are so should run their finances better so they don't find themselves in any difficulty. If they do find themselves in difficulty, then they need to find a way to get out of it, simple. I don't know if you've ever visited the art gallery, as it's evident that you haven't visited their website because if you did then you would know that any work from the collection is available for any city resident to see when an appointment is requested. The whole point of a collection of this size it to rotate it which means that you see different works on a regular basis. Even if we had a large enough gallery to show all 3500 pieces, this would be impossible due to the enormous value of the collection and the security needed. After all, the collection was last valued at £180 million, but thought to be worth significantly more now.

Selling any art would reduce the significance of the collection and also put any future bequeaths or grants in jeopardy. And once the art has been sold, it is gone forever and any sale would only be a short term solution to any problem. You should be proud to be a resident of a city that boats such an important asset rather than trying to destroy one of the few avenues of culture that this city has.
I voted against the present Council & the previous Labour council that approved those school buildings.
I will say the art shouldn't be sold to private collectors but a National Art Gallery or The National Museum & remain in this country
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: Because the art has either been given to the city of Southampton or bought through money given to Southampton for the purpose of buying art or through lottery grants, which again were only for the purpose of buying art. Each piece was bequeathed to or bought for the collection to enhance it for the enjoyment of the people. We have a nationally significant collection and just because some people like you appear to have no interest in art does not mean it can be sold to pay for other deficits in the city. If you're concerned about PFI debts then this is down to the council's so you should think more carefully about who you vote for. The art collection should not, and will not suffer because of failings of previous administrations. By most citizens of this city, I really don't see how you could be speaking for them or have any idea what 'most people' of this city think. For the record, I have no interest in the finances of the city's schools, they know what their budgets are so should run their finances better so they don't find themselves in any difficulty. If they do find themselves in difficulty, then they need to find a way to get out of it, simple. I don't know if you've ever visited the art gallery, as it's evident that you haven't visited their website because if you did then you would know that any work from the collection is available for any city resident to see when an appointment is requested. The whole point of a collection of this size it to rotate it which means that you see different works on a regular basis. Even if we had a large enough gallery to show all 3500 pieces, this would be impossible due to the enormous value of the collection and the security needed. After all, the collection was last valued at £180 million, but thought to be worth significantly more now. Selling any art would reduce the significance of the collection and also put any future bequeaths or grants in jeopardy. And once the art has been sold, it is gone forever and any sale would only be a short term solution to any problem. You should be proud to be a resident of a city that boats such an important asset rather than trying to destroy one of the few avenues of culture that this city has.[/p][/quote]I voted against the present Council & the previous Labour council that approved those school buildings. I will say the art shouldn't be sold to private collectors but a National Art Gallery or The National Museum & remain in this country loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:56pm Mon 12 Nov 12

sotonboy84 says...

loosehead wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote: Because the art has either been given to the city of Southampton or bought through money given to Southampton for the purpose of buying art or through lottery grants, which again were only for the purpose of buying art. Each piece was bequeathed to or bought for the collection to enhance it for the enjoyment of the people. We have a nationally significant collection and just because some people like you appear to have no interest in art does not mean it can be sold to pay for other deficits in the city. If you're concerned about PFI debts then this is down to the council's so you should think more carefully about who you vote for. The art collection should not, and will not suffer because of failings of previous administrations. By most citizens of this city, I really don't see how you could be speaking for them or have any idea what 'most people' of this city think. For the record, I have no interest in the finances of the city's schools, they know what their budgets are so should run their finances better so they don't find themselves in any difficulty. If they do find themselves in difficulty, then they need to find a way to get out of it, simple. I don't know if you've ever visited the art gallery, as it's evident that you haven't visited their website because if you did then you would know that any work from the collection is available for any city resident to see when an appointment is requested. The whole point of a collection of this size it to rotate it which means that you see different works on a regular basis. Even if we had a large enough gallery to show all 3500 pieces, this would be impossible due to the enormous value of the collection and the security needed. After all, the collection was last valued at £180 million, but thought to be worth significantly more now. Selling any art would reduce the significance of the collection and also put any future bequeaths or grants in jeopardy. And once the art has been sold, it is gone forever and any sale would only be a short term solution to any problem. You should be proud to be a resident of a city that boats such an important asset rather than trying to destroy one of the few avenues of culture that this city has.
I voted against the present Council & the previous Labour council that approved those school buildings. I will say the art shouldn't be sold to private collectors but a National Art Gallery or The National Museum & remain in this country
I do see where you're coming from though, using assets to pay for debts caused by a bad administration but I don't think the answer is in selling the art because as I've said, once it's gone, it's gone forever and the significance and reputation of the collection decreases.
What should be done however is to utilise the collection and create revenue by creating more exhibits which will attract visitors and loaning works to other galleries and businesses (for boardrooms etc.) as another stream of revenue. The collection would still remain as a complete collection but paying for itself. Of course I don't agree that the artwork should do nothing but sit in storage.
The money raised could be used to repay debts and eventually could be used to reinvest in the collection itself by buying other works of art which in turn would attract more visitors but Southampton would still have its valuable asset.
This is an amazing collection and would attract far more visitors than the new Seatcity museum. I know people have mixed views on the Seacity museum but I cannot understand the logic of spending millions of pounds building a museum which mainly focuses on a ship (Titanic) which apart from a lot of local crew were employed and lost on the ship, did nothing more than pass through the city. It wasn't built here nor was Southampton its home port. The art collection on the other hand has grown through time due to local people's generosity to become what we have now and millions of pounds are not needed to promote it, but just for it to be shown.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: Because the art has either been given to the city of Southampton or bought through money given to Southampton for the purpose of buying art or through lottery grants, which again were only for the purpose of buying art. Each piece was bequeathed to or bought for the collection to enhance it for the enjoyment of the people. We have a nationally significant collection and just because some people like you appear to have no interest in art does not mean it can be sold to pay for other deficits in the city. If you're concerned about PFI debts then this is down to the council's so you should think more carefully about who you vote for. The art collection should not, and will not suffer because of failings of previous administrations. By most citizens of this city, I really don't see how you could be speaking for them or have any idea what 'most people' of this city think. For the record, I have no interest in the finances of the city's schools, they know what their budgets are so should run their finances better so they don't find themselves in any difficulty. If they do find themselves in difficulty, then they need to find a way to get out of it, simple. I don't know if you've ever visited the art gallery, as it's evident that you haven't visited their website because if you did then you would know that any work from the collection is available for any city resident to see when an appointment is requested. The whole point of a collection of this size it to rotate it which means that you see different works on a regular basis. Even if we had a large enough gallery to show all 3500 pieces, this would be impossible due to the enormous value of the collection and the security needed. After all, the collection was last valued at £180 million, but thought to be worth significantly more now. Selling any art would reduce the significance of the collection and also put any future bequeaths or grants in jeopardy. And once the art has been sold, it is gone forever and any sale would only be a short term solution to any problem. You should be proud to be a resident of a city that boats such an important asset rather than trying to destroy one of the few avenues of culture that this city has.[/p][/quote]I voted against the present Council & the previous Labour council that approved those school buildings. I will say the art shouldn't be sold to private collectors but a National Art Gallery or The National Museum & remain in this country[/p][/quote]I do see where you're coming from though, using assets to pay for debts caused by a bad administration but I don't think the answer is in selling the art because as I've said, once it's gone, it's gone forever and the significance and reputation of the collection decreases. What should be done however is to utilise the collection and create revenue by creating more exhibits which will attract visitors and loaning works to other galleries and businesses (for boardrooms etc.) as another stream of revenue. The collection would still remain as a complete collection but paying for itself. Of course I don't agree that the artwork should do nothing but sit in storage. The money raised could be used to repay debts and eventually could be used to reinvest in the collection itself by buying other works of art which in turn would attract more visitors but Southampton would still have its valuable asset. This is an amazing collection and would attract far more visitors than the new Seatcity museum. I know people have mixed views on the Seacity museum but I cannot understand the logic of spending millions of pounds building a museum which mainly focuses on a ship (Titanic) which apart from a lot of local crew were employed and lost on the ship, did nothing more than pass through the city. It wasn't built here nor was Southampton its home port. The art collection on the other hand has grown through time due to local people's generosity to become what we have now and millions of pounds are not needed to promote it, but just for it to be shown. sotonboy84
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree