Culture Secretary Maria Miller says any decision over public art sell-off in Southampton should be "considered carefully"

Daily Echo: Maria Miller in Southampton yesterday. Maria Miller in Southampton yesterday.

SOUTHAMPTON city leaders should tread carefully when deciding whether to sell part of the city’s historic art collection.

That was the warning from Culture Secretary Maria Miller when she visited the city yesterday to check on the progress of a £21m arts complex.

Daily Echo:

The senior Tory was briefed on the project while visiting SeaCity Museum (above).

The cultural quarter being built in Guildhall Square will boast an art gallery, two theatres, a dance studio, media and film facilities and will create up to 300 jobs when it fully opens in 2016.

As previously reported, politicians are continuing to debate whether to sell some items of the city’s £150m art collection to fund it.

The Daily Echo has long called for some of the largely hidden 4,000-piece collection to be sold to fund civic improvements as part of our Show Us The Monet campaign.

In a break from previous Labour policy, city council leader Simon Letts announced last year that he wanted to sell some of the works.

But Ms Miller’s colleague, Culture Minister Ed Vaizey refused the written request to relax strict guidelines on the selling of publicly-owned art, and warned they could incur tough penalties for doing so.

Yesterday Ms Miller declined to directly comment on whether art should be sold, but said: “When it comes to the future of local art collections it is important that the council will have to consider it very carefully.”

She promised to speak further with Mr Vaizey about the matter before hailing the complex and saying: “It’s a testament to a set of councillors who have had a vision to understand the importance in investing in culture and arts to make sure that the city remains vibrant in the future.

“Investing in creativity to support creative industries isn’t only good for the intrinsic value of art in Southampton but also for creating the economic growth that goes with the creative industries.”

Cllr Royston Smith, the leader of the Conservative group on Southampton City Council, said: “It’s a great honour to have her here and she is a great supporter of the project.”

Much of the city’s art collection was originally bequeathed by a former alderman.

A debate to consider its future had been scheduled for Thursday but was postponed.

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:33am Sat 8 Mar 14

SotonGreen says...

It doesn't matter how often you repeat your lies Daily Echo they are still lies and shame both your paper and the journalistic profession. The artwork which you refer to as hidden is nothing of the sort but is instead on rotation or loan being displayed across the city.
It doesn't matter how often you repeat your lies Daily Echo they are still lies and shame both your paper and the journalistic profession. The artwork which you refer to as hidden is nothing of the sort but is instead on rotation or loan being displayed across the city. SotonGreen
  • Score: 15

8:54am Sat 8 Mar 14

Bagamn says...

It is not up to the Echo to decide if we should se3ll of the Art collection. It has got nothing to do with the Editor or his staff. It is the property of the residents of this city and should be kept as such. Once it is gone, it can never be replaced. Think about future generations instead of todays quick fix. We should learn a lesson from the finances of the Sea Museum and its funding. We can't afford another mistake like that. What happened to the Spitfire memorial that was going to be built at the Pier? No money, so it was forgotten. I don't think there will be many visitors to an Art Quarter, so think before you commit too much too soon.
It is not up to the Echo to decide if we should se3ll of the Art collection. It has got nothing to do with the Editor or his staff. It is the property of the residents of this city and should be kept as such. Once it is gone, it can never be replaced. Think about future generations instead of todays quick fix. We should learn a lesson from the finances of the Sea Museum and its funding. We can't afford another mistake like that. What happened to the Spitfire memorial that was going to be built at the Pier? No money, so it was forgotten. I don't think there will be many visitors to an Art Quarter, so think before you commit too much too soon. Bagamn
  • Score: 6

9:03am Sat 8 Mar 14

Santa Retfordia says...

Never mind all that. Why did no one tell me Gram Parsons is still alive?
Never mind all that. Why did no one tell me Gram Parsons is still alive? Santa Retfordia
  • Score: 0

9:30am Sat 8 Mar 14

Maine Lobster says...

Why is Royston Smith receiving the culture minister and kissing her backside? He is not a representative of the administration. Where was the councillor with responsibility for culture?
Why is Royston Smith receiving the culture minister and kissing her backside? He is not a representative of the administration. Where was the councillor with responsibility for culture? Maine Lobster
  • Score: 4

9:34am Sat 8 Mar 14

southy says...

SotonGreen wrote:
It doesn't matter how often you repeat your lies Daily Echo they are still lies and shame both your paper and the journalistic profession. The artwork which you refer to as hidden is nothing of the sort but is instead on rotation or loan being displayed across the city.
Agree Green and its not just art they are doing this to
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: It doesn't matter how often you repeat your lies Daily Echo they are still lies and shame both your paper and the journalistic profession. The artwork which you refer to as hidden is nothing of the sort but is instead on rotation or loan being displayed across the city.[/p][/quote]Agree Green and its not just art they are doing this to southy
  • Score: 4

9:37am Sat 8 Mar 14

southy says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
Why is Royston Smith receiving the culture minister and kissing her backside? He is not a representative of the administration. Where was the councillor with responsibility for culture?
The Echo is pushing Smith name forward into the news as much as they can, the editor wants Smith elected into government at the next general election
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: Why is Royston Smith receiving the culture minister and kissing her backside? He is not a representative of the administration. Where was the councillor with responsibility for culture?[/p][/quote]The Echo is pushing Smith name forward into the news as much as they can, the editor wants Smith elected into government at the next general election southy
  • Score: 1

9:48am Sat 8 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

southy wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
Why is Royston Smith receiving the culture minister and kissing her backside? He is not a representative of the administration. Where was the councillor with responsibility for culture?
The Echo is pushing Smith name forward into the news as much as they can, the editor wants Smith elected into government at the next general election
Yes quite right Southy.
.
And it is Smith and Hanidides who are the main pushers for art to be sold
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: Why is Royston Smith receiving the culture minister and kissing her backside? He is not a representative of the administration. Where was the councillor with responsibility for culture?[/p][/quote]The Echo is pushing Smith name forward into the news as much as they can, the editor wants Smith elected into government at the next general election[/p][/quote]Yes quite right Southy. . And it is Smith and Hanidides who are the main pushers for art to be sold Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 5

9:57am Sat 8 Mar 14

Bobs Your Uncle ? says...

art is the best place for the ill gottens of the last 20 plus years ,they know hyperinflation is coming ,probably have buyers lined up.
art is the best place for the ill gottens of the last 20 plus years ,they know hyperinflation is coming ,probably have buyers lined up. Bobs Your Uncle ?
  • Score: 1

12:24pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
southy wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
Why is Royston Smith receiving the culture minister and kissing her backside? He is not a representative of the administration. Where was the councillor with responsibility for culture?
The Echo is pushing Smith name forward into the news as much as they can, the editor wants Smith elected into government at the next general election
Yes quite right Southy.
.
And it is Smith and Hanidides who are the main pushers for art to be sold
By far the biggest culprit is the editor of local rag. He has been abusing power of the press to run a campaign to sell Southampton's art collection to which as far as I am aware neither the editor nor his employers have contributed anything. I am under the impression that the Editor does not even live in Southampton. But loves sticking his trunk into City's affairs i.e. his obsession against art collection and his paper's policy of promoting right wing politicians.

Real problem is most of the councillors we the people havecollectively elected. If not all most of them are on ego trips, self serving and without any solid principles. Rather than staying loyal to people who elected them they want to be loved by the hacks. So end up promoting policies based on the sensationalised head lines of the rag.

Sadly NuLabour's Simon Letts also appear to be doing the same, so along with betraying many Labour values he and his colleagues have also changed their minds about art collection. So are shamelessly trying to seek permission to sell parts of the collection, and if they are allowed to do that then they will use it as thin edge of the wedge; will start selling more and more till there will be nothing left.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: Why is Royston Smith receiving the culture minister and kissing her backside? He is not a representative of the administration. Where was the councillor with responsibility for culture?[/p][/quote]The Echo is pushing Smith name forward into the news as much as they can, the editor wants Smith elected into government at the next general election[/p][/quote]Yes quite right Southy. . And it is Smith and Hanidides who are the main pushers for art to be sold[/p][/quote]By far the biggest culprit is the editor of local rag. He has been abusing power of the press to run a campaign to sell Southampton's art collection to which as far as I am aware neither the editor nor his employers have contributed anything. I am under the impression that the Editor does not even live in Southampton. But loves sticking his trunk into City's affairs i.e. his obsession against art collection and his paper's policy of promoting right wing politicians. Real problem is most of the councillors we the people havecollectively elected. If not all most of them are on ego trips, self serving and without any solid principles. Rather than staying loyal to people who elected them they want to be loved by the hacks. So end up promoting policies based on the sensationalised head lines of the rag. Sadly NuLabour's Simon Letts also appear to be doing the same, so along with betraying many Labour values he and his colleagues have also changed their minds about art collection. So are shamelessly trying to seek permission to sell parts of the collection, and if they are allowed to do that then they will use it as thin edge of the wedge; will start selling more and more till there will be nothing left. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 10

12:27pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

SotonGreen wrote:
It doesn't matter how often you repeat your lies Daily Echo they are still lies and shame both your paper and the journalistic profession. The artwork which you refer to as hidden is nothing of the sort but is instead on rotation or loan being displayed across the city.
Well said. Fully support your view expressed in this statement
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: It doesn't matter how often you repeat your lies Daily Echo they are still lies and shame both your paper and the journalistic profession. The artwork which you refer to as hidden is nothing of the sort but is instead on rotation or loan being displayed across the city.[/p][/quote]Well said. Fully support your view expressed in this statement Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 4

12:47pm Sat 8 Mar 14

charrlee says...

There are so many issues with this subject, aren't there? The legality, the morality, the cultural value, the financial value, etc.

Before the invention of the camera, paintings were mainly historical documents. After that invention, artists began exploiting new ways of interpreting their ideas, and exploring creativity itself.

Going back to pre-camera art, the most significant pieces by renowned artists are held in both public and private collections. Much of what is held in local collections, although worthy, is nevertheless by lesser artists, and is consequently considered by many to be less significant.

What do I mean by "significant"? Ha! Very good question! Take the Pre-Raphaelites. Their highly-detailed works were partly a reaction to a perceived modern decadence, mechanisation, etc., and harked back to a golden age of long ago. At the time their work was considered relevant and very significant, but by the mid twentieth century, their(what was considered to be) laboured, over-detailed pictures were out of favour. And this, of course was reflected in the changing financial value of the work.

I keep thinking that someone like John Constable would have said keep everything : it is our past, our heritage. But Picasso would have said sell it, move on.

Hmmm. The more you think about it, the harder it gets to make a decision............
....................
........
There are so many issues with this subject, aren't there? The legality, the morality, the cultural value, the financial value, etc. Before the invention of the camera, paintings were mainly historical documents. After that invention, artists began exploiting new ways of interpreting their ideas, and exploring creativity itself. Going back to pre-camera art, the most significant pieces by renowned artists are held in both public and private collections. Much of what is held in local collections, although worthy, is nevertheless by lesser artists, and is consequently considered by many to be less significant. What do I mean by "significant"? Ha! Very good question! Take the Pre-Raphaelites. Their highly-detailed works were partly a reaction to a perceived modern decadence, mechanisation, etc., and harked back to a golden age of long ago. At the time their work was considered relevant and very significant, but by the mid twentieth century, their(what was considered to be) laboured, over-detailed pictures were out of favour. And this, of course was reflected in the changing financial value of the work. I keep thinking that someone like John Constable would have said keep everything : it is our past, our heritage. But Picasso would have said sell it, move on. Hmmm. The more you think about it, the harder it gets to make a decision............ .................... ........ charrlee
  • Score: 2

1:50pm Sat 8 Mar 14

BlousinNoir says...

I think the real issue here is why scc feels the need to sell off public art to fund the building of an arts complex. When the deal was signed with developers and arts council the funding was in place. Why is there now a shortfall? Did the Tory administration dip their hands in to fund the completion of Sea City Museum? One would hope that the Daily Echo would investigate to let the people know what has been going on behind closed doors. Then again they wouldn't want their mates to look bad would they.
I think the real issue here is why scc feels the need to sell off public art to fund the building of an arts complex. When the deal was signed with developers and arts council the funding was in place. Why is there now a shortfall? Did the Tory administration dip their hands in to fund the completion of Sea City Museum? One would hope that the Daily Echo would investigate to let the people know what has been going on behind closed doors. Then again they wouldn't want their mates to look bad would they. BlousinNoir
  • Score: 4

7:57pm Sat 8 Mar 14

sotonboy84 says...

What a misleading headline DE. Maria Miller refused to comment on whether the art should be sold, she said that the future of pubic art collections should be considered very carefully which has nothing to do with the current Labour council trying to sell pieces from our collection.

Please support the below petition, calling on the Government to help create an independent trust away from council hands so decisions are made purely for the benefit of the collection and not financially an politically motivated.

450 supporters so far so please help.

http://www.change.or
g/en-GB/petitions/he
r-majesty-s-governme
nt-save-southampton-
s-200m-art-collectio
n-a-test-case-for-al
l-british-publicly-o
wned-art
What a misleading headline DE. Maria Miller refused to comment on whether the art should be sold, she said that the future of pubic art collections should be considered very carefully which has nothing to do with the current Labour council trying to sell pieces from our collection. Please support the below petition, calling on the Government to help create an independent trust away from council hands so decisions are made purely for the benefit of the collection and not financially an politically motivated. 450 supporters so far so please help. http://www.change.or g/en-GB/petitions/he r-majesty-s-governme nt-save-southampton- s-200m-art-collectio n-a-test-case-for-al l-british-publicly-o wned-art sotonboy84
  • Score: 3

7:58pm Sat 8 Mar 14

sotonboy84 says...

Bagamn wrote:
It is not up to the Echo to decide if we should se3ll of the Art collection. It has got nothing to do with the Editor or his staff. It is the property of the residents of this city and should be kept as such. Once it is gone, it can never be replaced. Think about future generations instead of todays quick fix. We should learn a lesson from the finances of the Sea Museum and its funding. We can't afford another mistake like that. What happened to the Spitfire memorial that was going to be built at the Pier? No money, so it was forgotten. I don't think there will be many visitors to an Art Quarter, so think before you commit too much too soon.
The Daily Echo are biased as the editor in chief Ian Murray supports selling pieces and is supporting Councillor Letts at this staged 'debate' they have planned...
[quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: It is not up to the Echo to decide if we should se3ll of the Art collection. It has got nothing to do with the Editor or his staff. It is the property of the residents of this city and should be kept as such. Once it is gone, it can never be replaced. Think about future generations instead of todays quick fix. We should learn a lesson from the finances of the Sea Museum and its funding. We can't afford another mistake like that. What happened to the Spitfire memorial that was going to be built at the Pier? No money, so it was forgotten. I don't think there will be many visitors to an Art Quarter, so think before you commit too much too soon.[/p][/quote]The Daily Echo are biased as the editor in chief Ian Murray supports selling pieces and is supporting Councillor Letts at this staged 'debate' they have planned... sotonboy84
  • Score: 5

8:01pm Sat 8 Mar 14

sotonboy84 says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
southy wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
Why is Royston Smith receiving the culture minister and kissing her backside? He is not a representative of the administration. Where was the councillor with responsibility for culture?
The Echo is pushing Smith name forward into the news as much as they can, the editor wants Smith elected into government at the next general election
Yes quite right Southy.
.
And it is Smith and Hanidides who are the main pushers for art to be sold
Both parties are as bad as each other regarding the art, they're motivated by money which they hope to use for their own political gain.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: Why is Royston Smith receiving the culture minister and kissing her backside? He is not a representative of the administration. Where was the councillor with responsibility for culture?[/p][/quote]The Echo is pushing Smith name forward into the news as much as they can, the editor wants Smith elected into government at the next general election[/p][/quote]Yes quite right Southy. . And it is Smith and Hanidides who are the main pushers for art to be sold[/p][/quote]Both parties are as bad as each other regarding the art, they're motivated by money which they hope to use for their own political gain. sotonboy84
  • Score: 7

8:05pm Sat 8 Mar 14

sotonboy84 says...

charrlee wrote:
There are so many issues with this subject, aren't there? The legality, the morality, the cultural value, the financial value, etc.

Before the invention of the camera, paintings were mainly historical documents. After that invention, artists began exploiting new ways of interpreting their ideas, and exploring creativity itself.

Going back to pre-camera art, the most significant pieces by renowned artists are held in both public and private collections. Much of what is held in local collections, although worthy, is nevertheless by lesser artists, and is consequently considered by many to be less significant.

What do I mean by "significant"? Ha! Very good question! Take the Pre-Raphaelites. Their highly-detailed works were partly a reaction to a perceived modern decadence, mechanisation, etc., and harked back to a golden age of long ago. At the time their work was considered relevant and very significant, but by the mid twentieth century, their(what was considered to be) laboured, over-detailed pictures were out of favour. And this, of course was reflected in the changing financial value of the work.

I keep thinking that someone like John Constable would have said keep everything : it is our past, our heritage. But Picasso would have said sell it, move on.

Hmmm. The more you think about it, the harder it gets to make a decision............

....................

........
Southampton's collection has been designated by the Government as being on 'national pre-eminence' and has pieces ranging from old masters to Monet, Rousseau, Rodin and Lowry., to name just a few. It's a significant collection in size and importance.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: There are so many issues with this subject, aren't there? The legality, the morality, the cultural value, the financial value, etc. Before the invention of the camera, paintings were mainly historical documents. After that invention, artists began exploiting new ways of interpreting their ideas, and exploring creativity itself. Going back to pre-camera art, the most significant pieces by renowned artists are held in both public and private collections. Much of what is held in local collections, although worthy, is nevertheless by lesser artists, and is consequently considered by many to be less significant. What do I mean by "significant"? Ha! Very good question! Take the Pre-Raphaelites. Their highly-detailed works were partly a reaction to a perceived modern decadence, mechanisation, etc., and harked back to a golden age of long ago. At the time their work was considered relevant and very significant, but by the mid twentieth century, their(what was considered to be) laboured, over-detailed pictures were out of favour. And this, of course was reflected in the changing financial value of the work. I keep thinking that someone like John Constable would have said keep everything : it is our past, our heritage. But Picasso would have said sell it, move on. Hmmm. The more you think about it, the harder it gets to make a decision............ .................... ........[/p][/quote]Southampton's collection has been designated by the Government as being on 'national pre-eminence' and has pieces ranging from old masters to Monet, Rousseau, Rodin and Lowry., to name just a few. It's a significant collection in size and importance. sotonboy84
  • Score: 4

8:09pm Sat 8 Mar 14

sotonboy84 says...

BlousinNoir wrote:
I think the real issue here is why scc feels the need to sell off public art to fund the building of an arts complex. When the deal was signed with developers and arts council the funding was in place. Why is there now a shortfall? Did the Tory administration dip their hands in to fund the completion of Sea City Museum? One would hope that the Daily Echo would investigate to let the people know what has been going on behind closed doors. Then again they wouldn't want their mates to look bad would they.
Just to clarify, I've had confirmation from the Government in writing that SCC wrote to the department of culture in November and confirmed that the funds were all in place with no shortfall and were ring fenced.

After November they still claimed that they intended to sell pieces to fund the already funded Arts Complex.

This information is obviously purposely left out by the DE to fan the flames and to support the editors personal view of selling pieces.
[quote][p][bold]BlousinNoir[/bold] wrote: I think the real issue here is why scc feels the need to sell off public art to fund the building of an arts complex. When the deal was signed with developers and arts council the funding was in place. Why is there now a shortfall? Did the Tory administration dip their hands in to fund the completion of Sea City Museum? One would hope that the Daily Echo would investigate to let the people know what has been going on behind closed doors. Then again they wouldn't want their mates to look bad would they.[/p][/quote]Just to clarify, I've had confirmation from the Government in writing that SCC wrote to the department of culture in November and confirmed that the funds were all in place with no shortfall and were ring fenced. After November they still claimed that they intended to sell pieces to fund the already funded Arts Complex. This information is obviously purposely left out by the DE to fan the flames and to support the editors personal view of selling pieces. sotonboy84
  • Score: 6

9:08pm Sat 8 Mar 14

windyboy says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
What a misleading headline DE. Maria Miller refused to comment on whether the art should be sold, she said that the future of pubic art collections should be considered very carefully which has nothing to do with the current Labour council trying to sell pieces from our collection.

Please support the below petition, calling on the Government to help create an independent trust away from council hands so decisions are made purely for the benefit of the collection and not financially an politically motivated.

450 supporters so far so please help.

http://www.change.or

g/en-GB/petitions/he

r-majesty-s-governme

nt-save-southampton-

s-200m-art-collectio

n-a-test-case-for-al

l-british-publicly-o

wned-art
Thanks sotonboy for the link, just signed it.

I'm fed up Murray's use of this poor rag for his personal campaign to sell it .

I won't be buying it anymore will this continues.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: What a misleading headline DE. Maria Miller refused to comment on whether the art should be sold, she said that the future of pubic art collections should be considered very carefully which has nothing to do with the current Labour council trying to sell pieces from our collection. Please support the below petition, calling on the Government to help create an independent trust away from council hands so decisions are made purely for the benefit of the collection and not financially an politically motivated. 450 supporters so far so please help. http://www.change.or g/en-GB/petitions/he r-majesty-s-governme nt-save-southampton- s-200m-art-collectio n-a-test-case-for-al l-british-publicly-o wned-art[/p][/quote]Thanks sotonboy for the link, just signed it. I'm fed up Murray's use of this poor rag for his personal campaign to sell it . I won't be buying it anymore will this continues. windyboy
  • Score: 4

11:10am Sun 9 Mar 14

sotonboy84 says...

windyboy wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
What a misleading headline DE. Maria Miller refused to comment on whether the art should be sold, she said that the future of pubic art collections should be considered very carefully which has nothing to do with the current Labour council trying to sell pieces from our collection.

Please support the below petition, calling on the Government to help create an independent trust away from council hands so decisions are made purely for the benefit of the collection and not financially an politically motivated.

450 supporters so far so please help.

http://www.change.or


g/en-GB/petitions/he


r-majesty-s-governme


nt-save-southampton-


s-200m-art-collectio


n-a-test-case-for-al


l-british-publicly-o


wned-art
Thanks sotonboy for the link, just signed it.

I'm fed up Murray's use of this poor rag for his personal campaign to sell it .

I won't be buying it anymore will this continues.
Thank you!

I've stopped buying it as it has turned into exactly that, a rag. News is twisted to project the editors political view rather than reporting on facts & reporting local news (that actually happened!).
[quote][p][bold]windyboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: What a misleading headline DE. Maria Miller refused to comment on whether the art should be sold, she said that the future of pubic art collections should be considered very carefully which has nothing to do with the current Labour council trying to sell pieces from our collection. Please support the below petition, calling on the Government to help create an independent trust away from council hands so decisions are made purely for the benefit of the collection and not financially an politically motivated. 450 supporters so far so please help. http://www.change.or g/en-GB/petitions/he r-majesty-s-governme nt-save-southampton- s-200m-art-collectio n-a-test-case-for-al l-british-publicly-o wned-art[/p][/quote]Thanks sotonboy for the link, just signed it. I'm fed up Murray's use of this poor rag for his personal campaign to sell it . I won't be buying it anymore will this continues.[/p][/quote]Thank you! I've stopped buying it as it has turned into exactly that, a rag. News is twisted to project the editors political view rather than reporting on facts & reporting local news (that actually happened!). sotonboy84
  • Score: 2

1:54pm Sun 9 Mar 14

loosehead says...

I personally don't go to the Art Gallery & I doubt if 90% of the residents of this city do.
Yes the Tories wanted/still want to sell two pieces that have nothing to do with this city & it's history or people but Labour in opposition opposed this as they opposed the building of a Lidl's warehouse so why is it now they're in power they've changed their minds on both subjects?
if the selling of art is a good idea now then it must have been a good idea under the Tories or was it because they opposed it they'd get more votes from art lovers?
Truthfully ask the majority of people & they'd say sell it but if we had a big enough gallery & we showed it all & then let the tourists know what was on show would it attract more tourism? would it bring more money into the city & more jobs?
answer that & you answer the question shall we sell or keep?
I personally don't go to the Art Gallery & I doubt if 90% of the residents of this city do. Yes the Tories wanted/still want to sell two pieces that have nothing to do with this city & it's history or people but Labour in opposition opposed this as they opposed the building of a Lidl's warehouse so why is it now they're in power they've changed their minds on both subjects? if the selling of art is a good idea now then it must have been a good idea under the Tories or was it because they opposed it they'd get more votes from art lovers? Truthfully ask the majority of people & they'd say sell it but if we had a big enough gallery & we showed it all & then let the tourists know what was on show would it attract more tourism? would it bring more money into the city & more jobs? answer that & you answer the question shall we sell or keep? loosehead
  • Score: 0

6:08pm Sun 9 Mar 14

sotonboy84 says...

loosehead wrote:
I personally don't go to the Art Gallery & I doubt if 90% of the residents of this city do.
Yes the Tories wanted/still want to sell two pieces that have nothing to do with this city & it's history or people but Labour in opposition opposed this as they opposed the building of a Lidl's warehouse so why is it now they're in power they've changed their minds on both subjects?
if the selling of art is a good idea now then it must have been a good idea under the Tories or was it because they opposed it they'd get more votes from art lovers?
Truthfully ask the majority of people & they'd say sell it but if we had a big enough gallery & we showed it all & then let the tourists know what was on show would it attract more tourism? would it bring more money into the city & more jobs?
answer that & you answer the question shall we sell or keep?
You're very wrong, the two pieces have a huge amount to do with the city. They were both bought through the Chipperfield bequest fund & it was this fund that was the basis of our collection, the gallery & art school were built from it & Chipperfield's intention was to bring art to the people if Southampton for free.

There's no logic in showing any collection of this size in its entirety. Without rotating pieces it would never change so visitors wouldn't return & can you imagine the security costs of protecting a 4000 piece collection of this value?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I personally don't go to the Art Gallery & I doubt if 90% of the residents of this city do. Yes the Tories wanted/still want to sell two pieces that have nothing to do with this city & it's history or people but Labour in opposition opposed this as they opposed the building of a Lidl's warehouse so why is it now they're in power they've changed their minds on both subjects? if the selling of art is a good idea now then it must have been a good idea under the Tories or was it because they opposed it they'd get more votes from art lovers? Truthfully ask the majority of people & they'd say sell it but if we had a big enough gallery & we showed it all & then let the tourists know what was on show would it attract more tourism? would it bring more money into the city & more jobs? answer that & you answer the question shall we sell or keep?[/p][/quote]You're very wrong, the two pieces have a huge amount to do with the city. They were both bought through the Chipperfield bequest fund & it was this fund that was the basis of our collection, the gallery & art school were built from it & Chipperfield's intention was to bring art to the people if Southampton for free. There's no logic in showing any collection of this size in its entirety. Without rotating pieces it would never change so visitors wouldn't return & can you imagine the security costs of protecting a 4000 piece collection of this value? sotonboy84
  • Score: 4

9:02am Mon 10 Mar 14

Xgipper says...

Time for a re-think on this misguided campaign, Echo (Murray).
Time for a re-think on this misguided campaign, Echo (Murray). Xgipper
  • Score: 3

11:36am Mon 10 Mar 14

loosehead says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
I personally don't go to the Art Gallery & I doubt if 90% of the residents of this city do.
Yes the Tories wanted/still want to sell two pieces that have nothing to do with this city & it's history or people but Labour in opposition opposed this as they opposed the building of a Lidl's warehouse so why is it now they're in power they've changed their minds on both subjects?
if the selling of art is a good idea now then it must have been a good idea under the Tories or was it because they opposed it they'd get more votes from art lovers?
Truthfully ask the majority of people & they'd say sell it but if we had a big enough gallery & we showed it all & then let the tourists know what was on show would it attract more tourism? would it bring more money into the city & more jobs?
answer that & you answer the question shall we sell or keep?
You're very wrong, the two pieces have a huge amount to do with the city. They were both bought through the Chipperfield bequest fund & it was this fund that was the basis of our collection, the gallery & art school were built from it & Chipperfield's intention was to bring art to the people if Southampton for free.

There's no logic in showing any collection of this size in its entirety. Without rotating pieces it would never change so visitors wouldn't return & can you imagine the security costs of protecting a 4000 piece collection of this value?
This art isn't about any historical event or person from this city it's not done by a Southampton born artist & it wasn't about anything what so ever to do with this city. A rodan & a picture of a horse what have they to do with this city? what revenue do they bring to this city?
If the Art Gallery doesn't charge entry fees then exactly who's paying for it's up keep?
I don't go to the gallery so can I exclude out of my council tax any payments towards the up keep of this gallery?
So the council or should I say both major parties want to sell two pieces to help pay for the Art & cultural Quarter wasn't that allowed under Chipperfields agreement?
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I personally don't go to the Art Gallery & I doubt if 90% of the residents of this city do. Yes the Tories wanted/still want to sell two pieces that have nothing to do with this city & it's history or people but Labour in opposition opposed this as they opposed the building of a Lidl's warehouse so why is it now they're in power they've changed their minds on both subjects? if the selling of art is a good idea now then it must have been a good idea under the Tories or was it because they opposed it they'd get more votes from art lovers? Truthfully ask the majority of people & they'd say sell it but if we had a big enough gallery & we showed it all & then let the tourists know what was on show would it attract more tourism? would it bring more money into the city & more jobs? answer that & you answer the question shall we sell or keep?[/p][/quote]You're very wrong, the two pieces have a huge amount to do with the city. They were both bought through the Chipperfield bequest fund & it was this fund that was the basis of our collection, the gallery & art school were built from it & Chipperfield's intention was to bring art to the people if Southampton for free. There's no logic in showing any collection of this size in its entirety. Without rotating pieces it would never change so visitors wouldn't return & can you imagine the security costs of protecting a 4000 piece collection of this value?[/p][/quote]This art isn't about any historical event or person from this city it's not done by a Southampton born artist & it wasn't about anything what so ever to do with this city. A rodan & a picture of a horse what have they to do with this city? what revenue do they bring to this city? If the Art Gallery doesn't charge entry fees then exactly who's paying for it's up keep? I don't go to the gallery so can I exclude out of my council tax any payments towards the up keep of this gallery? So the council or should I say both major parties want to sell two pieces to help pay for the Art & cultural Quarter wasn't that allowed under Chipperfields agreement? loosehead
  • Score: -2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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