City 'should sell art left in vaults' (From Daily Echo)

The Echo seems to have in for the Art Gallery don't they?

has,nt , been any multi million pie in the sky development stories for at least a few months , what good are a load of paintings gathering dust ? the money is probably needed to pay for sea city museum white elephant , city is a joke.

I don't know why the Echo keeps going back to this. The art belings to the city so that the people of the city and the visitors to the city can see it. We didn't get one of the best art galleries in any city outside London by flogging it off to the highest bidder. Once it's gone, it's gone.

There may be an argument for greater rotation of art works so that we see the stuff in the vaults more often. That's a campaign I could get behind and would, no doubt, increase visitor numbers at the Gallery.

And Cllr Hannides, you're not in charge any more. When you were you didn't go through with this ridiculous plan. To bring it up now is merely mischief making.

The gallery's great, but ridiculously small in proportion to the collection.

We just spent a gazillion pounds on a 'Sea City' museum that's destined for failure.

Can it not be repurposed?

Art lovers will travel to Southampton to see the collection if well exhibited. The same cannot be said for endless stuff about ships.

Putting the 'rights & wrongs of selling art' of this to one side, I think it is a no-brainer that we need to sell some of this stuff. What is the point of having 3,500 items, when we can only have 250 on display? What is the point of having the remaining 3,250 either hidden in the vaults where no one can see them or on loan somewhere else?

I would suggest that the Echo do something to improve the wretched condition of much the material in their own “vaults”-- in particular the photographic negatives of the 1940s and 1950s -- before taking the Art Gallery to task. It is a more professional undertaking than the Echo in every regard.

Since when has John Hannides worked for the Echo?

He's the one saying the art should be sold off - not the Echo.

the reporter even says "IT was the controversial plan that saw a city labelled as philistines by the art world."

Independent Thought wrote:
Putting the 'rights & wrongs of selling art' of this to one side, I think it is a no-brainer that we need to sell some of this stuff. What is the point of having 3,500 items, when we can only have 250 on display? What is the point of having the remaining 3,250 either hidden in the vaults where no one can see them or on loan somewhere else?

It seems to be a 'rainy day fund'.

But if this isn't a rainy day, I dread to think what future they're anticipating.

If it was displayed, it could be a source of income for the city. Much of the content would attract national and international visitors.

But if not, then I agree. Sell it and invest in the city.

Councillor calls for City's art collection to be sold off to fund new art complex. I am missing something here?

Dave Juson wrote:
I would suggest that the Echo do something to improve the wretched condition of much the material in their own “vaults”-- in particular the photographic negatives of the 1940s and 1950s -- before taking the Art Gallery to task. It is a more professional undertaking than the Echo in every regard.

Interesting post. I'd be interested to read more, as would many others I'm sure. Whack a quick blog up via blogger maybe?

That blog may end up journalling your successful negotiations with the Echo to see their archives restored, which would be a happy ending all round.

If I read Cllr Payne correctly, we can't ever sell the collection!

I must admit to being a bit of a Philistine on the subject, except perhaps for pictures destined for Playboy. However much, if not all, of the collection was donated to the city by citizens and it would as Cllr Payne said, probably for this reason, be a legal minefield. Although it is very unlikely that I would take advantage, surely it's possible for this stuff to be shown bit at a time.

Name a dozen pictures that are in the vault. OK, name a dozen pictures that are currently on display in the gallery. OK, when did you last visit the gallery? OK, exactly where is the gallery situated ?

My opinion is sell off 500 of the artworks, build the best arts complex in Britain, start making a steady profit, then start adding to the collection again.

If I remember it correctly Echo Editor suggested selling our City’s heritage of Arts Collection in the past, and at that time I did write in their letters page that he should be told to mind his own business.

This collection started because one very kind hearted generous man donated very expensive works to our city.

Considering lately Southampton Council under all three main parties has been busy stripping many other assets of our City, they could do at least one decent thing for a change, by keeping their filthy mitts off this collection by honouring the wishes generous man who has passed away.

Otherwise it will be like robbing graves.

Tories under the spell of Cllr. Hannidies have already hung the millstone of Hannidies Horror House, the eye sore museum attached to listed building of Civic Centre, around Council’s neck, should prove their lack of ability and twisted imagination.

Although Tories were rightly given the order of the boot by citizens of Southampton only few weeks ago, because the mess they were making, their arrogance and commitment to destruction of City’s heritage and its national reputation appear to have stayed intact… Proving ‘Once a Tory always a Tory so should be avoided more than even plague'.

Perhaps some of us should start thanking Editor Murray, whose use (or abuse!!!) of power of local news paper may have encouraged Tories to take leave of their senses. If this decision has been made because Mr. Murray may have used his influence like certain Murdoch, then he surely has succeeded in giving local Tories a poison pill, which hopefully could prove to be their political death; provided NuLabourites play their cards right.

Yes lately I have been very critical of local NuLabourites because of their fascination with banana skins, so as a socialist I must be fair and give the credit when due to NuLabour’s Cllr. Payne for his slightly sensible statement, with bit of reservation that he has not exactly told Tories to shut up and not even dream of selling very important heritage of Southampton.

Hope pen pushers and press power won’t persuade him to follow Tory line of thought. So for the time being thanks to Cllr. Payne on this issue.

Pity I am not follower of any religion, otherwise I would have gone to some place of worship and prayed for keeping Cllr. Payne on the right track and not to turn this opportunity to expose Tories into yet one more banana skin for his Group.

George4th wrote:
If I read Cllr Payne correctly, we can't ever sell the collection!

I wish he was saying heaven or hell Arts Collection won't be sold.

Let us see if Editor Murray will come to this fourm and express his views, which I am sure he hold most sinceraly.

BillyTheKid wrote:
Name a dozen pictures that are in the vault. OK, name a dozen pictures that are currently on display in the gallery. OK, when did you last visit the gallery? OK, exactly where is the gallery situated ?

My opinion is sell off 500 of the artworks, build the best arts complex in Britain, start making a steady profit, then start adding to the collection again.

Sounds to me like the way to start and run a business, nah! it'll never work, SCC's involved. Squander, squander, squander that's what they do and then say, 'Oh look, there's nothing left in the pot let's sack our employees and that'll fill the gap and, if it doesn't we can put up the council tax and cut services'. Sound familiar?

BillyTheKid wrote:
Name a dozen pictures that are in the vault. OK, name a dozen pictures that are currently on display in the gallery. OK, when did you last visit the gallery? OK, exactly where is the gallery situated ?

My opinion is sell off 500 of the artworks, build the best arts complex in Britain, start making a steady profit, then start adding to the collection again.

My favourite is Forest Edge which I've had a copy made of. I also really like Rodin's Eve, which was one of the items being considered for sale. The Riley pieces look good on the wall of the gallery as they're so big, though I wouldn't want one myself. The Burne-Jones paintings are, of course, on permanent display, and well worth a visit. I last visited about 6 weeks ago, It's next to Watts Park.
I assume you wanted an answer?

The amount of art that sits in vaults in this country is a scandal. The Royal Family has a collection that could fill the Louvre but it is never seen by the public.

We need to start seeing the arts as an investment and Southampton needs a world class gallery to show off its collection akin to the Hepworth that has opened up in Wakefield. It would bring in tourists like no other attraction. Plus it would be culturally enriching for the people of Southampton.

St Retford wrote:
The amount of art that sits in vaults in this country is a scandal. The Royal Family has a collection that could fill the Louvre but it is never seen by the public.

We need to start seeing the arts as an investment and Southampton needs a world class gallery to show off its collection akin to the Hepworth that has opened up in Wakefield. It would bring in tourists like no other attraction. Plus it would be culturally enriching for the people of Southampton.

Absolutely.

Hardly anyone outside Southampton is the slightest bit interested in our boats. Whereas the art collection will undoubtedly attract aficionados from far and wide. Not vast numbers maybe, but more than the maritime lot, and a constant flow.

It's an untapped stream of income for the city, and it's madness not to take advantage of it.

He's probably got some of his toff mates asking to buy them, backhander?

When are we going to get a new ice rink?

it should be sold. what is the point in keeping in a vault. if its not used or displayed then sell it to someone who will. At the same time raise money for our city

" straightened financial circumstances " Going to get worse " Councillor Hannides is at last telling the truth that the Tory Govenment is, and will be cutting back on grants to Councils.
If selling the Art Treasures is such a good idea, why didn't he do it to save council jobs and prevent cutting staff wages ?
A way of using the Arts in the vaults to earn revenue, without selling any of them is to canvas all developers, current and future to lease these treasures on an annual basis to display in their buildings.
I don't mean blocks of flats but prestigous office blocks with open foyers and their board rooms.
The bosses could then show off these works of art without having to buy them. Just a thought.

Surely the sensible thing is to get it out of the vaults and display it for the benefit of the public and for whom it was intended! It beggars belief that there is no mechanism by which all the art on display can be rotated so that sometime or another it automatically comes up for display providing constant but changing interest.

Cllr John Hannides wants to keep his hands OFF the Art Treasures that belongs to the people of Southampton they are not yours or the councils to sell.

We have been here before, and the council were stopped then and will stopped again.

Cllr Hannides you sell any of the our Art Treasures, come the next election you could find yourself out of work as a Cllr


(SO HANDS OFF)

cantthinkofone wrote:

St Retford wrote:
The amount of art that sits in vaults in this country is a scandal. The Royal Family has a collection that could fill the Louvre but it is never seen by the public.

We need to start seeing the arts as an investment and Southampton needs a world class gallery to show off its collection akin to the Hepworth that has opened up in Wakefield. It would bring in tourists like no other attraction. Plus it would be culturally enriching for the people of Southampton.

Absolutely.

Hardly anyone outside Southampton is the slightest bit interested in our boats. Whereas the art collection will undoubtedly attract aficionados from far and wide. Not vast numbers maybe, but more than the maritime lot, and a constant flow.

It's an untapped stream of income for the city, and it's madness not to take advantage of it.

Ummm....the..Boat Show. Ring any bells ?

I can see your point, but with our maritime history, how can we NOT recognise it ? The success of any venture is down to the quality and regularity of events organized, and of the course the advertising.

The art collection is very interesting, but not staggering. We don't have, to my knowledge, anything akin to "Guernica", "Cornfield and Crows",
or "Wham". The Burne-Jones set are exploratory works, not the final pieces, and represent a movement in art that promoted developmental stagnation rather than progress.

DONT SELL IT ...... SHOW IT !!

Lone Ranger. wrote:
DONT SELL IT ...... SHOW IT !!

Absolutely.

I agree with you entirely

Lone Ranger. wrote:
DONT SELL IT ...... SHOW IT !!

Hear, hear.
Why can we not see these hidden treasures? I only visit the gallery now when there is a special event because the static collection seems to be just that. Let's see a bigger/faster turnover of the display.

Bevois Valley Resident wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
Name a dozen pictures that are in the vault. OK, name a dozen pictures that are currently on display in the gallery. OK, when did you last visit the gallery? OK, exactly where is the gallery situated ?

My opinion is sell off 500 of the artworks, build the best arts complex in Britain, start making a steady profit, then start adding to the collection again.

My favourite is Forest Edge which I've had a copy made of. I also really like Rodin's Eve, which was one of the items being considered for sale. The Riley pieces look good on the wall of the gallery as they're so big, though I wouldn't want one myself. The Burne-Jones paintings are, of course, on permanent display, and well worth a visit. I last visited about 6 weeks ago, It's next to Watts Park.
I assume you wanted an answer?

You seem to have taken my comment personally, when I would have thought my intention was fairly obvious. The vast majority of Southamptonians have probably only visited the gallery once in their lives, when their art teacher took them on a KS3 trip.

Generally, people find the gallery interesting, but not exciting, perhaps due to a preponderance of moody landscapes and portraits. Yes, to people who know what they are looking at, Jone's "Perseus" cartoons are some of the liveliest work he ever produced, but to the majority it is just more Pre-Raphaelite retrogression.

Personally, I like our gallery's peaceful sombreness. The Ruisdael seems to typify it. And I am only too aware of the artisitic significance of the collection as a whole. But, in my view, the gallery needs more space and more scope, which means more money is needed.

Lone Ranger. wrote:
DONT SELL IT ...... SHOW IT !!

A loud command is all you can manage, is it ? No useful points to back up your view ?

cantthinkofone wrote:
The gallery's great, but ridiculously small in proportion to the collection. We just spent a gazillion pounds on a 'Sea City' museum that's destined for failure. Can it not be repurposed? Art lovers will travel to Southampton to see the collection if well exhibited. The same cannot be said for endless stuff about ships.

I agree with you that the gallery (exhibition space) in the present Art Gallery is indeed "...small in proportion to the collection". Having formerly worked for a time in a closely related department for many years, and having seen a fair bit of the Art Gallery's collection from time-to-time, I can obviously speak from some experience. But apart from local feelings, once word gets 'round - and it will - amongst the general public in the country (and ergo the bulk of any potential visitors) that the city is selling off some of it's collection, the alarm bells will 'sound-off' and people will get a negative impression of the place even before they consider visiting the city. It's a psychological thing as much as anything.

Now, regarding the new 'Sea City Museum', visitor figures have been very good. The 'inside word' is that it's a raving success already. I have to say that I disagree with those that have commented on here, on stories like this previously (and there have been quite a few), that this museum should have been located somewhere along the waterfront. People (certainly in large-enough numbers) just don't seem to want to travel down there, and not having the best inner-city transport system obviously doesn't help!

However, it's the revamped 'Tudor House' and it's new Tea Room that is not proving very successful and is of some considerable concern for the powers-that-be already. And now that the main visitor period (ie. season) is rapidly winding down, and what with the school holidays being over, it will struggle through the long Autumn and Winter months. I will go so far as to predict that that venue will continue to struggle to be a success - much as it was before it's closure prior to the re-opening this year, after the latest major renovation project. People have worked hard on re-establishing Tudor House on the site-seeing circuit, but all accounts - including my own personal one - they still haven't got it right. But you know the way people (ie. Estate Agents) talk about "location, location, location"? Well, in the museum business it's as much as anything about "promotion, promotion, promotion". I believe the British tourism industry (Southampton included) still needs to try a lot harder at this.

BillyTheKid wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:

St Retford wrote:
The amount of art that sits in vaults in this country is a scandal. The Royal Family has a collection that could fill the Louvre but it is never seen by the public.

We need to start seeing the arts as an investment and Southampton needs a world class gallery to show off its collection akin to the Hepworth that has opened up in Wakefield. It would bring in tourists like no other attraction. Plus it would be culturally enriching for the people of Southampton.

Absolutely.

Hardly anyone outside Southampton is the slightest bit interested in our boats. Whereas the art collection will undoubtedly attract aficionados from far and wide. Not vast numbers maybe, but more than the maritime lot, and a constant flow.

It's an untapped stream of income for the city, and it's madness not to take advantage of it.

Ummm....the..Boat Show. Ring any bells ?

I can see your point, but with our maritime history, how can we NOT recognise it ? The success of any venture is down to the quality and regularity of events organized, and of the course the advertising.

The art collection is very interesting, but not staggering. We don't have, to my knowledge, anything akin to "Guernica", "Cornfield and Crows",
or "Wham". The Burne-Jones set are exploratory works, not the final pieces, and represent a movement in art that promoted developmental stagnation rather than progress.

The boat show attracts a lot of very wealthy people looking to buy (or at least salivate over!) a plaything. I've never seen much evidence of it benefiting the city as a whole (aside from tax revenue, and maybe hotels). I've been here for 8 years since moving (back) to Southampton, and I've rarely even noticed the show is on. It seems to be the exclusive preserve of the rich and the wannabe-rich-yachtie
s, instead of the citywide festical of maritime arts and culture that it COULD be.

Southampton may be very proud of its maritime history, and that's all good, but the truth is that many cities have as much or more. One of them's just down the M27! It won't draw national or international visitors - or not many anyway.

You're quite right about the art collection. It depends what we have, and I honestly don't know the details. But if there are pieces of real interest there then it's a better prospect than competing with the maritime claims of Portsmouth, Bristol, Liverpool, etc etc etc. Artworks are unique, being a historic port isn't!

Why all this money for an Art Quarter, when this city is crying out for a Concert Arena, Ice Rink and the Snow Globe . The youth of this City have been screaming at Councils of this city for years and Not One have listened. My Kids are fed up having to travel to the O2 Milton Keynes and Bournemouth to enjoy themselves , You are not bringing people into the city , you are driving them out , When will someone listen!!

Still with the ice-rink! The ice-rink obsession in this city is surreal tbh!

I agree about the concert venue and snow-sports centre by the way.

cantthinkofone wrote:
Still with the ice-rink! The ice-rink obsession in this city is surreal tbh!

And let's not even mention replacing the bleedin' BIRD AVIARY! Oops! I just did! ;-)

Totally agree with needing a Concert Arena and a Snow Dome that could incorporate an Ice Rink, we need facilities for families and the youth of the city, I remember seeing big name bands/artists at the Gaumont as it was then, the open air lido, and yes the Ice rink, all of these venues along with 1000s of other kids I used to attend. What have we replaced them with? Absolutely nothing!!

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:
DONT SELL IT ...... SHOW IT !!

A loud command is all you can manage, is it ? No useful points to back up your view ?

No its not all that i can manage.
.
The useful point is there to see .... It obviously bypasses you completely ..... No surprise there then

Lone Ranger. wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:
DONT SELL IT ...... SHOW IT !!

A loud command is all you can manage, is it ? No useful points to back up your view ?

No its not all that i can manage.
.
The useful point is there to see .... It obviously bypasses you completely ..... No surprise there then

I would simply like to know what YOU know about art and the gallery, to see if you know what you are talking about.

All the paintings are shown on a rotational basis, as there not enough room to show them all at once.

There seems to be some suggestion that a sacrifice now might pay off in the future.

You see, Lone Ranger, there was no need for a rude, insulting trollish reply to a perfectly reasonable question.

Never sell what belong to the city as a whole, many bits of arts do go on loan to other art shows around the uk.
It would better to lease some of it out on short term lease.

I visit about once a month and each time I visit at least one of the 11 galleries has a different selection of artworks from the vaults on display. Whilst only a a proportion are on display at any one time. The works in the vaults can be vied on request. Rotating artworks from the vaults to the galleries on regular basis means that there is something different to see each time I visit. If it was all on display all the time there would be no reason to visit regularly.

Bowmore wrote:
I visit about once a month and each time I visit at least one of the 11 galleries has a different selection of artworks from the vaults on display. Whilst only a a proportion are on display at any one time. The works in the vaults can be vied on request. Rotating artworks from the vaults to the galleries on regular basis means that there is something different to see each time I visit. If it was all on display all the time there would be no reason to visit regularly.

Also the damage that would be done if it was on show all the time.

Scrutinizer wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:
The gallery's great, but ridiculously small in proportion to the collection. We just spent a gazillion pounds on a 'Sea City' museum that's destined for failure. Can it not be repurposed? Art lovers will travel to Southampton to see the collection if well exhibited. The same cannot be said for endless stuff about ships.

I agree with you that the gallery (exhibition space) in the present Art Gallery is indeed "...small in proportion to the collection". Having formerly worked for a time in a closely related department for many years, and having seen a fair bit of the Art Gallery's collection from time-to-time, I can obviously speak from some experience. But apart from local feelings, once word gets 'round - and it will - amongst the general public in the country (and ergo the bulk of any potential visitors) that the city is selling off some of it's collection, the alarm bells will 'sound-off' and people will get a negative impression of the place even before they consider visiting the city. It's a psychological thing as much as anything.

Now, regarding the new 'Sea City Museum', visitor figures have been very good. The 'inside word' is that it's a raving success already. I have to say that I disagree with those that have commented on here, on stories like this previously (and there have been quite a few), that this museum should have been located somewhere along the waterfront. People (certainly in large-enough numbers) just don't seem to want to travel down there, and not having the best inner-city transport system obviously doesn't help!

However, it's the revamped 'Tudor House' and it's new Tea Room that is not proving very successful and is of some considerable concern for the powers-that-be already. And now that the main visitor period (ie. season) is rapidly winding down, and what with the school holidays being over, it will struggle through the long Autumn and Winter months. I will go so far as to predict that that venue will continue to struggle to be a success - much as it was before it's closure prior to the re-opening this year, after the latest major renovation project. People have worked hard on re-establishing Tudor House on the site-seeing circuit, but all accounts - including my own personal one - they still haven't got it right. But you know the way people (ie. Estate Agents) talk about "location, location, location"? Well, in the museum business it's as much as anything about "promotion, promotion, promotion". I believe the British tourism industry (Southampton included) still needs to try a lot harder at this.

Interesting post - thanks.

Re SeaCity - My hunch (and it IS only a hunch) is that it will do okay for a few years whilst it has novelty in the local area. But from 3 years on, that won't sustain it any more, and it won't have enough interest from outside Southampton & environs to survive without subsidy.

Time will tell I guess!

AdrianSmith wrote:
Since when has John Hannides worked for the Echo?

He's the one saying the art should be sold off - not the Echo.

the reporter even says "IT was the controversial plan that saw a city labelled as philistines by the art world."

I too am beginning to wonder about the close proximity of the Echo's editorial policy to the stated views of City's conservatives. I worry that taxpayers' money (in the form of public sector expenditure on advertising in the Echo and its sister titles) may be increasingly used to promote the views of a minority political party.

Art work in all its glorious and variety of forms should be available to view, and not hidden away in some storage facility gathering dust. I don’t agree with a mass selloff; that’s like selling the family jewels – but these works could and should be hired or rented out to a worldwide audience. If the demand is there, then galleries or institutions would pay for this privilege, and let’s hope that this particular council have the foresight to at least investigate this route before any rash decision is made of our heritage. The civic art gallery is a fantastic place to visit, and probably a lack of enthusiasm by the folk of Southampton will always lead to some agenda to support a sell off. I would admit that a bit more rotation wouldn’t go amiss, but outside of London, Paris and Madrid I’ve not seen a lot better.

You lefties on here are way out of order.
I sat back & read constant pro Labour Anti Tory articles by the Echo before the local election now you have the cheek to say the Echo's pro Tory are you having a laugh?
Cllr Hannides wants to see another forward thinking Tory project completed.
He suggests selling some of the Art that has no connection with this city is never seen & you rip into him?
What size Art Gallery would be needed to show all the pieces of art?
If you had stuff in the attic or shed & you needed to make repairs to you're property or pay urgently for something would you not sell something that was never used or seen?
this is what he's suggested but maybe if we weren't spending an extra £50million on a Labour one upmanship Townhill estate development the Art & cultural centre could be built with out selling any art?

Bowmore wrote:
I visit about once a month and each time I visit at least one of the 11 galleries has a different selection of artworks from the vaults on display. Whilst only a a proportion are on display at any one time. The works in the vaults can be vied on request. Rotating artworks from the vaults to the galleries on regular basis means that there is something different to see each time I visit. If it was all on display all the time there would be no reason to visit regularly.

If we had lots of money, I'd say keep all the artworks. But if we need to expand to attract a bigger audience and bigger touring exhibitions, then why not sell some ?

Since Impressionism, and a new age of enlightenment, no artist has followed his or her vocation in the hope that their work might become museum pieces that no one could bear to part with. Art is always about treading new ground, and breaking with tradition. It is about development, and innovation. It is not about hoarding anything and everything.

All over the world we have galleries displaying the work of the masters, the history of past breaks with tradition, developments and innovations. Why do we need provincial galleries filled with second raters and copyists ? There are many names in Southampton Art Gallery that you will not find in a book on the history of art, but you will see them in auction catalogues.

Keep the best, sell the rest.

'to sell or not to sell'. Perhaps this is a question which the people of Southampton, the rightful owners of the various works, should answer for themselves? Do we sell the 'family silver' to build and invest in a new Southampton identity and culture, or hold on to a rich but what seems for many, to be an increasingly irrelevant collection? I say sell and invest wisely in the future of our city and it's younger generations!

bigfella777 wrote:
When are we going to get a new ice rink?

we are not the plug was pulled on that about a month ago

Bb5061 wrote:
'to sell or not to sell'. Perhaps this is a question which the people of Southampton, the rightful owners of the various works, should answer for themselves? Do we sell the 'family silver' to build and invest in a new Southampton identity and culture, or hold on to a rich but what seems for many, to be an increasingly irrelevant collection? I say sell and invest wisely in the future of our city and it's younger generations!

No need to sell hire the works of art out to other gallerys.
Remember once sold that is it, its gone from the city for good, and when thats money gone then what you going to do.
At lest with hire it out to other gallerys your getting an income coming in.
I heard is said that Southampton has the finest works of art out side of London in the UK.

southy wrote:

Bb5061 wrote:
'to sell or not to sell'. Perhaps this is a question which the people of Southampton, the rightful owners of the various works, should answer for themselves? Do we sell the 'family silver' to build and invest in a new Southampton identity and culture, or hold on to a rich but what seems for many, to be an increasingly irrelevant collection? I say sell and invest wisely in the future of our city and it's younger generations!

No need to sell hire the works of art out to other gallerys.
Remember once sold that is it, its gone from the city for good, and when thats money gone then what you going to do.
At lest with hire it out to other gallerys your getting an income coming in.
I heard is said that Southampton has the finest works of art out side of London in the UK.

You'll get £50 - 100,000 selling a reasonable "second division" piece at auction. With loans, someone's actually got to want to borrow it the first place, and be able to afford the fee. What would it be ? £100 pa ? £1000 pa ? I've no idea. Whatever it is, it won't be enough to create a new cultural centre.

When in power Cllr Hannides and his cohort Cllr Smith had planned to build Arts quarter on the (Tyrell & Green) site, he took great pleasure on telling us great they had done to get private investment into the city, are they now saying that the investment promised has disappeared or was this their plan all along?

They Tories planned the same when Sea City was planned and ended up borrowing money to build it, I don't think this administration will do the same.

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:
DONT SELL IT ...... SHOW IT !!

A loud command is all you can manage, is it ? No useful points to back up your view ?

No its not all that i can manage.
.
The useful point is there to see .... It obviously bypasses you completely ..... No surprise there then

I would simply like to know what YOU know about art and the gallery, to see if you know what you are talking about.

All the paintings are shown on a rotational basis, as there not enough room to show them all at once.

There seems to be some suggestion that a sacrifice now might pay off in the future.

You see, Lone Ranger, there was no need for a rude, insulting trollish reply to a perfectly reasonable question.

You see you never ask a reasonable question ......... Thats why you get that response

BillyTheKid wrote:

Bowmore wrote:
I visit about once a month and each time I visit at least one of the 11 galleries has a different selection of artworks from the vaults on display. Whilst only a a proportion are on display at any one time. The works in the vaults can be vied on request. Rotating artworks from the vaults to the galleries on regular basis means that there is something different to see each time I visit. If it was all on display all the time there would be no reason to visit regularly.

If we had lots of money, I'd say keep all the artworks. But if we need to expand to attract a bigger audience and bigger touring exhibitions, then why not sell some ?

Since Impressionism, and a new age of enlightenment, no artist has followed his or her vocation in the hope that their work might become museum pieces that no one could bear to part with. Art is always about treading new ground, and breaking with tradition. It is about development, and innovation. It is not about hoarding anything and everything.

All over the world we have galleries displaying the work of the masters, the history of past breaks with tradition, developments and innovations. Why do we need provincial galleries filled with second raters and copyists ? There are many names in Southampton Art Gallery that you will not find in a book on the history of art, but you will see them in auction catalogues.

Keep the best, sell the rest.

Billy, where do stand on Rolf Harris paintings?

Bb5061 wrote:
'to sell or not to sell'. Perhaps this is a question which the people of Southampton, the rightful owners of the various works, should answer for themselves? Do we sell the 'family silver' to build and invest in a new Southampton identity and culture, or hold on to a rich but what seems for many, to be an increasingly irrelevant collection? I say sell and invest wisely in the future of our city and it's younger generations!

I think that this would be a good idea. If the vote to sale is yes, the council should use this money to act as a local bank. This will enable them to lend money to local entrenpeneurs who want to invest in Southampton, thus creating jobs as well as amenities.

Bb5061 wrote:
'to sell or not to sell'. Perhaps this is a question which the people of Southampton, the rightful owners of the various works, should answer for themselves? Do we sell the 'family silver' to build and invest in a new Southampton identity and culture, or hold on to a rich but what seems for many, to be an increasingly irrelevant collection? I say sell and invest wisely in the future of our city and it's younger generations!

I think that this would be a good idea. If the vote to sale is yes, the council should use this money to act as a local bank. This will enable them to lend money to local entrenpeneurs who want to invest in Southampton, thus creating jobs as well as amenities.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
If I remember it correctly Echo Editor suggested selling our City’s heritage of Arts Collection in the past, and at that time I did write in their letters page that he should be told to mind his own business.

This collection started because one very kind hearted generous man donated very expensive works to our city.

Considering lately Southampton Council under all three main parties has been busy stripping many other assets of our City, they could do at least one decent thing for a change, by keeping their filthy mitts off this collection by honouring the wishes generous man who has passed away.

Otherwise it will be like robbing graves.

Tories under the spell of Cllr. Hannidies have already hung the millstone of Hannidies Horror House, the eye sore museum attached to listed building of Civic Centre, around Council’s neck, should prove their lack of ability and twisted imagination.

Although Tories were rightly given the order of the boot by citizens of Southampton only few weeks ago, because the mess they were making, their arrogance and commitment to destruction of City’s heritage and its national reputation appear to have stayed intact… Proving ‘Once a Tory always a Tory so should be avoided more than even plague'.

Perhaps some of us should start thanking Editor Murray, whose use (or abuse!!!) of power of local news paper may have encouraged Tories to take leave of their senses. If this decision has been made because Mr. Murray may have used his influence like certain Murdoch, then he surely has succeeded in giving local Tories a poison pill, which hopefully could prove to be their political death; provided NuLabourites play their cards right.

Yes lately I have been very critical of local NuLabourites because of their fascination with banana skins, so as a socialist I must be fair and give the credit when due to NuLabour’s Cllr. Payne for his slightly sensible statement, with bit of reservation that he has not exactly told Tories to shut up and not even dream of selling very important heritage of Southampton.

Hope pen pushers and press power won’t persuade him to follow Tory line of thought. So for the time being thanks to Cllr. Payne on this issue.

Pity I am not follower of any religion, otherwise I would have gone to some place of worship and prayed for keeping Cllr. Payne on the right track and not to turn this opportunity to expose Tories into yet one more banana skin for his Group.

It's nothing like selling graves - what a silly thing to say.

You've managed to bilge out 10 paragraphs, only the first few barley relevant, and it's the same old stuff right down to the all too common used words just to have another go at everything and everyone.

The Art Gallery won the European Art Museum of the Year in, I think, 1995. It is widely acknowledged to be one of the best galleries outside of London.

The art works in the vaults are not "sitting gathering dust" but are carefully stored and rotated into the displays. As I said before, perhaps this should happen more often but, if these works are sold, it will not happen at all.

A few years ago, the Gallery introduced the People's Choice whereby individuals or organisations could go to the vaults and choose a work of art for display. They could also explain why they had chosen it on a card near the display. This was an excellent scheme and, to my mind, brought the gallery more in touch with the city. It's a pity it stopped - I think when Cllr Hannides took over, but I could be wrong.

BillyTheKid wrote:

southy wrote:

Bb5061 wrote:
'to sell or not to sell'. Perhaps this is a question which the people of Southampton, the rightful owners of the various works, should answer for themselves? Do we sell the 'family silver' to build and invest in a new Southampton identity and culture, or hold on to a rich but what seems for many, to be an increasingly irrelevant collection? I say sell and invest wisely in the future of our city and it's younger generations!

No need to sell hire the works of art out to other gallerys.
Remember once sold that is it, its gone from the city for good, and when thats money gone then what you going to do.
At lest with hire it out to other gallerys your getting an income coming in.
I heard is said that Southampton has the finest works of art out side of London in the UK.

You'll get £50 - 100,000 selling a reasonable "second division" piece at auction. With loans, someone's actually got to want to borrow it the first place, and be able to afford the fee. What would it be ? £100 pa ? £1000 pa ? I've no idea. Whatever it is, it won't be enough to create a new cultural centre.

You will save on not needing a new cultural centre, and there are gallerys that will hire, rent or lease from other collettions, the Tate Gallery is mostly made up with art that is on lease.

yellowcard wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
When are we going to get a new ice rink?

we are not the plug was pulled on that about a month ago

Yes Williams stopped it as he said the Snowdome/Ice rink wasn't a water attraction( thought they were another form of water)

Ford Prefect wrote:
The Art Gallery won the European Art Museum of the Year in, I think, 1995. It is widely acknowledged to be one of the best galleries outside of London.

The art works in the vaults are not "sitting gathering dust" but are carefully stored and rotated into the displays. As I said before, perhaps this should happen more often but, if these works are sold, it will not happen at all.

A few years ago, the Gallery introduced the People's Choice whereby individuals or organisations could go to the vaults and choose a work of art for display. They could also explain why they had chosen it on a card near the display. This was an excellent scheme and, to my mind, brought the gallery more in touch with the city. It's a pity it stopped - I think when Cllr Hannides took over, but I could be wrong.

That sounds a brilliant scheme.

How about an Echo petition to see it brought back? I'd certainly sign.

skin2000 wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Bowmore wrote:
I visit about once a month and each time I visit at least one of the 11 galleries has a different selection of artworks from the vaults on display. Whilst only a a proportion are on display at any one time. The works in the vaults can be vied on request. Rotating artworks from the vaults to the galleries on regular basis means that there is something different to see each time I visit. If it was all on display all the time there would be no reason to visit regularly.

If we had lots of money, I'd say keep all the artworks. But if we need to expand to attract a bigger audience and bigger touring exhibitions, then why not sell some ?

Since Impressionism, and a new age of enlightenment, no artist has followed his or her vocation in the hope that their work might become museum pieces that no one could bear to part with. Art is always about treading new ground, and breaking with tradition. It is about development, and innovation. It is not about hoarding anything and everything.

All over the world we have galleries displaying the work of the masters, the history of past breaks with tradition, developments and innovations. Why do we need provincial galleries filled with second raters and copyists ? There are many names in Southampton Art Gallery that you will not find in a book on the history of art, but you will see them in auction catalogues.

Keep the best, sell the rest.

Billy, where do stand on Rolf Harris paintings?

Right in the middle. Then you jump up and down until the awful work is completely destroyed !

southy wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

southy wrote:

Bb5061 wrote:
'to sell or not to sell'. Perhaps this is a question which the people of Southampton, the rightful owners of the various works, should answer for themselves? Do we sell the 'family silver' to build and invest in a new Southampton identity and culture, or hold on to a rich but what seems for many, to be an increasingly irrelevant collection? I say sell and invest wisely in the future of our city and it's younger generations!

No need to sell hire the works of art out to other gallerys.
Remember once sold that is it, its gone from the city for good, and when thats money gone then what you going to do.
At lest with hire it out to other gallerys your getting an income coming in.
I heard is said that Southampton has the finest works of art out side of London in the UK.

You'll get £50 - 100,000 selling a reasonable "second division" piece at auction. With loans, someone's actually got to want to borrow it the first place, and be able to afford the fee. What would it be ? £100 pa ? £1000 pa ? I've no idea. Whatever it is, it won't be enough to create a new cultural centre.

You will save on not needing a new cultural centre, and there are gallerys that will hire, rent or lease from other collettions, the Tate Gallery is mostly made up with art that is on lease.

Not NEEDING a cultural centre ? The "chav capital"(Echo quote) of the UK does not NEED a cultural centre ?

We have a big football stadium, parks, cinemas, theatres, clubs, and Lord knows what else to entertain people. Now what about something to give us cultural status ? I believe there are still pockets of "snobs" in and around Southampton who might actually appreciate being considered for once, instead of seeing more money thrown at the "burgers and booze" mob.

cantthinkofone wrote:

Ford Prefect wrote:
The Art Gallery won the European Art Museum of the Year in, I think, 1995. It is widely acknowledged to be one of the best galleries outside of London.

The art works in the vaults are not "sitting gathering dust" but are carefully stored and rotated into the displays. As I said before, perhaps this should happen more often but, if these works are sold, it will not happen at all.

A few years ago, the Gallery introduced the People's Choice whereby individuals or organisations could go to the vaults and choose a work of art for display. They could also explain why they had chosen it on a card near the display. This was an excellent scheme and, to my mind, brought the gallery more in touch with the city. It's a pity it stopped - I think when Cllr Hannides took over, but I could be wrong.

That sounds a brilliant scheme.

How about an Echo petition to see it brought back? I'd certainly sign.

It probably stopped because it only appealed to the very, very tiny minority of the public who actually knew about it.

With a proper cultural centre, more significant exhibitions of artists we have actually heard of could be mounted. There would be more space for local artists and art groups to display more work, more often. With the ensuing heightened awareness of art that this would bring, ideas such as "The People's Choice" would get the attention and publicity they richly deserves.

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:
DONT SELL IT ...... SHOW IT !!

A loud command is all you can manage, is it ? No useful points to back up your view ?

No its not all that i can manage.
.
The useful point is there to see .... It obviously bypasses you completely ..... No surprise there then

I would simply like to know what YOU know about art and the gallery, to see if you know what you are talking about.

All the paintings are shown on a rotational basis, as there not enough room to show them all at once.

There seems to be some suggestion that a sacrifice now might pay off in the future.

You see, Lone Ranger, there was no need for a rude, insulting trollish reply to a perfectly reasonable question.

You see you never ask a reasonable question ......... Thats why you get that response

"You see you never ask a reasonable question ......... Thats why you get that response"
Never ? Evidence, please. And I only get that sort of response from trolls like georgem, clausentum and stillness.

The "reasonable" question was :

"I would simply like to know what YOU know about art and the gallery, to see if you know what you are talking about."

Now, if you can answer that "reasonable" question, please do, without any irrelevant personal attacks on me.

Billy, your post contains personal attacks on people who have not even responded to you. As is often the case. Do you not see that your complaints about 'personal attacks' are utter hypocrisy?

BillyTheKid wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:

Ford Prefect wrote:
The Art Gallery won the European Art Museum of the Year in, I think, 1995. It is widely acknowledged to be one of the best galleries outside of London.

The art works in the vaults are not "sitting gathering dust" but are carefully stored and rotated into the displays. As I said before, perhaps this should happen more often but, if these works are sold, it will not happen at all.

A few years ago, the Gallery introduced the People's Choice whereby individuals or organisations could go to the vaults and choose a work of art for display. They could also explain why they had chosen it on a card near the display. This was an excellent scheme and, to my mind, brought the gallery more in touch with the city. It's a pity it stopped - I think when Cllr Hannides took over, but I could be wrong.

That sounds a brilliant scheme.

How about an Echo petition to see it brought back? I'd certainly sign.

It probably stopped because it only appealed to the very, very tiny minority of the public who actually knew about it.

With a proper cultural centre, more significant exhibitions of artists we have actually heard of could be mounted. There would be more space for local artists and art groups to display more work, more often. With the ensuing heightened awareness of art that this would bring, ideas such as "The People's Choice" would get the attention and publicity they richly deserves.

"It probably stopped because it only appealed to the very, very tiny minority of the public who actually knew about it."

Well it's unlikely to appeal to people who don't know about it...!

But yes, a larger and better promoted cultural venue would be an excellent addition to the city.

As well as a city-centre hub, it would be great to have a number of smaller satellites in the various districts. These would help to bring the content to a wider audience, and would feed new visitors into the main attraction.

I believe we now have a number of empty police stations looking for a new purpose...!

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:
DONT SELL IT ...... SHOW IT !!

A loud command is all you can manage, is it ? No useful points to back up your view ?

No its not all that i can manage.
.
The useful point is there to see .... It obviously bypasses you completely ..... No surprise there then

I would simply like to know what YOU know about art and the gallery, to see if you know what you are talking about.

All the paintings are shown on a rotational basis, as there not enough room to show them all at once.

There seems to be some suggestion that a sacrifice now might pay off in the future.

You see, Lone Ranger, there was no need for a rude, insulting trollish reply to a perfectly reasonable question.

You see you never ask a reasonable question ......... Thats why you get that response

"You see you never ask a reasonable question ......... Thats why you get that response"
Never ? Evidence, please. And I only get that sort of response from trolls like georgem, clausentum and stillness.

The "reasonable" question was :

"I would simply like to know what YOU know about art and the gallery, to see if you know what you are talking about."

Now, if you can answer that "reasonable" question, please do, without any irrelevant personal attacks on me.

Billy, your post contains personal attacks on people who have not even responded to you. As is often the case. Do you not see that your complaints about 'personal attacks' are utter hypocrisy?

Stop bothering, Georgem.

I know nothing about you - age, employment status, educational background - absolutely nothing. Most of the regulars here tell us something about themselves, so it feels like you're talking to a real person. We both post here a lot, and were bound to encounter one another frequently. We have quite different opinions on things, but we could have enjoyed some good-natured verbal sparring. But I am not the sort of person who can talk to a "mystery voice". I cannot discuss with a string of sentences. Despite your absurd assertions, I have not found socialising in the real world a problem as a rule. But I would never have been able to fraternize with anyone unable to share a little.

You do not sound like a normal, regular person, and you do not speak or think like anyone I have ever met.

You have been offensive and insulting about aspects of my life and personality that you cannot possibly know about. I have tried every method I can think of to stop you attacking me, but all have failed. Now you use those last ditch attempts of mine as weapons against me.

Despite trying to get you to agree not to direct any further comments at me, here you are again, criticising and reprimanding.

Please stop this now, 3.30pm. 6/9/12. Unless you have anything positive or optimistic to say, there is no further need for any conversation.

I am fully aware of previous assertions on my part to cease communication, but, although I currently have absolutely no respect for you, I am at least trying to be civil.

How many Anti Tories & unionists have jumped on this one?
I now know exactly why this proposal was put forward by Cllr Hannides.
The Art & Cultural Quarters finance have already been secured so it's not for that.
But in November Labour will be announcing it's plans & to avert any job cuts or services cuts or council tax rises for at least a year the selling of the unused art was proposed.
if this will stop this high spending Labour council from cutting jobs,services or raising tax surely the Unions should be in favour of it?
can't wait until November to see the comments on Labours plans & just remember no one has a pocketful of money & taxes will hit us all hard

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:
DONT SELL IT ...... SHOW IT !!

A loud command is all you can manage, is it ? No useful points to back up your view ?

No its not all that i can manage.
.
The useful point is there to see .... It obviously bypasses you completely ..... No surprise there then

I would simply like to know what YOU know about art and the gallery, to see if you know what you are talking about.

All the paintings are shown on a rotational basis, as there not enough room to show them all at once.

There seems to be some suggestion that a sacrifice now might pay off in the future.

You see, Lone Ranger, there was no need for a rude, insulting trollish reply to a perfectly reasonable question.

You see you never ask a reasonable question ......... Thats why you get that response

"You see you never ask a reasonable question ......... Thats why you get that response"
Never ? Evidence, please. And I only get that sort of response from trolls like georgem, clausentum and stillness.

The "reasonable" question was :

"I would simply like to know what YOU know about art and the gallery, to see if you know what you are talking about."

Now, if you can answer that "reasonable" question, please do, without any irrelevant personal attacks on me.

Billy, your post contains personal attacks on people who have not even responded to you. As is often the case. Do you not see that your complaints about 'personal attacks' are utter hypocrisy?

Stop bothering, Georgem.

I know nothing about you - age, employment status, educational background - absolutely nothing. Most of the regulars here tell us something about themselves, so it feels like you're talking to a real person. We both post here a lot, and were bound to encounter one another frequently. We have quite different opinions on things, but we could have enjoyed some good-natured verbal sparring. But I am not the sort of person who can talk to a "mystery voice". I cannot discuss with a string of sentences. Despite your absurd assertions, I have not found socialising in the real world a problem as a rule. But I would never have been able to fraternize with anyone unable to share a little.

You do not sound like a normal, regular person, and you do not speak or think like anyone I have ever met.

You have been offensive and insulting about aspects of my life and personality that you cannot possibly know about. I have tried every method I can think of to stop you attacking me, but all have failed. Now you use those last ditch attempts of mine as weapons against me.

Despite trying to get you to agree not to direct any further comments at me, here you are again, criticising and reprimanding.

Please stop this now, 3.30pm. 6/9/12. Unless you have anything positive or optimistic to say, there is no further need for any conversation.

I am fully aware of previous assertions on my part to cease communication, but, although I currently have absolutely no respect for you, I am at least trying to be civil.

Ok, I'm going to respond, and please, try not to take offence at it, because none is meant. If it offends you, it's because you've misunderstood it.

You've made several remarks about how "lonely" I must be, with no friends, how my head is full of and a number of other assertions. Do you not see these as personal insults? I'm not trying to provoke you, I just wonder if you genuinely don't see that as a personal insult. Personally, I'd be quite happy for us to stop this nonsense, but from my point of view, you repeat the attacks over and over, and presumably you see things in the exact opposite light. What to do?

If you want to know why you keep getting "attacked" I'll tell you exactly why it is. It's because after your "peace offering" of a few weeks ago, which we stuck to, you suddenly, out of the blue, decided to launch more personal attacks, based on nothing, it seems. Seriously. Go back and look at the posts, or your archives (if you really do keep them). Find the 'truce' then look at subsequent interactions between us. For the life of me, I could not see anything that would provoke you in them. If I'm wrong, show me it.

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:
DONT SELL IT ...... SHOW IT !!

A loud command is all you can manage, is it ? No useful points to back up your view ?

No its not all that i can manage.
.
The useful point is there to see .... It obviously bypasses you completely ..... No surprise there then

I would simply like to know what YOU know about art and the gallery, to see if you know what you are talking about.

All the paintings are shown on a rotational basis, as there not enough room to show them all at once.

There seems to be some suggestion that a sacrifice now might pay off in the future.

You see, Lone Ranger, there was no need for a rude, insulting trollish reply to a perfectly reasonable question.

You see you never ask a reasonable question ......... Thats why you get that response

"You see you never ask a reasonable question ......... Thats why you get that response"
Never ? Evidence, please. And I only get that sort of response from trolls like georgem, clausentum and stillness.

The "reasonable" question was :

"I would simply like to know what YOU know about art and the gallery, to see if you know what you are talking about."

Now, if you can answer that "reasonable" question, please do, without any irrelevant personal attacks on me.

Billy, your post contains personal attacks on people who have not even responded to you. As is often the case. Do you not see that your complaints about 'personal attacks' are utter hypocrisy?

Stop bothering, Georgem.

I know nothing about you - age, employment status, educational background - absolutely nothing. Most of the regulars here tell us something about themselves, so it feels like you're talking to a real person. We both post here a lot, and were bound to encounter one another frequently. We have quite different opinions on things, but we could have enjoyed some good-natured verbal sparring. But I am not the sort of person who can talk to a "mystery voice". I cannot discuss with a string of sentences. Despite your absurd assertions, I have not found socialising in the real world a problem as a rule. But I would never have been able to fraternize with anyone unable to share a little.

You do not sound like a normal, regular person, and you do not speak or think like anyone I have ever met.

You have been offensive and insulting about aspects of my life and personality that you cannot possibly know about. I have tried every method I can think of to stop you attacking me, but all have failed. Now you use those last ditch attempts of mine as weapons against me.

Despite trying to get you to agree not to direct any further comments at me, here you are again, criticising and reprimanding.

Please stop this now, 3.30pm. 6/9/12. Unless you have anything positive or optimistic to say, there is no further need for any conversation.

I am fully aware of previous assertions on my part to cease communication, but, although I currently have absolutely no respect for you, I am at least trying to be civil.

Ok, I'm going to respond, and please, try not to take offence at it, because none is meant. If it offends you, it's because you've misunderstood it.

You've made several remarks about how "lonely" I must be, with no friends, how my head is full of and a number of other assertions. Do you not see these as personal insults? I'm not trying to provoke you, I just wonder if you genuinely don't see that as a personal insult. Personally, I'd be quite happy for us to stop this nonsense, but from my point of view, you repeat the attacks over and over, and presumably you see things in the exact opposite light. What to do?

If you want to know why you keep getting "attacked" I'll tell you exactly why it is. It's because after your "peace offering" of a few weeks ago, which we stuck to, you suddenly, out of the blue, decided to launch more personal attacks, based on nothing, it seems. Seriously. Go back and look at the posts, or your archives (if you really do keep them). Find the 'truce' then look at subsequent interactions between us. For the life of me, I could not see anything that would provoke you in them. If I'm wrong, show me it.

I think that you are very tolerent Georgem.
.
Personally, I fight fire with fire........ But then we are all different ..... fortunately.
.
Now for a lie down in a darkened room and immerse myself in a large G & T

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:
DONT SELL IT ...... SHOW IT !!

A loud command is all you can manage, is it ? No useful points to back up your view ?

No its not all that i can manage.
.
The useful point is there to see .... It obviously bypasses you completely ..... No surprise there then

I would simply like to know what YOU know about art and the gallery, to see if you know what you are talking about.

All the paintings are shown on a rotational basis, as there not enough room to show them all at once.

There seems to be some suggestion that a sacrifice now might pay off in the future.

You see, Lone Ranger, there was no need for a rude, insulting trollish reply to a perfectly reasonable question.

You see you never ask a reasonable question ......... Thats why you get that response

"You see you never ask a reasonable question ......... Thats why you get that response"
Never ? Evidence, please. And I only get that sort of response from trolls like georgem, clausentum and stillness.

The "reasonable" question was :

"I would simply like to know what YOU know about art and the gallery, to see if you know what you are talking about."

Now, if you can answer that "reasonable" question, please do, without any irrelevant personal attacks on me.

Billy, your post contains personal attacks on people who have not even responded to you. As is often the case. Do you not see that your complaints about 'personal attacks' are utter hypocrisy?

Stop bothering, Georgem.

I know nothing about you - age, employment status, educational background - absolutely nothing. Most of the regulars here tell us something about themselves, so it feels like you're talking to a real person. We both post here a lot, and were bound to encounter one another frequently. We have quite different opinions on things, but we could have enjoyed some good-natured verbal sparring. But I am not the sort of person who can talk to a "mystery voice". I cannot discuss with a string of sentences. Despite your absurd assertions, I have not found socialising in the real world a problem as a rule. But I would never have been able to fraternize with anyone unable to share a little.

You do not sound like a normal, regular person, and you do not speak or think like anyone I have ever met.

You have been offensive and insulting about aspects of my life and personality that you cannot possibly know about. I have tried every method I can think of to stop you attacking me, but all have failed. Now you use those last ditch attempts of mine as weapons against me.

Despite trying to get you to agree not to direct any further comments at me, here you are again, criticising and reprimanding.

Please stop this now, 3.30pm. 6/9/12. Unless you have anything positive or optimistic to say, there is no further need for any conversation.

I am fully aware of previous assertions on my part to cease communication, but, although I currently have absolutely no respect for you, I am at least trying to be civil.

Ok, I'm going to respond, and please, try not to take offence at it, because none is meant. If it offends you, it's because you've misunderstood it.

You've made several remarks about how "lonely" I must be, with no friends, how my head is full of and a number of other assertions. Do you not see these as personal insults? I'm not trying to provoke you, I just wonder if you genuinely don't see that as a personal insult. Personally, I'd be quite happy for us to stop this nonsense, but from my point of view, you repeat the attacks over and over, and presumably you see things in the exact opposite light. What to do?

If you want to know why you keep getting "attacked" I'll tell you exactly why it is. It's because after your "peace offering" of a few weeks ago, which we stuck to, you suddenly, out of the blue, decided to launch more personal attacks, based on nothing, it seems. Seriously. Go back and look at the posts, or your archives (if you really do keep them). Find the 'truce' then look at subsequent interactions between us. For the life of me, I could not see anything that would provoke you in them. If I'm wrong, show me it.

I don't know why I waste my time. The archives are for me to discuss with Kerins if it ever becomes necessary.

Once again : I came here as Billy The Kid, I trolled, I stopped, I apologised, and tried to start again. I have yards of threads showing me saying something innocuous, followed by sarcasm, denial, or personal insult from you.

That is the pattern, over and over again. I suggested we not communicate, and you were the first to break that agreement. You broke it 3 times by attempting to engage me in comment. The first was your question about whether it was an offence to organize a fight over the phone. I gave a straightforward answer as I had researched it. Fine. Then another question from you. Then another from you. And then you started twisting my words and misinterpreting them - your usual practice. I have it all here in black and white.

I don't need to discuss it, or show it to anyone. It is clear as day. And, as I say, I will produce it if Kerins has anything to say against my favour.

For the last time, please do not communicate with me unless you wish to admit what you have done, and apologise, as I have done in the past.

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:
DONT SELL IT ...... SHOW IT !!

A loud command is all you can manage, is it ? No useful points to back up your view ?

No its not all that i can manage.
.
The useful point is there to see .... It obviously bypasses you completely ..... No surprise there then

I would simply like to know what YOU know about art and the gallery, to see if you know what you are talking about.

All the paintings are shown on a rotational basis, as there not enough room to show them all at once.

There seems to be some suggestion that a sacrifice now might pay off in the future.

You see, Lone Ranger, there was no need for a rude, insulting trollish reply to a perfectly reasonable question.

You see you never ask a reasonable question ......... Thats why you get that response

"You see you never ask a reasonable question ......... Thats why you get that response"
Never ? Evidence, please. And I only get that sort of response from trolls like georgem, clausentum and stillness.

The "reasonable" question was :

"I would simply like to know what YOU know about art and the gallery, to see if you know what you are talking about."

Now, if you can answer that "reasonable" question, please do, without any irrelevant personal attacks on me.

Billy, your post contains personal attacks on people who have not even responded to you. As is often the case. Do you not see that your complaints about 'personal attacks' are utter hypocrisy?

Stop bothering, Georgem.

I know nothing about you - age, employment status, educational background - absolutely nothing. Most of the regulars here tell us something about themselves, so it feels like you're talking to a real person. We both post here a lot, and were bound to encounter one another frequently. We have quite different opinions on things, but we could have enjoyed some good-natured verbal sparring. But I am not the sort of person who can talk to a "mystery voice". I cannot discuss with a string of sentences. Despite your absurd assertions, I have not found socialising in the real world a problem as a rule. But I would never have been able to fraternize with anyone unable to share a little.

You do not sound like a normal, regular person, and you do not speak or think like anyone I have ever met.

You have been offensive and insulting about aspects of my life and personality that you cannot possibly know about. I have tried every method I can think of to stop you attacking me, but all have failed. Now you use those last ditch attempts of mine as weapons against me.

Despite trying to get you to agree not to direct any further comments at me, here you are again, criticising and reprimanding.

Please stop this now, 3.30pm. 6/9/12. Unless you have anything positive or optimistic to say, there is no further need for any conversation.

I am fully aware of previous assertions on my part to cease communication, but, although I currently have absolutely no respect for you, I am at least trying to be civil.

Ok, I'm going to respond, and please, try not to take offence at it, because none is meant. If it offends you, it's because you've misunderstood it.

You've made several remarks about how "lonely" I must be, with no friends, how my head is full of and a number of other assertions. Do you not see these as personal insults? I'm not trying to provoke you, I just wonder if you genuinely don't see that as a personal insult. Personally, I'd be quite happy for us to stop this nonsense, but from my point of view, you repeat the attacks over and over, and presumably you see things in the exact opposite light. What to do?

If you want to know why you keep getting "attacked" I'll tell you exactly why it is. It's because after your "peace offering" of a few weeks ago, which we stuck to, you suddenly, out of the blue, decided to launch more personal attacks, based on nothing, it seems. Seriously. Go back and look at the posts, or your archives (if you really do keep them). Find the 'truce' then look at subsequent interactions between us. For the life of me, I could not see anything that would provoke you in them. If I'm wrong, show me it.

I don't know why I waste my time. The archives are for me to discuss with Kerins if it ever becomes necessary.

Once again : I came here as Billy The Kid, I trolled, I stopped, I apologised, and tried to start again. I have yards of threads showing me saying something innocuous, followed by sarcasm, denial, or personal insult from you.

That is the pattern, over and over again. I suggested we not communicate, and you were the first to break that agreement. You broke it 3 times by attempting to engage me in comment. The first was your question about whether it was an offence to organize a fight over the phone. I gave a straightforward answer as I had researched it. Fine. Then another question from you. Then another from you. And then you started twisting my words and misinterpreting them - your usual practice. I have it all here in black and white.

I don't need to discuss it, or show it to anyone. It is clear as day. And, as I say, I will produce it if Kerins has anything to say against my favour.

For the last time, please do not communicate with me unless you wish to admit what you have done, and apologise, as I have done in the past.

Confirmed troll. Ok, good to know.

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:
DONT SELL IT ...... SHOW IT !!

A loud command is all you can manage, is it ? No useful points to back up your view ?

No its not all that i can manage.
.
The useful point is there to see .... It obviously bypasses you completely ..... No surprise there then

I would simply like to know what YOU know about art and the gallery, to see if you know what you are talking about.

All the paintings are shown on a rotational basis, as there not enough room to show them all at once.

There seems to be some suggestion that a sacrifice now might pay off in the future.

You see, Lone Ranger, there was no need for a rude, insulting trollish reply to a perfectly reasonable question.

You see you never ask a reasonable question ......... Thats why you get that response

"You see you never ask a reasonable question ......... Thats why you get that response"
Never ? Evidence, please. And I only get that sort of response from trolls like georgem, clausentum and stillness.

The "reasonable" question was :

"I would simply like to know what YOU know about art and the gallery, to see if you know what you are talking about."

Now, if you can answer that "reasonable" question, please do, without any irrelevant personal attacks on me.

Billy, your post contains personal attacks on people who have not even responded to you. As is often the case. Do you not see that your complaints about 'personal attacks' are utter hypocrisy?

Stop bothering, Georgem.

I know nothing about you - age, employment status, educational background - absolutely nothing. Most of the regulars here tell us something about themselves, so it feels like you're talking to a real person. We both post here a lot, and were bound to encounter one another frequently. We have quite different opinions on things, but we could have enjoyed some good-natured verbal sparring. But I am not the sort of person who can talk to a "mystery voice". I cannot discuss with a string of sentences. Despite your absurd assertions, I have not found socialising in the real world a problem as a rule. But I would never have been able to fraternize with anyone unable to share a little.

You do not sound like a normal, regular person, and you do not speak or think like anyone I have ever met.

You have been offensive and insulting about aspects of my life and personality that you cannot possibly know about. I have tried every method I can think of to stop you attacking me, but all have failed. Now you use those last ditch attempts of mine as weapons against me.

Despite trying to get you to agree not to direct any further comments at me, here you are again, criticising and reprimanding.

Please stop this now, 3.30pm. 6/9/12. Unless you have anything positive or optimistic to say, there is no further need for any conversation.

I am fully aware of previous assertions on my part to cease communication, but, although I currently have absolutely no respect for you, I am at least trying to be civil.

Ok, I'm going to respond, and please, try not to take offence at it, because none is meant. If it offends you, it's because you've misunderstood it.

You've made several remarks about how "lonely" I must be, with no friends, how my head is full of and a number of other assertions. Do you not see these as personal insults? I'm not trying to provoke you, I just wonder if you genuinely don't see that as a personal insult. Personally, I'd be quite happy for us to stop this nonsense, but from my point of view, you repeat the attacks over and over, and presumably you see things in the exact opposite light. What to do?

If you want to know why you keep getting "attacked" I'll tell you exactly why it is. It's because after your "peace offering" of a few weeks ago, which we stuck to, you suddenly, out of the blue, decided to launch more personal attacks, based on nothing, it seems. Seriously. Go back and look at the posts, or your archives (if you really do keep them). Find the 'truce' then look at subsequent interactions between us. For the life of me, I could not see anything that would provoke you in them. If I'm wrong, show me it.

I don't know why I waste my time. The archives are for me to discuss with Kerins if it ever becomes necessary.

Once again : I came here as Billy The Kid, I trolled, I stopped, I apologised, and tried to start again. I have yards of threads showing me saying something innocuous, followed by sarcasm, denial, or personal insult from you.

That is the pattern, over and over again. I suggested we not communicate, and you were the first to break that agreement. You broke it 3 times by attempting to engage me in comment. The first was your question about whether it was an offence to organize a fight over the phone. I gave a straightforward answer as I had researched it. Fine. Then another question from you. Then another from you. And then you started twisting my words and misinterpreting them - your usual practice. I have it all here in black and white.

I don't need to discuss it, or show it to anyone. It is clear as day. And, as I say, I will produce it if Kerins has anything to say against my favour.

For the last time, please do not communicate with me unless you wish to admit what you have done, and apologise, as I have done in the past.

Confirmed troll. Ok, good to know.

Cant say you werent warned !!!

Lone Ranger. wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:
DONT SELL IT ...... SHOW IT !!

A loud command is all you can manage, is it ? No useful points to back up your view ?

No its not all that i can manage.
.
The useful point is there to see .... It obviously bypasses you completely ..... No surprise there then

I would simply like to know what YOU know about art and the gallery, to see if you know what you are talking about.

All the paintings are shown on a rotational basis, as there not enough room to show them all at once.

There seems to be some suggestion that a sacrifice now might pay off in the future.

You see, Lone Ranger, there was no need for a rude, insulting trollish reply to a perfectly reasonable question.

You see you never ask a reasonable question ......... Thats why you get that response

"You see you never ask a reasonable question ......... Thats why you get that response"
Never ? Evidence, please. And I only get that sort of response from trolls like georgem, clausentum and stillness.

The "reasonable" question was :

"I would simply like to know what YOU know about art and the gallery, to see if you know what you are talking about."

Now, if you can answer that "reasonable" question, please do, without any irrelevant personal attacks on me.

Billy, your post contains personal attacks on people who have not even responded to you. As is often the case. Do you not see that your complaints about 'personal attacks' are utter hypocrisy?

Stop bothering, Georgem.

I know nothing about you - age, employment status, educational background - absolutely nothing. Most of the regulars here tell us something about themselves, so it feels like you're talking to a real person. We both post here a lot, and were bound to encounter one another frequently. We have quite different opinions on things, but we could have enjoyed some good-natured verbal sparring. But I am not the sort of person who can talk to a "mystery voice". I cannot discuss with a string of sentences. Despite your absurd assertions, I have not found socialising in the real world a problem as a rule. But I would never have been able to fraternize with anyone unable to share a little.

You do not sound like a normal, regular person, and you do not speak or think like anyone I have ever met.

You have been offensive and insulting about aspects of my life and personality that you cannot possibly know about. I have tried every method I can think of to stop you attacking me, but all have failed. Now you use those last ditch attempts of mine as weapons against me.

Despite trying to get you to agree not to direct any further comments at me, here you are again, criticising and reprimanding.

Please stop this now, 3.30pm. 6/9/12. Unless you have anything positive or optimistic to say, there is no further need for any conversation.

I am fully aware of previous assertions on my part to cease communication, but, although I currently have absolutely no respect for you, I am at least trying to be civil.

Ok, I'm going to respond, and please, try not to take offence at it, because none is meant. If it offends you, it's because you've misunderstood it.

You've made several remarks about how "lonely" I must be, with no friends, how my head is full of and a number of other assertions. Do you not see these as personal insults? I'm not trying to provoke you, I just wonder if you genuinely don't see that as a personal insult. Personally, I'd be quite happy for us to stop this nonsense, but from my point of view, you repeat the attacks over and over, and presumably you see things in the exact opposite light. What to do?

If you want to know why you keep getting "attacked" I'll tell you exactly why it is. It's because after your "peace offering" of a few weeks ago, which we stuck to, you suddenly, out of the blue, decided to launch more personal attacks, based on nothing, it seems. Seriously. Go back and look at the posts, or your archives (if you really do keep them). Find the 'truce' then look at subsequent interactions between us. For the life of me, I could not see anything that would provoke you in them. If I'm wrong, show me it.

I don't know why I waste my time. The archives are for me to discuss with Kerins if it ever becomes necessary.

Once again : I came here as Billy The Kid, I trolled, I stopped, I apologised, and tried to start again. I have yards of threads showing me saying something innocuous, followed by sarcasm, denial, or personal insult from you.

That is the pattern, over and over again. I suggested we not communicate, and you were the first to break that agreement. You broke it 3 times by attempting to engage me in comment. The first was your question about whether it was an offence to organize a fight over the phone. I gave a straightforward answer as I had researched it. Fine. Then another question from you. Then another from you. And then you started twisting my words and misinterpreting them - your usual practice. I have it all here in black and white.

I don't need to discuss it, or show it to anyone. It is clear as day. And, as I say, I will produce it if Kerins has anything to say against my favour.

For the last time, please do not communicate with me unless you wish to admit what you have done, and apologise, as I have done in the past.

Confirmed troll. Ok, good to know.

Cant say you werent warned !!!

I knew! I've seen this act hundreds of times before, albeit usually less transparent. I just wanted him to post an actual admission. Mission accomplished.

Georgem wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:
DONT SELL IT ...... SHOW IT !!

A loud command is all you can manage, is it ? No useful points to back up your view ?

No its not all that i can manage.
.
The useful point is there to see .... It obviously bypasses you completely ..... No surprise there then

I would simply like to know what YOU know about art and the gallery, to see if you know what you are talking about.

All the paintings are shown on a rotational basis, as there not enough room to show them all at once.

There seems to be some suggestion that a sacrifice now might pay off in the future.

You see, Lone Ranger, there was no need for a rude, insulting trollish reply to a perfectly reasonable question.

You see you never ask a reasonable question ......... Thats why you get that response

"You see you never ask a reasonable question ......... Thats why you get that response"
Never ? Evidence, please. And I only get that sort of response from trolls like georgem, clausentum and stillness.

The "reasonable" question was :

"I would simply like to know what YOU know about art and the gallery, to see if you know what you are talking about."

Now, if you can answer that "reasonable" question, please do, without any irrelevant personal attacks on me.

Billy, your post contains personal attacks on people who have not even responded to you. As is often the case. Do you not see that your complaints about 'personal attacks' are utter hypocrisy?

Stop bothering, Georgem.

I know nothing about you - age, employment status, educational background - absolutely nothing. Most of the regulars here tell us something about themselves, so it feels like you're talking to a real person. We both post here a lot, and were bound to encounter one another frequently. We have quite different opinions on things, but we could have enjoyed some good-natured verbal sparring. But I am not the sort of person who can talk to a "mystery voice". I cannot discuss with a string of sentences. Despite your absurd assertions, I have not found socialising in the real world a problem as a rule. But I would never have been able to fraternize with anyone unable to share a little.

You do not sound like a normal, regular person, and you do not speak or think like anyone I have ever met.

You have been offensive and insulting about aspects of my life and personality that you cannot possibly know about. I have tried every method I can think of to stop you attacking me, but all have failed. Now you use those last ditch attempts of mine as weapons against me.

Despite trying to get you to agree not to direct any further comments at me, here you are again, criticising and reprimanding.

Please stop this now, 3.30pm. 6/9/12. Unless you have anything positive or optimistic to say, there is no further need for any conversation.

I am fully aware of previous assertions on my part to cease communication, but, although I currently have absolutely no respect for you, I am at least trying to be civil.

Ok, I'm going to respond, and please, try not to take offence at it, because none is meant. If it offends you, it's because you've misunderstood it.

You've made several remarks about how "lonely" I must be, with no friends, how my head is full of and a number of other assertions. Do you not see these as personal insults? I'm not trying to provoke you, I just wonder if you genuinely don't see that as a personal insult. Personally, I'd be quite happy for us to stop this nonsense, but from my point of view, you repeat the attacks over and over, and presumably you see things in the exact opposite light. What to do?

If you want to know why you keep getting "attacked" I'll tell you exactly why it is. It's because after your "peace offering" of a few weeks ago, which we stuck to, you suddenly, out of the blue, decided to launch more personal attacks, based on nothing, it seems. Seriously. Go back and look at the posts, or your archives (if you really do keep them). Find the 'truce' then look at subsequent interactions between us. For the life of me, I could not see anything that would provoke you in them. If I'm wrong, show me it.

I don't know why I waste my time. The archives are for me to discuss with Kerins if it ever becomes necessary.

Once again : I came here as Billy The Kid, I trolled, I stopped, I apologised, and tried to start again. I have yards of threads showing me saying something innocuous, followed by sarcasm, denial, or personal insult from you.

That is the pattern, over and over again. I suggested we not communicate, and you were the first to break that agreement. You broke it 3 times by attempting to engage me in comment. The first was your question about whether it was an offence to organize a fight over the phone. I gave a straightforward answer as I had researched it. Fine. Then another question from you. Then another from you. And then you started twisting my words and misinterpreting them - your usual practice. I have it all here in black and white.

I don't need to discuss it, or show it to anyone. It is clear as day. And, as I say, I will produce it if Kerins has anything to say against my favour.

For the last time, please do not communicate with me unless you wish to admit what you have done, and apologise, as I have done in the past.

Confirmed troll. Ok, good to know.

Cant say you werent warned !!!

I knew! I've seen this act hundreds of times before, albeit usually less transparent. I just wanted him to post an actual admission. Mission accomplished.

What are you on about ?

I was just having a few jokes when I first came here. I had never heard of trolling. I didn't realise that what I was doing was trolling. But the bad stuff was only in retaliation to the expert trolling being carried out by Lone Ranger, Clausentum, Stillness, and you, Georgem.

Your immature stupidity will get this site closed down, but that is probably your intention.

Interesting that it is Ranger and Georgem again, like last time with the "traveller" thread.

If you think Dan Kerins is so daft he won't see the rumpous you are kicking up now, pointing the finger of accusation at me on a foundation of lies and non-existent evidence, is nothing but a smoke screen to mask your own guilt, then there really is no hope for you.

I have posted this but can't find it.
Cllr hannides suggested selling art as to save Oaklands & other services.
with this seemingly high spending council either Tax will have to go up a hell of a lot or a hell of a lot of services will have to be cut or a bit of both.
The Art & cultural quarter has it's finances in place so will go ahead.
Surely the left should see this as a good suggestion to help save jobs & services not attack it?

loosehead wrote:
I have posted this but can't find it.
Cllr hannides suggested selling art as to save Oaklands & other services.
with this seemingly high spending council either Tax will have to go up a hell of a lot or a hell of a lot of services will have to be cut or a bit of both.
The Art & cultural quarter has it's finances in place so will go ahead.
Surely the left should see this as a good suggestion to help save jobs & services not attack it?

The council could sell the very few works of art that are actually owned by the council and the money raised on the things you suggest but for the vast majority of the artworks they are only the trusties and any money raised from the sale of those item legally has to be used to purchase new works of art for the gallery.