Of course if Mr Turner had had to cut something from the painting I suspect it would have been slightly different, say,
Denuded certainly but near bearable.
There again there are certain works for which Mr Wallinger is famous that could do with a cut. Ecco Homo for example, funded by the taxpayer could lose a little something,
to,And lets not forget his desperately brave and groundbreaking homage to Brian Haw, also handsomely rewarded by the Taxpayer, Maybe a 100% cut would improve that one.
Save the Arts, states,
"It has taken 50 years to create a vibrant arts culture in Britain that is theDisplaying for all to see the ahistorical and self obessed nature of those who sign their petition. Before public subsidy Britain was an artistic backwater it cries.
envy of the world."
Indeed his choice of painting is instructive, voted the most popular painting in a British gallery in 2005 it is sypmtomatic of Turner. Nostalgic, imaginative and critically patriotic. It was a painting that he painted in 1839 for entirely private purposes, he kept it in his studio and on his death in 1851 he gave it to the nation.
Indeed Turner had only one major public Commission, the painting of the Battle of Trafalgar,It was a critical flop and he never received another, preffering to work to his own wishes and with private commissions.
Could lightweights like Wallinger and a vast majority of those signing the petition survive without the support of friends who have access to tax subsidy and the Committees which dole them out? I doubt it, but it would be nice and instructive to find out.
The 'vibrant arts culture' they talk about exists only in their minds. The work they generally produce is obscurantist and deliberately elitist. Those who do not, and cannot understand their elaberate contrived artifice are dismissed as ignorant, whilst the money they provide is geedily grasped into the larded bosums of the art elite.
The poster for the campaign quotes William Morris,
Of course what is comedic about this quotation is twofold. Firstly 'Art for the Few' is exactly the sort of art that gets most public subsidy, that which is genuinely popular doesn't need it.
Secondly is that William Morris espoused through the Arts and Craft movement a touching (and financially lucrative) belief in the artisticness of the ordinary and the handmade. It was a profitable business and the objects it produced (despite his sincere socialism) were never affordable to the common man.
Nor are they now, except in twee pastiche. Liberty doesn't have a concession in Bluewater.