I personally thought Raphael’s St. Sebastian was the highlight of the exhibition.

Also had a bit of a chuckle when I saw an painting of Jesus’ crucifiction with a character that isn’t described in the bible. Turned out that it was the sponsor, a noble wealthy man, who funded the painting and asked the painter to include him in, kneeling at the foot of Jesus’ cross.

The ideal of doctoring was prevalent even during these times…

the influence of power on media writ large upon canvas for the ages.

And I never realised that the cucumber (the cucumber!) and the quince were potent symbols of the resurrection … learned two things that day!

Thanks RA for the tickets too btw

I saw it, I was a bit underwhelmed. Though this may have been due to me seeing the wonderful “Handwritten” exhibition before it on the same day.

http://www.nla.gov.au/exhibitions/handwritten

The Man of Sorrows by Lorenzo Monaco and of course Christ the Redeemer by Botticelli were my two favourites. And the gift-shop had Christ the Rigatoni.

Jivrashia said :

I personally thought Raphael’s St. Sebastian was the highlight of the exhibition.

Also had a bit of a chuckle when I saw an painting of Jesus’ crucifiction with a character that isn’t described in the bible. Turned out that it was the sponsor, a noble wealthy man, who funded the painting and asked the painter to include him in, kneeling at the foot of Jesus’ cross.

The ideal of doctoring was prevalent even during these times…

There were a couple of paintings like that – wealthy patron superimposed into a situation they have no business being depicted in. Gave me and mum a good laugh.

So would the keyboard warriors on here who months ago attacked the ACT Government’s funding contribution to the exhibition care to retract their criticisms? I recall pointing out the return on investment would more than justify the $500,000 spent as I recall. Looks like $72m reasons to prove it.

I don’t know if this is par for the course at such exhibitions, but while I thought the paintings were great and hugely enjoyed going through them all, the accompanying guide book(let) was sparse to the point of virtually useless. No context, no showing the development of themes or techniques over the time, little about the paintings themselves.

I’m not an art student or anything, and I don’t know just how much is actually known about each painting, but by the time I hit the end I was already dreaming up a killer iphone app that would give a genuinely complete guide to the period and pieces – you could do it with info from wikipedia alone I reckon. Add in more from more specialist sites and you’d have a real and satisfying educational experience. I’d be happy to pay for THAT!

c_c said :

So would the keyboard warriors on here who months ago attacked the ACT Government’s funding contribution to the exhibition care to retract their criticisms? I recall pointing out the return on investment would more than justify the $500,000 spent as I recall. Looks like $72m reasons to prove it.

I heard Ron Radford on ABC 666 this morning. He was asked about the economics of staging the exhibition from an NGA perspective and he refused to give any details; perhaps the NGA made a lot of money in which case they can repay the $500K “investment” (plus interest) to ACT ratepayers.
He then “estimates” that the exhibition brought in $75 million into the ACT economy from 172,465 Australian visitors outside the ACT which is $434.87 per person. I find this difficult to believe and I would suggest that the exhibition was not up to the NGA’s expectations – we will never know will we?
I haven’t heard anyone from the business sector backing his $75 million estimate either and yes, I suppose any money it generated is a good thing but no, the $500K invested on behalf of the ACT ratepayers was not a good deal. Before you ask if I even went to the exhibition I will confirm that I didn’t – I had an oppotunity to see it in Italy once to see but these religio-centric depictions don’t appeal to me as “art”. This is not a criticism as I respect the appeal they would have to most Catholics but then again a lot of my Catholic colleagues didn’t go to the exhibition either.
Accordingly, I do not retract my previous criticisms.

Let’s consider some rough figures, mainly to illustrate scale.

20% of exhibition visitors came from Melbourne – 42 584.

If they all flew into Canberra Airport, then the ACT economy makes $11 each before they even leave the plane. That’s over $468,000 and they’re not on the aerobridge yet.

If they all stay just one night in a Canberra motel, let’s say using the Crowne Plaza’s special package for the exhibition at $280 a night for 2 people with 2 tickets. You could easily be looking at over $6million into the ACT economy from that.

Meals, another couple of million easy. Hell we’re talking Melbourne folk, if each buys a coffee that’s $170,000+ into the economy.

$75m might be a stretch, but there’s still many millions of dollars now in the ACT economy to justify ACT Government support. Asking the Gallery to repay it is daft. I would be amazed if they made much of a profit, and they certainly weren’t the greatest beneficiary of the tourism dollars.

Fantastic exhibition made even more fantastic by the fact Riot-Act gave me my tickets!

Thanks guys!

dungfungus said :

c_c said :

So would the keyboard warriors on here who months ago attacked the ACT Government’s funding contribution to the exhibition care to retract their criticisms? I recall pointing out the return on investment would more than justify the $500,000 spent as I recall. Looks like $72m reasons to prove it.

I heard Ron Radford on ABC 666 this morning. He was asked about the economics of staging the exhibition from an NGA perspective and he refused to give any details; perhaps the NGA made a lot of money in which case they can repay the $500K “investment” (plus interest) to ACT ratepayers.
He then “estimates” that the exhibition brought in $75 million into the ACT economy from 172,465 Australian visitors outside the ACT which is $434.87 per person. I find this difficult to believe and I would suggest that the exhibition was not up to the NGA’s expectations – we will never know will we?
I haven’t heard anyone from the business sector backing his $75 million estimate either and yes, I suppose any money it generated is a good thing but no, the $500K invested on behalf of the ACT ratepayers was not a good deal. Before you ask if I even went to the exhibition I will confirm that I didn’t – I had an oppotunity to see it in Italy once to see but these religio-centric depictions don’t appeal to me as “art”. This is not a criticism as I respect the appeal they would have to most Catholics but then again a lot of my Catholic colleagues didn’t go to the exhibition either.
Accordingly, I do not retract my previous criticisms.

You like to complain about things don’t you?

What a success! Great to see.

Snarky said :

…
I’m not an art student or anything, and I don’t know just how much is actually known about each painting, but by the time I hit the end I was already dreaming up a killer iphone app that would give a genuinely complete guide to the period and pieces – you could do it with info from wikipedia alone I reckon. Add in more from more specialist sites and you’d have a real and satisfying educational experience. I’d be happy to pay for THAT!

Do you mean something like this?
http://news.yahoo.com/louvre-goes-visual-nintendo-3ds-guide-142037371.html

Pity they have locked themselves into one company, but I guess they got it for free?

dpm said :

Do you mean something like this?
http://news.yahoo.com/louvre-goes-visual-nintendo-3ds-guide-142037371.html

Pity they have locked themselves into one company, but I guess they got it for free?

Yes, something along those lines. (Why a Nintendo though??) The one you’ve linked is more a map of the entire Louvre (the data file must be VAST!) whereas I’m thinking a far more tightly constrained app, good just for that particular exhibition, and with “linking commentary” explaining some of the social, economic and political influences that engender stylistic and thematic change.

c_c said :

Let’s consider some rough figures, mainly to illustrate scale.

20% of exhibition visitors came from Melbourne – 42 584.

If they all flew into Canberra Airport, then the ACT economy makes $11 each before they even leave the plane. That’s over $468,000 and they’re not on the aerobridge yet.

If they all stay just one night in a Canberra motel, let’s say using the Crowne Plaza’s special package for the exhibition at $280 a night for 2 people with 2 tickets. You could easily be looking at over $6million into the ACT economy from that.

Meals, another couple of million easy. Hell we’re talking Melbourne folk, if each buys a coffee that’s $170,000+ into the economy.

$75m might be a stretch, but there’s still many millions of dollars now in the ACT economy to justify ACT Government support. Asking the Gallery to repay it is daft. I would be amazed if they made much of a profit, and they certainly weren’t the greatest beneficiary of the tourism dollars.

Only 172,465 visitors were from outside the ACT so if 20% were from Melbourne the number would be 34,493 so you should re-work your figures.
Not much of the $11 collected at the airport would find its way into the ACT economy either; remember the ACT Government has little control over activities out there – I doubt if they even pay rates and land taxes.
I am sure the NGA would have lost money irrespective of how much the ACT Government threw in and how much they lost is really academic as all Australian taxpayers will underwrite that loss.
The amount of $500K is too much given the parlous state of our Territory’s finances and the money their super fund is losing.
As I said elsewhere on this blog, I haven’t seen anyone from the business sector supporting the $75 million claim. “Rough” figures indeed.

Jethro said :

dungfungus said :

c_c said :

So would the keyboard warriors on here who months ago attacked the ACT Government’s funding contribution to the exhibition care to retract their criticisms? I recall pointing out the return on investment would more than justify the $500,000 spent as I recall. Looks like $72m reasons to prove it.

I heard Ron Radford on ABC 666 this morning. He was asked about the economics of staging the exhibition from an NGA perspective and he refused to give any details; perhaps the NGA made a lot of money in which case they can repay the $500K “investment” (plus interest) to ACT ratepayers.
He then “estimates” that the exhibition brought in $75 million into the ACT economy from 172,465 Australian visitors outside the ACT which is $434.87 per person. I find this difficult to believe and I would suggest that the exhibition was not up to the NGA’s expectations – we will never know will we?
I haven’t heard anyone from the business sector backing his $75 million estimate either and yes, I suppose any money it generated is a good thing but no, the $500K invested on behalf of the ACT ratepayers was not a good deal. Before you ask if I even went to the exhibition I will confirm that I didn’t – I had an oppotunity to see it in Italy once to see but these religio-centric depictions don’t appeal to me as “art”. This is not a criticism as I respect the appeal they would have to most Catholics but then again a lot of my Catholic colleagues didn’t go to the exhibition either.
Accordingly, I do not retract my previous criticisms.

You like to complain about things don’t you?

If that is all you have to say then I guess you also agree with my synopsis.

dungfungus said :

c_c said :

Let’s consider some rough figures, mainly to illustrate scale.

20% of exhibition visitors came from Melbourne – 42 584.

If they all flew into Canberra Airport, then the ACT economy makes $11 each before they even leave the plane. That’s over $468,000 and they’re not on the aerobridge yet.

If they all stay just one night in a Canberra motel, let’s say using the Crowne Plaza’s special package for the exhibition at $280 a night for 2 people with 2 tickets. You could easily be looking at over $6million into the ACT economy from that.

Meals, another couple of million easy. Hell we’re talking Melbourne folk, if each buys a coffee that’s $170,000+ into the economy.

$75m might be a stretch, but there’s still many millions of dollars now in the ACT economy to justify ACT Government support. Asking the Gallery to repay it is daft. I would be amazed if they made much of a profit, and they certainly weren’t the greatest beneficiary of the tourism dollars.

Only 172,465 visitors were from outside the ACT so if 20% were from Melbourne the number would be 34,493 so you should re-work your figures.
Not much of the $11 collected at the airport would find its way into the ACT economy either; remember the ACT Government has little control over activities out there – I doubt if they even pay rates and land taxes.
I am sure the NGA would have lost money irrespective of how much the ACT Government threw in and how much they lost is really academic as all Australian taxpayers will underwrite that loss.
The amount of $500K is too much given the parlous state of our Territory’s finances and the money their super fund is losing.
As I said elsewhere on this blog, I haven’t seen anyone from the business sector supporting the $75 million claim. “Rough” figures indeed.[/]

Comprehension issues seem to exist.

20% of visitors came from Melbourne it was reported, not 20% of interstate visitors.

You also seem to have a very sad lack of understanding about what constitutes the ACT economy. The economy is more than just the government coughers, it’s the circulation of money, goods and services within the ACT.
When a plane lands, the landing fees go into the revenues of an ACT company, that employes ACT residents and in turn pays money to other areas of the ACT economy in tax and in exchange for goods and services.
Same with the hotel income? Those millions support the employment of Canberrans.

And in turn those employed and those businesses who make money pass it on via their own expenditure.

No good focusing on government revenue alone if no one has a job.

c_c said :

dungfungus said :

c_c said :

Let’s consider some rough figures, mainly to illustrate scale.

20% of exhibition visitors came from Melbourne – 42 584.

If they all flew into Canberra Airport, then the ACT economy makes $11 each before they even leave the plane. That’s over $468,000 and they’re not on the aerobridge yet.

If they all stay just one night in a Canberra motel, let’s say using the Crowne Plaza’s special package for the exhibition at $280 a night for 2 people with 2 tickets. You could easily be looking at over $6million into the ACT economy from that.

Meals, another couple of million easy. Hell we’re talking Melbourne folk, if each buys a coffee that’s $170,000+ into the economy.

$75m might be a stretch, but there’s still many millions of dollars now in the ACT economy to justify ACT Government support. Asking the Gallery to repay it is daft. I would be amazed if they made much of a profit, and they certainly weren’t the greatest beneficiary of the tourism dollars.

Only 172,465 visitors were from outside the ACT so if 20% were from Melbourne the number would be 34,493 so you should re-work your figures.
Not much of the $11 collected at the airport would find its way into the ACT economy either; remember the ACT Government has little control over activities out there – I doubt if they even pay rates and land taxes.
I am sure the NGA would have lost money irrespective of how much the ACT Government threw in and how much they lost is really academic as all Australian taxpayers will underwrite that loss.
The amount of $500K is too much given the parlous state of our Territory’s finances and the money their super fund is losing.
As I said elsewhere on this blog, I haven’t seen anyone from the business sector supporting the $75 million claim. “Rough” figures indeed.[/]

Comprehension issues seem to exist.

20% of visitors came from Melbourne it was reported, not 20% of interstate visitors.

You also seem to have a very sad lack of understanding about what constitutes the ACT economy. The economy is more than just the government coughers, it’s the circulation of money, goods and services within the ACT.
When a plane lands, the landing fees go into the revenues of an ACT company, that employes ACT residents and in turn pays money to other areas of the ACT economy in tax and in exchange for goods and services.
Same with the hotel income? Those millions support the employment of Canberrans.

And in turn those employed and those businesses who make money pass it on via their own expenditure.

No good focusing on government revenue alone if no one has a job.

“81% of visitors to the exhibition coming from outside the ACT. Almost 20% of INTERSTATE visitors came from Melbourne and Victoria ……” This equates to 81% of 212,920 which is 172,465 and they are all interstate so, as Melbourne and Victoria are also interstate the number should be 20% of 172,465 which is 34,493.
You did mean “coffers”? We are all “coughers” in the ACT when it comes to high living costs.
I agree with your comments on the general good for our economy but for a figure of $75 million to be suggested is sheer fantasy and it should not go unchallenged.

dungfungus said :

“81% of visitors to the exhibition coming from outside the ACT. Almost 20% of INTERSTATE visitors came from Melbourne and Victoria ……” This equates to 81% of 212,920 which is 172,465 and they are all interstate so, as Melbourne and Victoria are also interstate the number should be 20% of 172,465 which is 34,493.
You did mean “coffers”? We are all “coughers” in the ACT when it comes to high living costs.
I agree with your comments on the general good for our economy but for a figure of $75 million to be suggested is sheer fantasy and it should not go unchallenged.

Wonder what figures the Canberra times are working off:

“Mr Radford said 19 per cent of attendees were from Canberra and 20 per cent from Melbourne, the highest attendance from that city to a National Gallery exhibition.”

Regardless it brought in cash and even if the exhibition only made $10m or $20m, the investment remains sound.

*coffers (although iOS autocorrects to “coughers”)

Snarky said :

I don’t know if this is par for the course at such exhibitions, but while I thought the paintings were great and hugely enjoyed going through them all, the accompanying guide book(let) was sparse to the point of virtually useless. No context, no showing the development of themes or techniques over the time, little about the paintings themselves.

I’m not an art student or anything, and I don’t know just how much is actually known about each painting, but by the time I hit the end I was already dreaming up a killer iphone app that would give a genuinely complete guide to the period and pieces – you could do it with info from wikipedia alone I reckon. Add in more from more specialist sites and you’d have a real and satisfying educational experience. I’d be happy to pay for THAT!

The catalogue is all you needed – has a one-page essay on each and every work. $60 in hardcopy but free on your iphone.