It's the Renaisance for the summer blockbuster at the NGA

I went to the exhibition, and my comment would be, read up on the lives of the saints before you go – saints Paul, Peter, Michael, Catherine of Siena, Ambrose of Milan, Jerome.

Coming from an atheist background, I had no idea of who these people were, or why they were worth having their portraits painted.

While you’re at it, read up on classical symbolism – who would have thought that a cherry represented the joys of heaven (cf Tertullian)? and Virginia the Roman. It’ll make the $25 worth it.

johnboy said :

Historically I’d say this one’s actually more significant than what came out last year from the musee d’orsay (not the louvre).

The paintings might arguably not have the wow of a great Van Gogh, but Van Gogh is relatively common and there are many of his works on permanent display in Australia (albeit generally lesser works).

Raphael, Botticelli, Bellini however are incredibly influential and anyone with a passing interest in art is aware they should know about them.

And those three have never ever had a work displayed on this continent.

That’s a pretty big draw for me.

Completely agree, JB! Bought my tickets this morning and am ready to go! Even though it starts in December… Lol.

dungfungus said :

The “numbers” you are playing with are academic because the $500k is not an “investment” – it is a grant, on behalf of the ACT ratepayers who, once again, were not consulted and they won’t be receiving any interest, dividends or more importantly, no direct return of capital. This appears to be a concept you are unable to grasp.
Without wanting to be snide (again) I would suggest that you are in a non-contributory defined benefit superannuation scheme.
Some of the other posts indicate this exhibition will not be up to the class of the benchmark French Masters so perhaps the amount of the grant is not commensurate with the risk. If Barr has to spend money on the arts I would rather see something permanent like Stanhope’s roadside fantasies which kind of grow on you.

lol, so you would rather the government spend the $500,000 on a “roadside fantasies” with an intangible return and ongoing maintenance costs than on an exhibition with a (likely) immediate, tangible return.

And you would rather that $500,000 go to one or two artists making those “roadside fantasies” than going to the many media and creative staff who will create the marketing which in turn can drive income that goes to the thousands of Canberrans who work in tourism related industries.

Move aside people, we’ve got ourselves a new Treasurer!

@Johnboy, very eloquent, couldn’t have said it better myself

Historically I’d say this one’s actually more significant than what came out last year from the musee d’orsay (not the louvre).

The paintings might arguably not have the wow of a great Van Gogh, but Van Gogh is relatively common and there are many of his works on permanent display in Australia (albeit generally lesser works).

Raphael, Botticelli, Bellini however are incredibly influential and anyone with a passing interest in art is aware they should know about them.

And those three have never ever had a work displayed on this continent.

That’s a pretty big draw for me.

creative_canberran said :

dungfungus said :

I am so glad you are not my superannuation fund manager, creative-canberran.[/quote>

Best you can do is snide remarks…

How bout showing your numbers. Show the numbers that tell us a $100m return on $500,000 isn’t a good deal. Hell, show the numbers that say a $30m return isn’t good on $500,000.

But you can’t can you. All tip and no iceberg.

The “numbers” you are playing with are academic because the $500k is not an “investment” – it is a grant, on behalf of the ACT ratepayers who, once again, were not consulted and they won’t be receiving any interest, dividends or more importantly, no direct return of capital. This appears to be a concept you are unable to grasp.
Without wanting to be snide (again) I would suggest that you are in a non-contributory defined benefit superannuation scheme.
Some of the other posts indicate this exhibition will not be up to the class of the benchmark French Masters so perhaps the amount of the grant is not commensurate with the risk. If Barr has to spend money on the arts I would rather see something permanent like Stanhope’s roadside fantasies which kind of grow on you.

I-filed said :

Hmmmm – may not be top-notch works. This doesn’t look to be a brilliantly curated exhibition, but a “while the works are off our walls they might as well be on tour” show. I don’t think it can be compared to the French masters’ exhibition which was a very thoughtful and beautifully put-together exhibition. NGA shouldn’t build expectations regarding this one – or it will risk being seen as a flop. If they don’t try to jump up expectations, it could be a moderate success …. and seen as such. Promotion can be a two-edged sword folks!

The French Masters wasn’t ‘curated’, it was a storage exchange while the Louvre renovated. It was just lucky that it had great pieces in it. If it had been ‘curated’ it would have been even better exhibition with more interesting works.

dungfungus said :

I am so glad you are not my superannuation fund manager, creative-canberran.[/quote>

Best you can do is snide remarks…

How bout showing your numbers. Show the numbers that tell us a $100m return on $500,000 isn’t a good deal. Hell, show the numbers that say a $30m return isn’t good on $500,000.

But you can’t can you. All tip and no iceberg.

Hmmmm – may not be top-notch works. This doesn’t look to be a brilliantly curated exhibition, but a “while the works are off our walls they might as well be on tour” show. I don’t think it can be compared to the French masters’ exhibition which was a very thoughtful and beautifully put-together exhibition. NGA shouldn’t build expectations regarding this one – or it will risk being seen as a flop. If they don’t try to jump up expectations, it could be a moderate success …. and seen as such. Promotion can be a two-edged sword folks!

creative_canberran said :

dungfungus said :

creative-canberran defends Barr’s decision to spend another $500k after the same amount was spent on the French Masters exhibition which according to the ABC attracted 470,000 visitors (20% from the ACT) and injected $100million into the ACT “economy”.
Will someone please explain, how this helps the ACT ratepayers who have underwritten this “gift”, get their $500k back?
Remember income tax and GST are paid to the Commonwealth, not the ACT government and the ACT government does not sell any of the goods and services that are provided to the interstate visitors.

Well there’s these wonderful things called businesses in Canberra, you may have head of them. Hotels, restaurants, cafes, gift shops… I could go on. Places visitors tend to go and spend money when they visit. They are part of the “economy.”

The “economy” is the financial ecosystem of the territory both public and private.

This isn’t a gift… it’s an investment in attracting people who put money into local business (who in turn pay tax) and in turn employ locals.

Seems very logical.

Let’s put it another way. If we look at the $500,000 as an investment, in the same light as a bank deposit, debenture, stock purchase and so on… and accept that $100million is the return on that investment…. what’s the return on that: 99.5%!

Even if the exhibition is a total flop and attracts half or a third of the number the French Exhibition did for the same investment, you’re still seeing a return on investment as good or better than you would get putting that money into shares or a cash fund.

I am so glad you are not my superannuation fund manager, creative-canberran.