Turner to be the Winter Blockbuster at the National Gallery

Jim Jones said :

johnboy said :

dungfungus said :

There is no proof that massive economic benefits accrue to Canberra from these “blockbuster” exhibitions either. If they have “blockbuster” status, they should be able to stand alone without subsidy from Canberrans, who the majority of do not even attend.
Why not let the federal governmnent underwrite the NGA losses?

In what way does the benefit to the wider ACT economy accrue to the Gallery?

When these exhibitions are clocking up ~300,000 visitors it’s fair to assume there’s some flow on to the wider city.

Now if we could get the hotels to pay their own tourism promotion I’d be with you, but it seems they’re a protected species and $500,000 to get a Turner exhibition is small beer.

Ah, but you’re conveniently forgetting the fact that art is for latte sipping inner city elites and as such is an affront to ‘The Real World’, so any potential benefits are all leftist propaganda. I’m sure Andrew Bolt conclusively proved this on his blog via ingenious use of thoroughly rigorous logical syllogisms.

Is a syllogism one of those liquid desserts?

poetix said :

They would try to keep the Gallery at a consistent temperature all year around, I assume, as sudden changes would have an effect on some of the works.

I doubt they ever turn off the system, regardless of opening hours. Perhaps someone who works there could clarify?

For conservation purposes the temperature and RH need to be kept constant. In this case the temperature would need to be kept around 17-18 C at all times.

Ever wonder why your power bill is higher in the winter time?
It has something to do with the outside air being colder and the more people in and out means more cold air gets in and more energy is required to heat it and keep it in the constant zone.

johnboy said :

dungfungus said :

There is no proof that massive economic benefits accrue to Canberra from these “blockbuster” exhibitions either. If they have “blockbuster” status, they should be able to stand alone without subsidy from Canberrans, who the majority of do not even attend.
Why not let the federal governmnent underwrite the NGA losses?

In what way does the benefit to the wider ACT economy accrue to the Gallery?

When these exhibitions are clocking up ~300,000 visitors it’s fair to assume there’s some flow on to the wider city.

Now if we could get the hotels to pay their own tourism promotion I’d be with you, but it seems they’re a protected species and $500,000 to get a Turner exhibition is small beer.

Ah, but you’re conveniently forgetting the fact that art is for latte sipping inner city elites and as such is an affront to ‘The Real World’, so any potential benefits are all leftist propaganda. I’m sure Andrew Bolt conclusively proved this on his blog via ingenious use of thoroughly rigorous logical syllogisms.

They would try to keep the Gallery at a consistent temperature all year around, I assume, as sudden changes would have an effect on some of the works.

I doubt they ever turn off the system, regardless of opening hours. Perhaps someone who works there could clarify?

dungfungus said :

There is no proof that massive economic benefits accrue to Canberra from these “blockbuster” exhibitions either. If they have “blockbuster” status, they should be able to stand alone without subsidy from Canberrans, who the majority of do not even attend.
Why not let the federal governmnent underwrite the NGA losses?

In what way does the benefit to the wider ACT economy accrue to the Gallery?

When these exhibitions are clocking up ~300,000 visitors it’s fair to assume there’s some flow on to the wider city.

Now if we could get the hotels to pay their own tourism promotion I’d be with you, but it seems they’re a protected species and $500,000 to get a Turner exhibition is small beer.

johnboy said :

$500k according to his media release. Probably worth what it will bring down the road.

Pretty sure they heat the gallery through the year and less need for heating when full of people.

I was referring to the heating required for the extended hours.
There is no proof that massive economic benefits accrue to Canberra from these “blockbuster” exhibitions either. If they have “blockbuster” status, they should be able to stand alone without subsidy from Canberrans, who the majority of do not even attend.
Why not let the federal governmnent underwrite the NGA losses?

So, how much of ratepayers money is Mr Barr going to throw at this NGA “blockbuster”?
Another $500 million?
(Better make that $600 million to pay for the extra heating costs as it will be in the middle of winter)

Not again!

So what is exactly challenging art then? Are we talking about works that are offensive? Works in a form that people would argue are not art? Can we then say that the ACTs public art program is providing us with lots of examples of challenging art?

I think ‘unchallenging and pretty’ is not very fair. Turner is far from Monet, much more in your face. And he pretty much started the impressionism/abstract schools (for better or worse).

When the last Turner exhibition was on (what, about 15 years ago?) I remember feeling completly exhausted at the end from all the energy and light in the paintings. I know that sounds a bit art wanker, but its true. The poster of Snowstorm was on my wall for many years.