Is Art the Ultimate Luxury?
The British art market is one of the most powerful and influential in the world. It has gone global thanks to its collectors and dealers who have encouraged a steady supply of art into the capital. Nevertheless artists and collectors stand in a nervous balance between commercialism and creation. The rich have had a monopoly on art since the dark ages and without these rich patrons names like Turner and Holbein would be unknown. However some believe these patrons simply see art as a commodity to be sold and don’t appreciate its real value. Much of this art remains in private collections or exclusive galleries which only the upper class can afford to own or enter. The public, who could greatly benefit from art, …show more content…
They claim it’s an expense that the British people cannot afford and are not satisfied by. The most famous and crowd pleasing pieces of art are mainly kept in London. Galleries outside the capital are often unable to borrow and showcase these works. This means there are people who are unable to see the art they are paying for with their taxes. With up to 90% of the nation’s art in storage, maybe it would be better if private collectors could buy and showcase in galleries all around Britain. The profits could also help the government fund ventures considered more worthwhile. It’s a great burden on the British people with free admission costing £45 million every year to implement. Higher education in the arts is also an expensive burden. This suggests that it would be better for the public to not have access to these galleries, and for the government to spend the money on more worthwhile ventures like health care and education which could lead to more job opportunities. The reality of these taxes supports the idea that art is too much of a luxury to be for …show more content…
Higher arts education and free gallery admissions are just some of the examples of how people can recognise the importance of art and encourage it’s enjoyment but despite this it’s becoming an expense many do not benefit from. Art is still restricted to certain places and as the art world increasingly alienates those who do not fund it, it has become something people can live without. The rich support the art, display it, and pay for it, and the economy booms when they do so. While the older generation of British artist may have benefited from a more socialist attitude towards their craft the generation of YBAs and new contemporary artists fully accept the commercialisation of their work. They have reverted back to the time where only upper class controlled art. Whereas before it was the aristocracy who commissioned paintings and statues it is now bankers, lawyers, collectors, and even the occasional royal who patronise artists. They are the elite who can afford what no else can, the luxury of
The British art market is one of the most powerful and influential in the world. It has gone global thanks to its collectors and dealers who have encouraged a steady supply of art into the capital. Nevertheless artists and collectors stand in a nervous balance between commercialism and creation. The rich have had a monopoly on art since the dark ages and without these rich patrons names like Turner and Holbein would be unknown. However some believe these patrons simply see art as a commodity to be sold and don’t appreciate its real value. Much of this art remains in private collections or exclusive galleries which only the upper class can afford to own or enter. The public, who could greatly benefit from art, …show more content…
They claim it’s an expense that the British people cannot afford and are not satisfied by. The most famous and crowd pleasing pieces of art are mainly kept in London. Galleries outside the capital are often unable to borrow and showcase these works. This means there are people who are unable to see the art they are paying for with their taxes. With up to 90% of the nation’s art in storage, maybe it would be better if private collectors could buy and showcase in galleries all around Britain. The profits could also help the government fund ventures considered more worthwhile. It’s a great burden on the British people with free admission costing £45 million every year to implement. Higher education in the arts is also an expensive burden. This suggests that it would be better for the public to not have access to these galleries, and for the government to spend the money on more worthwhile ventures like health care and education which could lead to more job opportunities. The reality of these taxes supports the idea that art is too much of a luxury to be for …show more content…
Higher arts education and free gallery admissions are just some of the examples of how people can recognise the importance of art and encourage it’s enjoyment but despite this it’s becoming an expense many do not benefit from. Art is still restricted to certain places and as the art world increasingly alienates those who do not fund it, it has become something people can live without. The rich support the art, display it, and pay for it, and the economy booms when they do so. While the older generation of British artist may have benefited from a more socialist attitude towards their craft the generation of YBAs and new contemporary artists fully accept the commercialisation of their work. They have reverted back to the time where only upper class controlled art. Whereas before it was the aristocracy who commissioned paintings and statues it is now bankers, lawyers, collectors, and even the occasional royal who patronise artists. They are the elite who can afford what no else can, the luxury of