But wait, there's more!!
The purpose of art is washing the dust of daily life off our souls
- Pablo Picasso
"Artists fear Wanganui’s council could hock off millions of dollars worth of treasured works from the city’s Sarjeant Gallery" - The Wanganui Chronicle, 30 August 2005.
Meanwhile, after tonight's triumphant Finance & Administration Committee meeting, the Council pose for a pre-sale portrait, copies of which will adorn the blank spaces on the walls of the Sarjeant:
While at the Gallery itself, a subtle change begins:
Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere
- G.K. Chesterton
Update (posted @ 8.30 pm):
A minor revolt in Committee Room 2 has granted a temporary reprieve for the Sarjeant Gallery. The motion eventually passed was that a paper "outlining the policy parameters under which the gallery operates" be presented at the next meeting. The Diva had intended to bypass Nicki Higgie, commenting that he and Rangi Wills would be the ones to do the review. Higgie showed some spine, expressing her belief that de-accessioning work would be unnecessary, a view which was met with cynicism from the chair. Dot McKinnon tried to out-Diva the Diva, demonstrating her ignorance of matters artistic; Bill Milbank was on hand to help her out, giving a potted history of the Gallery's policy development.
Perhaps the most telling exchange was that between Rangi Wills and the Diva. Rangi thanked Bill and the Gallery staff for the "astute purchasing policy" that has resulted in "significant movement in some of the valuations". The Diva responded, amid general derision, that "we would have been better off buying a house in Castlecliff".
There was a sense of general unease, met with defensive umbrage from the chair, but Laws was eventually forced to accede to the pressure applied from around the table.
We now await the document outlining the parameters for the review: who will conduct it and the terms of reference. There seemed to be a majority feeling that "The Friends" would be involved in this, but again, the Diva signalled his resistance to this, so no doubt pressure is to be applied at the next Vision "caucus"...
Further update (posted @ 10.15 pm): Sue Westwood also had words to say about the "significance" of the policy changes signalled. She made the point that Council should signal there was no intention to sell any donated piece. The Mayor informed the meeting that that debate would be had later.
Barbara Bullock pointed out that the new Friends of the Sarjeant would be "worth it's weight in gold". Laws then started talking about The Cooks Gardens Trust Board and Cooks Gardens, and it was some moments before he realised he was talking about the wrong organisation. Cue general laughter. Councillor Bullock then asked what they were doing commissioning a report with no input from the Gallery staff. The Mayor responded "why should there be?"
(Our thanks to on-the-spot reporter Matt Dutton for that update).
Comments on this post are now closed.
36 comments:
More than you might think, Joan. I've just posted a brief account of the F&A meeting to the Watchers, and I don't want to steal their thunder, but the news is not all bad. We will have to be vigilant, and get fundraising.
Yeah raise some money you whingers.
Overheard from private conversation yesterday: I'll put the wind up them ... get them to raise money for the conservation & then sell the works to finance the extension.
If Matt's version is a fair recount (and it is Matt Dutton so its bound to be soiled) then I'd say the mayor has just laid a sucker punch. Go Lawsie, sell the buggers.
I get the council docos sent to me and I think the mayor may be right. The top 50 Sarjeant works were worth $4.5M ten years ago, & are worth $7m now.
Against buying a house in Castlecliff ten years ago and a house there now. I'd bet it appreciated more than the 55% of the art works. Shit, that's bad return.
...so its bound to be soiled...
That's my spin and I'm sticking to it :)
You are so wrong. Laws was outmanouevred by the other Councillors. I'd say he was ill-prepared for Higgie's resistance to his haste.
Only one encounter, though. "The whingers" (who've already raised over $200k) will have to demonstrate yet more of their steadiness, talent and patience, and no doubt we'll all have to listen to more diatribes from old no-mates here.
Shit, that's bad return.
We didn't donate the artworks as an investment in anything other than education and beauty, and in that context they're priceless.
Just curious!!!!! I see that laws Watch posted this update at 3.30pm. The committee meeting did not start until 4.oopm. How the hell can you get info on what has happened at a meeting before it has started?
Art galleries... yes, let's sell it... then there's the Council pensioner housing... that's full of malingerers who could be made to earn a crust... and all those orphanages, we must have some of those someplace...? :-D
laws Watch posted this update at 3.30pm. The committee meeting did not start until 4.oopm.
The post went up at 3.30, the update was posted at about 8.30. Sorry, we should have made clear, we shall now...
there's an alternative explanation for the timing. Australia is 2 hours behind. West Australia is three. Hmmm.
I don't think Laws gives a continental if the Sarjeant works are sold or unsold. He's probably signalling that if the Sarjeant wants any more money from ratepayers in the future, it has the assets to look to itself. Did he look upset? seriously?
Gotcha, thanks for that. I think you need to put a time on your updates, would help a lot. Cheers
there's an alternative explanation...
Yes, and the planet you're on is in an alternative reality altogether. Your paranoia can be assuaged by looking at the time of the first comment... 5.51 pm, long before the committee meeting ended, and Matt's comment at 8.38 pm indicating he'd just emailed us a brief account.
By the way (and back on topics that actually matter), the "policy under which the Gallery operates" would presumably include the Sarjeant bequest and perhaps the Trust Deed, at least till Council takes control in November, anyway. If someone has an electronic copy of relevant documentation, they are welcome to email it to us and we'll make it available here.
With respect Matt, when has Sue W'wood ever won a debate around the council table. Everything is "process" to her and both the council & staff just roll ther eyes when she speaks. We need another champion apart from her.
Did I read this right? The mayor and Rangi Wills still get to write the Sarjeant poicy?
Hell, Matt - if this is victory, I'd hate to see defeat.
Well, no, actually. It sounded like "The Friends" will have input, as would the Gallery staff, and Laws talked at one point about full Council deciding, but that was while he was still defending the original motion. The motion carried is that the terms of the review will now be decided, put as a motion to the F&A cttee, then passed or amended as it goes.
Yeah but he still gets to write it.
Clever prick.
And the by-election grows nearer. When's GK going?
No he won't. Councillors decide policy not detail. He was elected to be a servant. Nicki Higgie made a remark about money being available to do any conservation work we need without the need to sell paintings.
No, not ratepayers (our) money...
When's GK going?
"By the end of the year", apparently.
Check the Councils significance policy, I am pretty sure the sale of artworks from the gallery would trigger the consultation required by this policy
Significance is something that Couancil has paid scant regard to thus far. The 50% cut in the Sarjeants service provision was also significant in terms of its impact on the community: it was ignored because it only represented a 5% cut to the overall budget. Small print has taken the place of transparency.
The Chron. headline today ensures a queue outside the Gallery of donors collecting their paintings.
Anon opined:
"With respect Matt, when has Sue W'wood ever won a debate around the council table. "
Check your Chron. She comes across pretty well in Sean's report.
Nice one Lawsie
Nice one son,
Nice one Lawsie,
Next let's sell the gun,
And the War Memorial,
The bells and lions too,
And next thing while you're at it,
Sell the swimming pool.
TAPLOL
"Shit that's a bad return".
From an investment perspective, housing is much safer than art. Investment in the making of art yields a higher return than any other, but buying paintings in the hope that they will accrue in value is a lottery at best. Just how lucrative a lottery can be best illustrated with an example from The Sarjeant Gallery's collection.
Here we see a McCahon valued at $50,000 in 1995 today valued at $600,000. Or a Tennant valued at $10,000 in 1995 today valued at $185,000.
Cost to the Sarjeant for the McCahon: $0
Cost to the Sarjeant for the Tennant: $2,100 (1968).
We can also see the risks. Like the Herring, which turns out to be an "after Herring": valued at $100,000 while it was thought to be a Herring, now worth only $12,000. Cost to the Sarjeant: $1,000, but that was in 1938, so not even Chas's Council can be blamed for it. As Bill Milbank joked: perhaps it's a red herring.
The best advice I've ever received on the subject is to buy what you love and ignore the money.
The Chronicle editorial today backs the mayor and puts the WAG hysteria into perspective.
Laws isn't saying "sell the art" - he's saying that if funding is required for conservation and/or extending the gallery then selling a few art works is a rational way to go. As noted by Mas today.
Own goal, Matt.
Never forget: the SGTB agreed to sell art works to fund the extension.
You must be reading a different editorial than me. Apart from the ludicrous howler that we should sell work as a "speedy solution", Mas's editorial is quite measured.
I'm not quite sure that WAG's concerns were allayed by yesterdays meeting: Laws' plan was that he and Rangi Wills would set the de-accession policy - he made that crystal clear. WAG were right.
How that constitutes an own goal by me I'm not sure.
The Chron. front page headline is a major own goal for our community that will set alarm bells ringing all over the country.
Laws' failure to understand this only underlines what everyone already knows: he is unfit for office.
The Chron. has been backing National for weeks, so it's hardly surprising that Mas should come out in favour of assett sales. It's called Rogernomics, or Ruthenasia, or more accurately "The failed policies of the 90's."
They failed then and they'll fail now.
Anon said:
"I don't think Laws gives a continental if the Sarjeant works are sold or unsold. He's probably signalling that if the Sarjeant wants any more money from ratepayers in the future, it has the assets to look to itself. Did he look upset? seriously?"
What Laws does know is that there are very many people who care deeply about this. His refusal to address their concerns is the opposite of the stewardship with which Councillors are charged.
Ratepayers have consistently indicated that they want Council to spend their money on the Sarjeant Gallery. 8% even wanted the Warren Mahoney Design for the extension too.
Don't ask me what to make of Michael's body-language!
Lonely?
Getting bad service?
try new!!! improved!!!
Fidelity!!!
Michael's apprenticeship -- hasn't he come a long way then, all the way from duller students to duller councillors:
(from a national newsgroup posting where an ex-Otago student recalls campus life during the 1981 Springbok tour)
Interesting times. I'll never forget Michael Laws putting words into a duller students mouth, like a puppet master.
This man is only in this game for himself, wake up Whanganui.
Post a Comment