Vote totals:
Yes:
50%
No:
50%
Neutral:
0%
DEBATE: SHOULD LOTTERY MONEY BE USED TO BUY MASTERPIECES?
SHOULD LOTTERY MONEY BE USED TO BUY MASTERPIECES?
We should protect great works by our countrymen
After the success of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, millions of pounds are being poured into sport, encouraging young people to take part in worldwide sporting events, in the hope that they will make our nation proud. Young people are constantly being encouraged to try their very best, to perform to the highest level and be a success. Great artists of our time and those in the past produced amazing works of art: masterpieces that will last through the centuries and put Britain on the map. Their work is admired and respected globally. Surely, it would be the job of a nation to pull together and protect these masterpieces, so we can encourage and inspire the youth of today that their future works would not be lost. The National Lottery would be the perfect source to achieve this.
If British artists did not wish their work to be lost, then it should be their responsibility to leave it in the protection of a national gallery and not leave it up to others.
SHOULD LOTTERY MONEY BE USED TO BUY MASTERPIECES?
Lottery money is already spent on art and has never been an issue
The Arts Council of England is a lottery-funded group, spending on a wide range of projects including the construction and refurbishment of arts venues, arts activity and public participation in the arts. Although it does not directly contribute to the purchase of masterpieces, it contributes money to the art world. If it was not to the satisfaction of the public, then they would not continue to purchase tickets.
The reason the British public continue to buy tickets might not be for the donation made to good causes – they simply want to win money! The public might not even be aware what the good causes are.
SHOULD LOTTERY MONEY BE USED TO BUY MASTERPIECES?
Lottery money should contribute to a number of different areas, not just one
In today’s modern world, individuals can find it difficult to reach agreement. Responsibility for distributing proceeds from the Lottery does not rest with Government or Camelot, but with a number of independent distributing bodies. It is only fair that money raised from the lottery should contribute to different areas of our society, therefore ensuring growth in each. If it were to be restricted to just one or two areas, others would suffer. Withdrawing it now, because art is considered unworthy, would simply be unfair.
As stated in your previous argument, money is being spent on art, it is donated to the Arts Council of England. So it is not that case that art is being excluded from National Lottery funding. Buying masterpieces is something altogether different from funding up and coming artists.
SHOULD LOTTERY MONEY BE USED TO BUY MASTERPIECES?
Art galleries bring tourists and interest to our capital city
The Tate Modern attracts five million tourists to its doors annually (1). It houses works from Britain’s most famous contemporary artists. People flock from all over the world to sample art from British artists. It just would not be the same if it housed works from foreign, international artists. Without the protection of lottery funding, masterpieces could be lost and such attractions could be closed down.
(1)
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/museums/museum-profile/Tate+Modern+%09+%09++%09/97.html
Tourists to London could still visit other attractions: their sole reason for visiting does not rest completely on a visit to a gallery.
SHOULD LOTTERY MONEY BE USED TO BUY MASTERPIECES?
How can it be decided that one good cause is more important than another
Lottery funding is provided for a number of different areas – and rightly so. It has obviously been appreciated that it can not be down to a few select individuals to make the important decision on what good causes lottery funding can or cannot be donated too. No one has the right to make that decision except the public themselves, who provide the money. Whilst one individual may want the majority of the lottery fund to be donated to sport, another may favour health and the environment. Surely all good causes are worthy causes.
Buying masterpieces is not a moral cause. It is not bettering anyone’s talent. And the price for one masterpiece would outweigh any menial ‘good’ it may do.
SHOULD LOTTERY MONEY BE USED TO BUY MASTERPIECES?
More money can be spent on other areas, like charities
This rests on the priorities of the individual. Lovers of the art world would perhaps prefer to spend lottery money on saving great art as opposed to other charities who could already be heavily supported by donations.
The National Lottery has been running for almost fourteen years and has raised over £21 billion for good causes. These good causes include art, heritage, sport, charities and health, education and the environment. This year, areas rife with crime have been major headliners, therefore it would be in the public’s favour to contribute more money to The Community Fund, who improve the quality of life in disadvantaged communities. Surely investing more money in cleaning up Britain’s dirty hospitals would be money better-spent than on a painting.
SHOULD LOTTERY MONEY BE USED TO BUY MASTERPIECES?
‘Masterpiece’ has such a varied meaning
It is easy to pass off contemporary art as not a ‘masterpiece’, but an equal amount of thought and imagination goes into it
What is now considered ‘art’ has become more complex and lucrative than it used to be. Tracey Emin’s Unmade Bed, which was shortlisted for the Turner Prize, became a highly controversial work of art as more contemporary artists continue to create works perhaps unappreciated by those favouring classic masterpieces. The public may not appreciate their money being spent on preserving art; such as Damien Hirst’s sliced and pickled cow and calf. Art has no boundaries and it will never stop.
SHOULD LOTTERY MONEY BE USED TO BUY MASTERPIECES?
In today’s modern world, art is not as important
This is exactly why lottery money should be spent on British masterpieces. It would be in the news and people would begin to take an interest in British art and its history. The National Lottery buying masterpieces could be the way to bring culture back to Britain.
Unless you ask an art student or gallery enthusiast, most of the British public would not be able to name a famous British artist, let alone a work of art worth investing millions in for its’ purchase. How can this be something that deserves funding?
SHOULD LOTTERY MONEY BE USED TO BUY MASTERPIECES?
Masterpieces tend to be expensive
The wage for a policeman (after training) annually is £24,039(1) for clearing criminals from our streets. The wage for a GP nurse annually is £20,225(2), caring for the health of each and every sick patient. A firefighter earns £26,548(3) annually, saving the lives of people from the horrors of fire. Two monumental works by the Renaissance painter Titian are currently in danger of being lost and for Britain to retain them, will cost £100 million (The Times, 28th August 2008). And this is the discounted price! Whilst it is of the opinion of some individuals that these pieces are national treasures and are worthy of such an exorbitant amount, surely our nation will profit more from satisfied, fairly-paid policemen, nurses and firefighters, without whom, we would all be in continuous grave danger.
(1)
http://www.police-information.co.uk/policepay.htm
(2)
http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=4
(3)
http://www.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/Explore_types_of_jobs/Types_of_Job/p!eipaL?state=showocc&idno=203&pageno=2
SHOULD LOTTERY MONEY BE USED TO BUY MASTERPIECES?
Other resources should be used, not public money
At the height of the credit crunch, the British public is consumed with paying for the high cost of living and is perhaps not concerned with saving great works of art for museums on their doorstep. If particular masterpieces are so important and of great value to our country, should it not then be the job of the government to provide the money? Perhaps established artists should shell out for the work of their peers? Tracey Emin re