Win Win for all.
As a long time critic of the Govett-Brewster Art Gallery for not being commercial enough and relying too much on ratepayer funding. It is great to here the Gallery has formed a collaboration with Australian Centre for the Moving Image (ACMI ) to show case the Len Lye Collection in Melbourne Australia.
The cost of $1million to fund the exhibition which includes freight, insurance and promotion all being picked up by (ACMI) themselves, and not the New Plymouth ratepayers. New Plymouth gets all the benefits of the exposure the Len Lye exhibition will create for us out on the International world stage, being the home to the Len Lye collection. Exposure we could never have been able to curate by having the Len Lye collection displayed here in New Plymouth or afford the promotion costs that go with this type of exhibition, the international acclaimed Len Lye collection deserves. A Win Win for everybody and I congratulate the Govett- Brewster Art Gallery for their wisdom and foresight to collaborate with other world Gallery's like (ACMI) who want to pay and display such collections. At the same time helping New Plymouth and the Govett- Brewster-Art Gallery financially in tough economic times while at the same time putting New Plymouth and the collection on the International stage. We owe it too all those involved a big thank you. Lets see more of it. We might have other collections stored at the Gallery, that other world galleries would gladly pay to see at their expense. If this is done right what a money spinner for the long suffering New Plymouth ratepayers , the galleries art collections could turn out to be.
Rusty Kane
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Artists Acknowledgement
NPDC councillors have commented that I have changed my tune on the Govett-Brewster Art Gallery. I have not, I still acknowledge that I love art, but not at the ratepayers expence. I don't believe that the NPDC ratepayers should be paying for it when there are more important core issues of expenditure. My comments do not mean that I am against art, I am just stating the fact of community ratepayers perception on the council buying art. I do believe the last council has helped enforced that community perception, by not adhering to or listening to their ratepayers. Who have been saying for sometime now that art is a luxury not a necessity for council to be spending ratepayers money on. By doing so I believe the council have enforced that perception and damaged the perception of art in general. The Govett-Brewster has been telling council and ratepayers they only have limited room to store art, one of the reasons they give to have a separate Lyn Lye Center. Yet they are buying more art acquisitions, buying art is not a council core function. To have that art stored and hidden out of view for long periods of time in the bows of the art gallery like most of the Len Lye Collection is only a cost to the ratepayers. Art needs to be seen not hidden, hence the Len Lye Center. The ratepayers would have a better perception of the council buying art if it paid dividends for them. The council should I believe be instead of storing the art for the pleasure of a few to view. That the NPDC should instead hire out their collections of art even sell some pieces to other galleries producing an income. Leaving the gallery free to temporarily pre-store new works and shows for exhibiting, as well as implementing a door charge to see the exhibits. This would satisfy most ratepayers and help New Plymouth promote itself to other regions and countries. I believe this is good advice, not a criticism of art or that there is no place for art.
Rusty Kane
Artist
Rusty Kane
Artist
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Lyn Lye Center
Lyn Lye Center
Patrons vs Ratepayers..What a good reason for patrons to pay, on the Govett-Brewster gallery directors own admission. "75% of 6,000 visitors per year to the gallery are from out of town. 70% of whom want to know why there is no Lyn Lye display."Visitors come especially to New Plymouth to see Lyn Lye's works and are disappointed to find them not permanently up at the gallery.This tells me why even build a Lyn Lye centre at all. Just make the Gallery itself the Lyn Lye centre.The gallery costs ratepayers 2.4 million to run now. And soon that figure will grow to 3 million + with the proposed Lyn Lye centres running costs are added in.+ the already perchasing of building and site for the proposed centre.If instead we made the Govett-Brewster itself the world acclaimed Lyn Lye centre this would save the ratepayers costs dramatically.We would only then need the director of the Lyn Lye collection and a small staff employed to look after the collection. And bring in contractors to maintain it when required. Security costs would be minimal as I can't imagine anyone stealing a Lyn Lye sculpture to easily, so the already installed security cameras and a small staff is all thats required.Because the Lyn Lye collection is of such world acclaim and nearly 70% of the 75% visitors are from overseas that especially come to the gallery to see Lyn's work. Then they won't mind paying an admission fee. This should also apply to the 25% locals that visit the gallery per year.This means everyone 100% visits to the gallery are coming to and seeing the Lyn Lye collection and paying a small charge for the privilege, all going towards the running costs of the collection.There is an argument to ratepayers that these visitors to the gallery benefits the local economy, by patronising our restaurants, staying at our motels. And this is true, but it is also true that they pay for their meals and they pay for their motel rooms. They would also expect to pay to see the world famous Lyn Lye collection. This being the reason they came in the first place.All other temporary art exhibitions the gallery exhibits through the year, could be exhibited at the Puke Ariki temporary exhibit area. Who have already successfully exhibited temporary quality art collections and exhibitors. They also introduced a system for locals that if you have your free Puke Ariki library card, access was free, if not you pay.This same system could also be introduced at other council run amenities.All other artworks the gallery owns or are on loan to, should be given back sold loaned or hired out to other galleries.This would save the ratepayers a substasual amount of money, we may even make money, if the director and past directors of the gallery have suggested, Lyn Lye's works are of such worldwide attraction and demand.Part of the money saved, could now support other local community projects, that the majority of the community would much rather support with their rates money.
Rusty Kane NZ
Patrons vs Ratepayers..What a good reason for patrons to pay, on the Govett-Brewster gallery directors own admission. "75% of 6,000 visitors per year to the gallery are from out of town. 70% of whom want to know why there is no Lyn Lye display."Visitors come especially to New Plymouth to see Lyn Lye's works and are disappointed to find them not permanently up at the gallery.This tells me why even build a Lyn Lye centre at all. Just make the Gallery itself the Lyn Lye centre.The gallery costs ratepayers 2.4 million to run now. And soon that figure will grow to 3 million + with the proposed Lyn Lye centres running costs are added in.+ the already perchasing of building and site for the proposed centre.If instead we made the Govett-Brewster itself the world acclaimed Lyn Lye centre this would save the ratepayers costs dramatically.We would only then need the director of the Lyn Lye collection and a small staff employed to look after the collection. And bring in contractors to maintain it when required. Security costs would be minimal as I can't imagine anyone stealing a Lyn Lye sculpture to easily, so the already installed security cameras and a small staff is all thats required.Because the Lyn Lye collection is of such world acclaim and nearly 70% of the 75% visitors are from overseas that especially come to the gallery to see Lyn's work. Then they won't mind paying an admission fee. This should also apply to the 25% locals that visit the gallery per year.This means everyone 100% visits to the gallery are coming to and seeing the Lyn Lye collection and paying a small charge for the privilege, all going towards the running costs of the collection.There is an argument to ratepayers that these visitors to the gallery benefits the local economy, by patronising our restaurants, staying at our motels. And this is true, but it is also true that they pay for their meals and they pay for their motel rooms. They would also expect to pay to see the world famous Lyn Lye collection. This being the reason they came in the first place.All other temporary art exhibitions the gallery exhibits through the year, could be exhibited at the Puke Ariki temporary exhibit area. Who have already successfully exhibited temporary quality art collections and exhibitors. They also introduced a system for locals that if you have your free Puke Ariki library card, access was free, if not you pay.This same system could also be introduced at other council run amenities.All other artworks the gallery owns or are on loan to, should be given back sold loaned or hired out to other galleries.This would save the ratepayers a substasual amount of money, we may even make money, if the director and past directors of the gallery have suggested, Lyn Lye's works are of such worldwide attraction and demand.Part of the money saved, could now support other local community projects, that the majority of the community would much rather support with their rates money.
Rusty Kane NZ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
