David Bailey - Stardust

Who's getting the money? The gallery or Mr Bailey? I love Bailey's work, but it does seem a tad pricey.
 
treeman said:
My thoughts too, the Taylor Wessing at the same gallery was 3 quid!
Click to expand...

It's also a much bigger gallery space (the whole ground floor I think), with a headline name, extremely valuable works etc. It'll need lots of staff and it's probably been several years in the making.

I doubt that exhibitions often pay for all the man hours they take to put on. I mean even the main curator will have been working on it for a couple of years most of the time. And that £14.50 will go to paying to keep the rest of the collection free, which is worth every penny. It also pays for outreach programs to schools and things, meaning that we're growing up in a society who values the arts enough to conserve them in the future.

It's £14.50 well spent if you ask me.
 
got my ticket for the 22nd and dont begrudge a penny of it. Its a huge exhibition, 250 images? the usual exhibitions ive seen are like 50 or 60 images at most. Plus the rest of the place is free so money being made on this will go on the upkeep of the rest of the place.
 
Or you could pay £48 for the year and get free entry to everything.
 
CharlotteM said:
It also pays for outreach programs to schools and things, meaning that we're growing up in a society who values the arts enough to conserve them in the future.
Click to expand...

Well, I certainly hope you're right, though I'm not sure I see the sense in making the exhibition unaffordable for a lot of people is good for the arts in general.

I think anyone paying that much to see an exhibition is already aware of the importance of art in our lives, its those that aren't, that need to see works like this.
 
Last edited:
treeman said:
Well, I certainly hope you're right, though I'm not sure I see the sense in making the exhibition unaffordable for a lot of people is good for the arts in general.

I think anyone paying that much to see an exhibition is already aware of the importance of art in our lives, its those that aren't, that need to see works like this.
Click to expand...

I'm not being funny, but about £15 is the standard for most exhibitions that most of the bigger galleries put on. Tate is usually around that mark, the National Gallery, as is the British museum. If it was 'unaffordable' then they wouldn't keep charging that price. Smaller places like The White Cube are usually around the £10 mark or so.

But to be honest, it's not much, is it? The same as lunch at Wagamamas or a couple of pints? Is seeing over 200 of Bailey's works not as good as a cheap lunch?

It's still half the price of my train ticket that I used to pay to get into London every day for work, and that was far less enjoyable.
 
treeman said:
I think anyone paying that much to see an exhibition is already aware of the importance of art in our lives, its those that aren't, that need to see works like this.
Click to expand...

CharlotteM said:
But to be honest, it's not much, is it?
Click to expand...

DG Phototraining said:
...I doubt I'd pay £1 unless it was raining and I was stood outside getting wet and had no coat
Click to expand...

icon_stir.gif


Independent galleries charging is one thing, national galleries charging for major exhibitions is a disgrace which illustrates the value that the powers that be place on the arts (there's no direct, tangible return on investment), and this is also reflected in the value placed on the arts within education (the value of art appreciation is not financial); which lack of education in this area leads to people not wanting to visit galleries and refusing to engage with art which doesn't conform to the norms which they have been brought up with.

It's a vicious circle - only a select few are engaged with the arts at a young age, so few people connect with galleries, which leads to cuts in funding, which leads to high entrance prices, which prevents people going to see art off their own bat, which 'justifies' a low value on the arts in education, which... </rant>
 
He was interviewed on BBC early this morning, good interview, irritating/ignorant interviewer.
The exhibition was mentioned.
 
I guess Bailey needs the money now he's not doing those Olympus adverts.

He's not getting any of mine at those prices.
 
The national galleries provide access to huge collections of works for free. Paid entry special exhibitions have been normal for a long time, they're not cheap to stage and they bring together material from outside the national collections that isn't available in one place anywhere else.

There are two questions though:

Should national galleries be allowed to charge for special exhibitions? - my answer to that question is Yes. This type of special exhibition does provide something extra to the national collections themselves and they are beyond the scope of the purpose of the national galleries. In a way, Dave with his p***ing-on-the-parade point makes this argument - art is not to everyone's taste and it's the role of the national collection curators to provide a core of significant works around which the special exhibitions are optional extras.

Is £16 too much to charge for a special exhibition in a national gallery? - I also thing Yes to this one, although it does seem to be the standard for galleries in London, and without dredging through drawers and bookmarks in travel guides I'm not sure how this compares to entry prices for exhibitions I've seen on the continent. I'd prefer to see ticket prices closer to £6, or at the very least a system of bucket pricing based on demand with initial pre-sales for opening weeks at the premium price and mid-run discounts once the initial demand has dropped off.
 
And yet the 'art' of film making is supported by the public in their millions, at around £10 for entry to the cinema and god knows how much on sundries, I am not sure the argument fully stacks up. Its about how the 'art' itself is marketed...

When i went to the Taylor Wessing last weekend, there were queues back up the stairs to see it and the place was rammed. Admittedly it was priced at £3 but I expect the venue takes into account the popularity of the exhibition as well. Cold hard commerce.

Wouldn't think twice about paying. These exhibitions help my photography greatly because they make me think about what I am shooting. It always amuses me when I know many wouldn't pay that much to see an exhibition but are more than happy to pay oodles of cash on equipment etc when paying £14.50 to see quality work would improve their images far more than a new lens would.

I raise your pot stirring and double it!!!!:D
 
It is too much by a long way sadly - £29 for my wife & I is ridiculous, but if they charge kids as well then a family ticket I'm guessing would be nearer £50

I suspect no-one not really into art/photography will bother so that's not good for photography either as its unlikely to be seen by nearly as many, and won't inspire a new generation to pick up a camera, which it may well have done had it been free

I totally understand that it costs a lot to put something like this one, and for me they could just sell a few of those crappy paintings and replace the whole gallery with photo exhibitions and never need to charge again :)

I'm not keen on paintings if you hadn't gathered

Dave
 
CharlotteM said:
But to be honest, it's not much, is it? The same as lunch at Wagamamas or a couple of pints? Is seeing over 200 of Bailey's works not as good as a cheap lunch?
Click to expand...

That's one of the ways I look at things, I also think of it similarly to going to see a gig. If theres a band I really want to see I'd think 15 quid for a ticket were an absolute steal (my ticket to see the Eagles in June cost £137 by comparison). If there's a photographer whose work I really love 15 quid is nothing to see 250 images printed properly as the artist intended them to be viewed.
 
Compared to the travel costs £14.50 is peanuts. Unless you live right in London on a cheap tube ride away the entrance fee isn't the issue.

Just noticed the hardback book of it is £40 so that's less than the train fare...
 
Last edited:
DG Phototraining said:
My wife alerted me to this as something for us to do next weekend, but I wouldn't pay £5 let alone £14.50

In fact I doubt I'd pay £1 unless it was raining and I was stood outside getting wet and had no coat

Not my 'thing'

and

I'm not keen on paintings if you hadn't gathered

Dave
Click to expand...


I take it by the user name that youre a professional photography trainer? and you have that sort of attitude to this guys work and art in general? wow, just wow. Do you even know what's inside the national gallery? Youre aware of the word "masterpeice" arent you? you know how many are in that building and are free to look at any time you like? admittedly there arent many wedding snaps in there but still, there might be something of interest.
 
Ed Sutton said:
icon_stir.gif


Independent galleries charging is one thing, national galleries charging for major exhibitions is a disgrace which illustrates the value that the powers that be place on the arts (there's no direct, tangible return on investment), and this is also reflected in the value placed on the arts within education (the value of art appreciation is not financial); which lack of education in this area leads to people not wanting to visit galleries and refusing to engage with art which doesn't conform to the norms which they have been brought up with.

It's a vicious circle - only a select few are engaged with the arts at a young age, so few people connect with galleries, which leads to cuts in funding, which leads to high entrance prices, which prevents people going to see art off their own bat, which 'justifies' a low value on the arts in education, which... </rant>
Click to expand...

But the money that we pay to see exhibitions like this, pays for outreach programs to schools and young people. That's how they fund taking the art to people who couldn't otherwise see it - like children and young adults.
 
CharlotteM said:
But the money that we pay to see exhibitions like this, pays for outreach programs to schools and young people. That's how they fund taking the art to people who couldn't otherwise see it - like children and young adults.
Click to expand...
I can't argue with the value of that. Still doesn't sit right with me though.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I can't argue with the value of that. Still doesn't sit right with me though.
Click to expand...

To be frank, the galleries wouldn't exist without the big paid exhibitions. They don't get enough taxpayers money to fund themselves because people don't want to pay more tax. Not rocket science to me - I find the money each year to pay for membership to as many of the galleries as I can afford. I want to see them stay open so I'm happy to drop £50 into their coffers each year.
 
CharlotteM said:
They don't get enough taxpayers money to fund themselves because people don't want to pay more tax.
Click to expand...
Therein lies the problem. What is needed is more wealthy philanthropists like those who founded many of the nation's art galleries. :D
 
Ed Sutton said:
Therein lies the problem. What is needed is more wealthy philanthropists like those who founded many of the nation's art galleries. :D
Click to expand...

God damn, I'm trying! Just a few more years to go...

... who am I kidding. I'm a terrible entrepreneur!
 
CharlotteM said:
But the money that we pay to see exhibitions like this, pays for outreach programs to schools and young people. That's how they fund taking the art to people who couldn't otherwise see it - like children and young adults.
Click to expand...

I think the big argument is how far does that money outreach,or does it just stay in London ?.

Would i paid £14.50 for a ticket,i think it depend on how much you like the photographer & his work :)
 
essexash said:
I take it by the user name that youre a professional photography trainer? and you have that sort of attitude to this guys work and art in general? wow, just wow. Do you even know what's inside the national gallery? Youre aware of the word "masterpeice" arent you? you know how many are in that building and are free to look at any time you like? admittedly there arent many wedding snaps in there but still, there might be something of interest.
Click to expand...


Nope - you take it wrong bud, but I'll allow you your mistake

Art in general - yep - pointless crap mostly

And yep - I've been in the National Gallery and even the Tate for that matter - both mostly full of crap

And yep - I even know what 'masterpiece' means - though I didn't realise it carried a mandatory requirement to love whatever some arty type classes as a masterpiece

And yep - I have a good idea of how many paintings & other arty crap is in there

Perhaps of more use would be to sell a few of those 'masterpieces' to help fund the feeding & housing of some of the homeless I see outside this building every time I visit the area. That we are prepared to spend £zillions housing paintings rather than people sickens me, as does the idea what they are worth £zillions and that keeping them all together is somehow for the good of the nation

But that's just my view and I accept others value it - so, each to their own

And you're right too, I would much rather see a few Wedding 'snaps'

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Nope - you take it wrong bud, but I'll allow you your mistake

Art in general - yep - pointless crap mostly

And yep - I've been in the National Gallery and even the Tate for that matter - both mostly full of crap

And yep - I even know what 'masterpiece' means - though I didn't realise it carried a mandatory requirement to love whatever some arty type classes as a masterpiece

And yep - I have a good idea of how many paintings & other arty crap is in there

Perhaps of more use would be to sell a few of those 'masterpieces' to help fund the feeding & housing of some of the homeless I see outside this building every time I visit the area. That we are prepared to spend £zillions housing paintings rather than people sickens me, as does the idea what they are worth £zillions and that keeping them all together is somehow for the good of the nation

But that's just my view and I accept others value it - so, each to their own

And you're right too, I would much rather see a few Wedding 'snaps'

Dave
Click to expand...

yeah each to their own, that's cool. Well done for the usual socialist rant, comrade. Why have anything of beauty anywhere while someone is suffering. I trust you've sold up your luxury items that you dont "need" to have a life and handed it out to the nearest big issue seller? no? you're a hypocrite then. But enough of semantics i'm not here to change an opinion, just highlight an odd one.

I just dont see how someone who would shoot portraiture in weddings not have an interest in it and dismiss, arguably, one of the best in the business as he's not worth £15 quid. How much did you sell your album snaps to clients for btw?
 
essexash said:
yeah each to their own, that's cool. Well done for the usual socialist rant, comrade. Why have anything of beauty anywhere while someone is suffering. I trust you've sold up your luxury items that you dont "need" to have a life and handed it out to the nearest big issue seller? no? you're a hypocrite then. But enough of semantics i'm not here to change an opinion, just highlight an odd one.

I just dont see how someone who would shoot portraiture in weddings not have an interest in it and dismiss, arguably, one of the best in the business as he's not worth £15 quid. How much did you sell your album snaps to clients for btw?
Click to expand...

Attack the view, not the person.
 
Cool it guys this is now starting to get a bit personal.
Lets get back on track thanks :thumbs:
 
i think if i lived closer i would pay the 15 quid entrance fee
i have seen some of mr baileys work but not not a great deal it would be interesting to see more and it would go towards answering a question that has been mulling around my head for years which is " did david bailey become a household name through his photography or through the olympus trip adverts "

worth a see i think
 
cosmicma said:
" did david bailey become a household name through his photography or through the olympus trip adverts "
Click to expand...

Probably depends how old you are, having watched the dramatisations of his early carrer last year I expect he was very well known to the younger set back in the 60's.

David
 
essexash said:
yeah each to their own, that's cool. Well done for the usual socialist rant, comrade. Why have anything of beauty anywhere while someone is suffering. I trust you've sold up your luxury items that you dont "need" to have a life and handed it out to the nearest big issue seller? no? you're a hypocrite then. But enough of semantics i'm not here to change an opinion, just highlight an odd one.

I just dont see how someone who would shoot portraiture in weddings not have an interest in it and dismiss, arguably, one of the best in the business as he's not worth £15 quid. How much did you sell your album snaps to clients for btw?
Click to expand...


That's just the sort of stupid reply I expected from someone from Essex :D

And yes - I've stopped Cobra lol

Dave
 
Well personally I cant wait to go, I pay for a yearly membership to the npg so its free for me. But really £14.50 to see Bailey's work all printed and displayed how he wants it seen is nothing.
 
cosmicma said:
i think if i lived closer i would pay the 15 quid entrance fee
i have seen some of mr baileys work but not not a great deal it would be interesting to see more and it would go towards answering a question that has been mulling around my head for years which is " did david bailey become a household name through his photography or through the olympus trip adverts "

worth a see i think
Click to expand...

Got to admit, I barely watch TV so I didn't even know he'd done adverts...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top