World exclusive - leaked first draft of Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt's statement to the House of Commons before he realised the leaked emails related to the News Corp takeover of BSkyB and not the Museum of Unreason's application for Arts Council Major Grant funding.
"Transcripts of conversations due to be published between me - oops sorry, I mean my special adviser and a Museum of Unreason member of staff identified as Frank Rason, have suggested I have a back passage. This is really, really, really not the case. However, the volume, tone and intimations of sexual favours within those communications were clearly not appropriate in this quasi-ludicrous process, and today Whotisname has resigned as my special adviser.
"I have strictly followed some process or other, seeking the advice of random people in the street and after seconds of careful consideration acted on their advice to stop bothering them and piss off.
"I made four decisions in this process and each of those decisions was contrary to what the Museum of Unreason wanted.
"The first decision I made was that I was half-minded to refer the bid to the waste paper bin, but my integrity forced me into my second decision that I would not make a decision until I had bought a shredder from Staples* and taken advice from the shop assistant on how it worked.
"The third decision I made was to extend the period of consultation because Staples was closed when I got there after work. My final decision was to go then go home for tea and not invite Mr. Unreasoning.
"The only contact I had with Frank Rason was an accidental meeting in Ladbroke Grove public conveniences with other people present. The fact that there are emails in which he talks about having personal contact with me, simply did not happen - he remained at a safe distance at the adjacent urinal, and I am reliably informed he always wears rubber gloves and a snorkel to perform his ablutions. Furthermore his suggestion that he called me before I went to see Swan Lake is wrong, I actually went to see Lady Boys of Bangkok five days later.
"I accept, and I've told my special advisor that he also accepts, that those communications overstepped the mark...I knew Wotsisname was authorised to be one of a number of contact points within my back passage, but having seen those communications it is clear that the volume and content was inappropriate.
"The idea that I was backing the Museum of Unreason's bid is laughable, in fact the Museum of Unreason itself is laughable, and the fact that I have any integrity at all is also laughable. So lets all laugh about it."
If only
*other office suppliers are available
Thursday, 26 April 2012
Saturday, 21 April 2012
'This is Art War' - how to deal with museum funding cuts
At the last the world is beginning to catch onto cloudy and unreasonable thinking. Globally the museum sector has taken more than its fair share of pain as austerity cuts bite. Museums desperately try and preserve their collections with ever shrinking budgets and staff numbers. Things aren't going to get better any time soon. So creative thinking, innovative thinking, unreasonable thinking is required.
Thus my heart skipped a beat when I read about the director of the Cosario Contemporary Art Museum setting fire to one of his paintings to draw attention to the critical state of funding for his museum.
The painting worth c.£6000 was burnt in the presence of the artist. One assumes the artist was complicit in this act rather than being held back by two burly men whilst hurling unrepeatable invective in the general direction of the fire.
This is inspired unreasonable thinking. The setting fire to museum pieces instantly reduces pressure on the stores and associated collections management responsibilities. It reduces fuel bills and stops the museum being pestered to receive (largely unwanted) donations. Just imagine the conversation when the donator of a treasured heirloom having tearfully given it to the local museum discovers it has been deposited not on display, not in stores, not even in the handling collection, but in the 'winter warmer' pile. With less objects to see, there will be less need for advertising, front of house staff etc. The potential savings are enormous.
However, I think it is an unfortunate precedent that has been set to have the artist present at the destruction. On the plus side it might force Banksy out of his pretentious anonymity, on the downside digging up a Renaissance master and propping him up next to the fire would be inconvenient, costly and a bit smelly. Furthermore I can see some curators objecting to the addition of grave-robbing to their job descriptions.
My recommendation is to forget the artist and get those priceless works straight down to the boiler room (singing as you go is optional) confident in the knowledge that it is the bankers to blame.
The alternative approach of setting fire to bankers is clearly unthinkable or is it just 'unreasonable'?
Read more here http://rt.com/news/italian-crisis-burning-art-497/
Thus my heart skipped a beat when I read about the director of the Cosario Contemporary Art Museum setting fire to one of his paintings to draw attention to the critical state of funding for his museum.
The painting worth c.£6000 was burnt in the presence of the artist. One assumes the artist was complicit in this act rather than being held back by two burly men whilst hurling unrepeatable invective in the general direction of the fire.
This is inspired unreasonable thinking. The setting fire to museum pieces instantly reduces pressure on the stores and associated collections management responsibilities. It reduces fuel bills and stops the museum being pestered to receive (largely unwanted) donations. Just imagine the conversation when the donator of a treasured heirloom having tearfully given it to the local museum discovers it has been deposited not on display, not in stores, not even in the handling collection, but in the 'winter warmer' pile. With less objects to see, there will be less need for advertising, front of house staff etc. The potential savings are enormous.
However, I think it is an unfortunate precedent that has been set to have the artist present at the destruction. On the plus side it might force Banksy out of his pretentious anonymity, on the downside digging up a Renaissance master and propping him up next to the fire would be inconvenient, costly and a bit smelly. Furthermore I can see some curators objecting to the addition of grave-robbing to their job descriptions.
My recommendation is to forget the artist and get those priceless works straight down to the boiler room (singing as you go is optional) confident in the knowledge that it is the bankers to blame.
The alternative approach of setting fire to bankers is clearly unthinkable or is it just 'unreasonable'?
Read more here http://rt.com/news/italian-crisis-burning-art-497/
Saturday, 7 April 2012
Titanic Gets UNESCO Protection
After a winter of hibernation from unreasonable thinking, I have emerged from my cardboard box located in the corner of the costume store to find the museum world as unreasonable as ever. Four hours ago I came across this headline.
Do my eyes deceive me or has the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation entered the world of film criticism. I know Titanic was never popular with the critics, but 'wreckage' is a bit harsh. But to give it UNESCO protection is a ground breaking move. This is no doubt prompted by the imminent release of Titanic 3D - they clearly thought urgent action was needed.
There has been some talk about tangible and intangible heritage of late and UNESCO has been at the forefront of that debate and has slowly been trying to protect more than just buildings and landscapes. But I have to admire their leap into the protection of overblown, expensive, critically lambasted yet immensely popular modern cinema productions.
Cinema is clearly under threat and awareness of its heritage is growing. Awarding 'The Artist' the Best Film Oscar this year is evidence of this. But the speed of heritage protection development in the cinema world is bewildering. It took 50 years to get world heritage protection off the ground. Even then many sites of 'universal' importance have taken a long time to get onto the world heritage list. After having protected the obvious (Taj Mahal, Stonehenge etc.) it took time to getting round to protecting coal mines and housing estates.
Compare this development to UNESCO's move to movie protection. No discussion, no committees agonising for 50 years - just immediate action. Then what is the first movie they want to protect? Citizen Kane? Casablanca? Gone With the Wind? No - straight to the cinematic equivalent of a Berlin housing estate - Titanic.
Why? Like a housing estate Titanic isn't high culture, its popular culture. Like a housing estate its large and expensive and not loved by critics. And like a housing estate problems of chronic rising damp.
Thus I applaud UNESCO for breaking out of the straight jacket of current heritage protection thinking. In this spirit I look forward to my local 'Hooters' bar becoming a listed building, the local rubbish dump becoming a conservation area and my car becoming scheduled as an ancient monument. This may be too idealistic but still I will be writing to UNESCO to propose that the second movie they might like to consider protecting is 'Carry On Up the Khyber'.
Titanic wreckage to become Unesco heritage
Do my eyes deceive me or has the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation entered the world of film criticism. I know Titanic was never popular with the critics, but 'wreckage' is a bit harsh. But to give it UNESCO protection is a ground breaking move. This is no doubt prompted by the imminent release of Titanic 3D - they clearly thought urgent action was needed.
There has been some talk about tangible and intangible heritage of late and UNESCO has been at the forefront of that debate and has slowly been trying to protect more than just buildings and landscapes. But I have to admire their leap into the protection of overblown, expensive, critically lambasted yet immensely popular modern cinema productions.
Cinema is clearly under threat and awareness of its heritage is growing. Awarding 'The Artist' the Best Film Oscar this year is evidence of this. But the speed of heritage protection development in the cinema world is bewildering. It took 50 years to get world heritage protection off the ground. Even then many sites of 'universal' importance have taken a long time to get onto the world heritage list. After having protected the obvious (Taj Mahal, Stonehenge etc.) it took time to getting round to protecting coal mines and housing estates.
Compare this development to UNESCO's move to movie protection. No discussion, no committees agonising for 50 years - just immediate action. Then what is the first movie they want to protect? Citizen Kane? Casablanca? Gone With the Wind? No - straight to the cinematic equivalent of a Berlin housing estate - Titanic.
Why? Like a housing estate Titanic isn't high culture, its popular culture. Like a housing estate its large and expensive and not loved by critics. And like a housing estate problems of chronic rising damp.
Thus I applaud UNESCO for breaking out of the straight jacket of current heritage protection thinking. In this spirit I look forward to my local 'Hooters' bar becoming a listed building, the local rubbish dump becoming a conservation area and my car becoming scheduled as an ancient monument. This may be too idealistic but still I will be writing to UNESCO to propose that the second movie they might like to consider protecting is 'Carry On Up the Khyber'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)