Financial Regulator hired art consultant

Hi Canice

It's not often I agree with you.

A lot of people would take a very narrow, short-term view that we should abandon the arts completely in the current environment.

They would not realise that the Central Bank's very large art collection is of national importance which has been developed since the foundation of the State. I think that they own Lavery's painting of Lady Lavery which featured on our bank notes. The proceedings of the Consumer Panel were definitely stimulated by being in the presence of Robert Ballagh's masterpiece - Winter in Ronda.

The only shame is that the public don't get to see it very often.

Great art collections need to be minded. Some people think that "paintings just hang on walls" I am glad that the Central Bank is takng care of this national asset.

Brendan
 
I wonder what they are doing with Anglo's art collection? We may as well get some value for our billions.
 
Brendan said:
The only shame is that the public don't get to see it very often.

Great art collections need to be minded. I am glad that the Central Bank is takng care of this national asset.

Brendan
Click to expand...

Brendan, it's a strawman to argue someone is being a phillistine if they think that a body like the Financial Regulator, which has completely and utterly failed in its duty to regulate the banking sector, should be spending public money on a private art collection solely for their staff.

If this art collection is of national importance - and even you admit the public don't get to see it often - it should be donated to a public art gallery. The public who are paying for this art (and incidentally paying to bail out said banking sector) get to see it and the Financial Regulator has one less money worry.

As for the Consumer Panel being stimulated, perhaps if the decor had been less stimulating, the Consumer Panel might have warned the Financial Regulator about a property bubble before 26 May, 2009.
 

I am at a loss to understand why it is the National Gallery cannot perhaps take care of it and maybe put it on display for the general public on occasion. This does form part of the remit of the National Gallery. As an asset of the nation, it would be of more value there.

With respect to the stimulation of Consumer Panel proceedings, I feel of more importance might have been the decision of various retail banks in this country to loosen lending criteria by way of, for example, salary multiples, LTVs, 100% mortgages and the like.

After all, it excited the discussion of a lot of people here and elsewhere who perhaps did not have the benefit of great art on their desks or at their water coolers. I believe that the Central Bank should have a certain amount of decoration; however, if they need a curator, then they clearly have far too much great art to be taking care of. It is not a core part of their business and unlike - for example - IT, it is hardly a necessary part of their support services either.

In terms of financing arts, most people who are concerned about spending this area are less worried about the financing of an essentially private art collection for a government body and more concerned about financing theatre, music, writers-in-residence, public art. The sort of things that the public do have access to in other words. It would be shameful if we continued to spend money on the art collection of the Central Bank while cutting funding for, amongst other things, the Arts Council.
 
Towger said:
I wonder what they are doing with Anglo's art collection? We may as well get some value for our billions.
Click to expand...

Don't know. Lehmans sold their collection recently.

The OPW has a huge art collection as well which is displayed in the public sector offices. They have a policy of buying from emerging Irish artists and it has been a huge boost to this sector.

But maybe, they should have all their artworks confiscated as well, because of the general mismanagement of the country.

Canice - That brief period of agreement between us didn't last very long.

Brendan
 
My idea of art for the Central Bank or the Financial Regulator would be quite simple: plaster busts of Cato everywhere as inspiration to them.
 
If I was low on funds and was underpressure to keep up important payments (mortgage, food etc.) and had something of value that would provide cash flow I would sell it if needs be. Or perhaps a better comparison would be if I was low on funds I would not hire decorators I would get up on the ladder myself brush in hand. Granted, these paintings may need to be treated by "specialists" but surely some college/students could carry out this service for a fraction of the cost of "professionals".

Why is the central bank not selling these paintings to raise funds? ie these are our assets so why is the government not using them to reduce our tax liabilities?

I would also ask where did the central bank get the funds in the first place to buy such art work ie why was it part of their budget? Also, being the financial regulator who did they hire and how much did the pay for someone to buy the art work?
 
If the Central Bank and FR spent a bit more time at their desks with their head down "working" instead of looking at the artwork, they might have partly avoided getting the country into the mess its in. It's all well and good the bank chiefs being called in for a little chat, but how much time did they spend discussing the lovely artwork instead of highly important matters.

Rant over now.

Artwork for Museums, and Office for place of work.

I thing magnolia or white walls are good enough for all offices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register