£3m spent on "Art" by local hospital

[anonymous-user]

[redacted]

[DocJock]

My local hospital buys it's art from funds donated specifically for that purpose, so it does not come out of any other budgets and they have no choice to spend it on other things

[thinfourth2]

Oh god the horror that the NHS has spent some money on making something less depressing.

Would you prefer that all publicly funded buildings are grey horrible dark depressing places that are a complete blot on the landscape that look like something from the dark days of socialist russia or even worse Cumbernauld.


I don't

I want our schools and hospitals to be bright and cheery additions to the landscape and when in them i don't want to be utterly miserable because of my surroundings.

So i have no problem with public money being spent on making the place look a little bit better.


or would you prefer it is no public money was spent making the place look better?

The question that should be asked is how much should be spent and we should ignore the outrage that comes from the daily mail when any money is spent that isn't grey concrete or a nurses wage.

[Puggit]

As with the bank bailout, the sums of cash used might seem large. BUT, if spent wisely should see a good return...

[DSM2]

thinfourth2 said:

Oh god the horror that the NHS has spent some money on making something less depressing.

Would you prefer that all publicly funded buildings are grey horrible dark depressing places that are a complete blot on the landscape that look like something from the dark days of socialist russia or even worse Cumbernauld.


I don't

I want our schools and hospitals to be bright and cheery additions to the landscape and when in them i don't want to be utterly miserable because of my surroundings.

So i have no problem with public money being spent on making the place look a little bit better.


or would you prefer it is no public money was spent making the place look better?

The question that should be asked is how much should be spent and we should ignore the outrage that comes from the daily mail when any money is spent that isn't grey concrete or a nurses wage.

As most of the poulation does with its homes, you can 'make the place look better' with a few pounds spent at John Lewis or somewhere.

Spending hundreds of thousands on so called art is indefensible.

What a bunch of feckwits.......................

[petemurphy]

thinfourth2 said:

Oh god the horror that the NHS has spent some money on making something less depressing.

Would you prefer that all publicly funded buildings are grey horrible dark depressing places that are a complete blot on the landscape that look like something from the dark days of socialist russia or even worse Cumbernauld.


I don't

I want our schools and hospitals to be bright and cheery additions to the landscape and when in them i don't want to be utterly miserable because of my surroundings.

So i have no problem with public money being spent on making the place look a little bit better.


or would you prefer it is no public money was spent making the place look better?

The question that should be asked is how much should be spent and we should ignore the outrage that comes from the daily mail when any money is spent that isn't grey concrete or a nurses wage.

jesus there is a middle ground you know. there is absolutley no need to spend anything on art. all you do is get the local school to produce bright cheerful childrens paintings. you can also get local artists to disply their wares that they could sell. hell the hospital could get a comission on every painiting sold so they would actually make money THERE IS NO NEED TO SPEND 1 PENNY ON ART ITS FFFING RIDICULOUS

[thinfourth2]

petemurphy said:

jesus there is a middle ground you know.

Yes and maybe we should look beyond the headine figure of £3million what percentage have they spent as £3million could be 10% of the budget or it could be 0.10% we don't know

petemurphy said:

You can also get local artists to disply their wares that they could sell. hell the hospital could get a comission on every painiting sold so they would actually make money

A good idea but i am sure it would get the daily wail complaining anyway

petemurphy said:

THERE IS NO NEED TO SPEND 1 PENNY ON ART ITS FFFING RIDICULOUS

There is no need for the local council to pick-up litter or cut the grass but they do. Should we stop them?

[dxg]

You guys need to look into "Evidence Based Design"

There's a proven correlation between the presence of art in hospitals and patient recovery rates. Art makes people feel good - so the theory goes - and patients that feel good get well quicker.

There's a massive body of evidence documenting this affective dimension of hospital design. The causative factors that lie at its core are somewhat less well defined, however.

Anyway, look at Ulrich's work and take it from there...

[petemurphy]

thinfourth2 said:

petemurphy said:

jesus there is a middle ground you know.

Yes and maybe we should look beyond the headine figure of £3million what percentage have they spent as £3million could be 10% of the budget or it could be 0.10% we don't know

petemurphy said:

You can also get local artists to disply their wares that they could sell. hell the hospital could get a comission on every painiting sold so they would actually make money

A good idea but i am sure it would get the daily wail complaining anyway

petemurphy said:

THERE IS NO NEED TO SPEND 1 PENNY ON ART ITS FFFING RIDICULOUS

There is no need for the local council to pick-up litter or cut the grass but they do. Should we stop them?

if its .1% its still too much.
i dont see why but dont care if they did
eeerm thats completely different they pay the miminum for services. if they paid million for a banksy lawnmower you would be happy with that?

[thinfourth2]

petemurphy said:

thinfourth2 said:

petemurphy said:

jesus there is a middle ground you know.

Yes and maybe we should look beyond the headine figure of £3million what percentage have they spent as £3million could be 10% of the budget or it could be 0.10% we don't know

petemurphy said:

You can also get local artists to disply their wares that they could sell. hell the hospital could get a comission on every painiting sold so they would actually make money

A good idea but i am sure it would get the daily wail complaining anyway

petemurphy said:

THERE IS NO NEED TO SPEND 1 PENNY ON ART ITS FFFING RIDICULOUS

There is no need for the local council to pick-up litter or cut the grass but they do. Should we stop them?

if its .1% its still too much.
i dont see why but dont care if they did
eeerm thats completely different they pay the miminum for services. if they paid million for a banksy lawnmower you would be happy with that?

So the council picking up litter and keeping the place looking good is okay

But no money must be spent making a hospital looking good. All hospitals must be boring grey unpainted concrete boxes

[petemurphy]

thinfourth2 said:

petemurphy said:

thinfourth2 said:

petemurphy said:

jesus there is a middle ground you know.

Yes and maybe we should look beyond the headine figure of £3million what percentage have they spent as £3million could be 10% of the budget or it could be 0.10% we don't know

petemurphy said:

You can also get local artists to disply their wares that they could sell. hell the hospital could get a comission on every painiting sold so they would actually make money

A good idea but i am sure it would get the daily wail complaining anyway

petemurphy said:

THERE IS NO NEED TO SPEND 1 PENNY ON ART ITS FFFING RIDICULOUS

There is no need for the local council to pick-up litter or cut the grass but they do. Should we stop them?

if its .1% its still too much.
i dont see why but dont care if they did
eeerm thats completely different they pay the miminum for services. if they paid million for a banksy lawnmower you would be happy with that?

So the council picking up litter and keeping the place looking good is okay

But no money must be spent making a hospital looking good. All hospitals must be boring grey unpainted concrete boxes

which bit of use childrens and local artists paintings for free did you not understand? the hospital will still litter pick too that analygy is wrong

[thinfourth2]

dxg said:

You guys need to look into "Evidence Based Design"

There's a proven correlation between the presence of art in hospitals and patient recovery rates. Art makes people feel good - so the theory goes - and patients that feel good get well quicker.

There's a massive body of evidence documenting this affective dimension of hospital design. The causative factors that lie at its core are somewhat less well defined, however.

Anyway, look at Ulrich's work and take it from there...

What you mean the process of someone getting better isn't just to do with what chemicals we stuff into them.


Who would of thought that


People feel better in a pleasant environment its hardly rocket science

[petemurphy]

dxg said:

You guys need to look into "Evidence Based Design"

There's a proven correlation between the presence of art in hospitals and patient recovery rates. Art makes people feel good - so the theory goes - and patients that feel good get well quicker.

There's a massive body of evidence documenting this affective dimension of hospital design. The causative factors that lie at its core are somewhat less well defined, however.

Anyway, look at Ulrich's work and take it from there...

thats not my arguement my arguement is there no correlation between the amount of money spent on art and how quickly they get better.

[thinfourth2]

petemurphy said:

which bit of use childrens and local artists paintings for free did you not understand? the hospital will still litter pick too that analygy is wrong

Why is the analogy of the council keeping the town the hospital is in clean and tidy completely different to the idea of money being spent to make a hospital a nicer place wrong.


As to the children's painting they are normally bloody terrible where as the local artists is a good idea.

But we aren't just talking about pictures on a wall we are talking about big bits of sculpture which aren't going to be available for free

[thinfourth2]

petemurphy said:

thats not my arguement my arguement is there no correlation between the amount of money spent on art and how quickly they get better.

Should they paint the walls or cover them in easy to clean dull plastic from the lowest bidder?

[petemurphy]

thinfourth2 said:

petemurphy said:

which bit of use childrens and local artists paintings for free did you not understand? the hospital will still litter pick too that analygy is wrong

Why is the analogy of the council keeping the town the hospital is in clean and tidy completely different to the idea of money being spent to make a hospital a nicer place wrong.


As to the children's painting they are normally bloody terrible where as the local artists is a good idea.

But we aren't just talking about pictures on a wall we are talking about big bits of sculpture which aren't going to be available for free

do local artists not make sculptures then?

council keeping town tidy equates to hospital keep grounds and hospital tidy
hospital spending money on art would equate to council spending money on sculptures etc

[KANEIT]

To cut to the chase if that money was free to be spent anywhere I would rather it was put towards ensuring the primary aims of the PCT are met. It's a business decision, the private sector would concentrate on it's core objectives at the moment, streamlining it's non-essentials. How many hospitals have you been to where a large sculptural art installation or 'peace garden' has not been properly maintained and now looks a grotty mess? I know the last two I visited were so. Too often these large fixed installations become white elephants and are located in a position where it is unlikely that many people will have the chance and the time to see them. Art is also so subjective and those conceptual items divide opinion and actually offend as many people as they please, for example Tracy Emin's work. My local hospital has artwork of many genres and photography along the walls of most corridors. It has often been sourced from local societies on a free loan basis and can be rotated as desired. Now each piece in isolation may not be as striking as an x00k project but I am thankful that wherever I happen to be passing or waiting there is something to brighten up the space or something to study. The idea of art in a hospital is great but I believe that philanthropic installations are more meaningful and offer a more lasting legacy. I can't help feel the PCT in question has been given and has offered it's stakeholders extremely poor value for money.

[thinfourth2]

petemurphy said:

council keeping town tidy equates to hospital keep grounds and hospital tidy

But why should they keep it tidy as it costs money

We don't need it tidy

We could all easily manage if all public spaces were overgrown and full of rubbish.

Infact why don't they sell off all public parks for building low cost housing as that would be far more beneficial to the community and it would give the nurses somewhere to live.

Cut down all the trees on the streets and sell them as fire wood as they only cost money to look after and drop leaves everywhere.

[petemurphy]

thinfourth2 said:

petemurphy said:

council keeping town tidy equates to hospital keep grounds and hospital tidy

But why should they keep it tidy as it costs money

We don't need it tidy

We could all easily manage if all public spaces were overgrown and full of rubbish.

Infact why don't they sell off all public parks for building low cost housing as that would be far more beneficial to the community and it would give the nurses somewhere to live.

Cut down all the trees on the streets and sell them as fire wood as they only cost money to look after and drop leaves everywhere.

you're missing the point. if you want extremes then with your arguement why do we not put all taxes up and have art everywhere on every pavement as then people would feel better and not need to go to hospital

[thinfourth2]

KANEIT said:

To cut to the chase if that money was free to be spent anywhere I would rather it was put towards ensuring the primary aims of the PCT are met.

Which is basically making people feel better and this is far more then pumping chemicals into them

KANEIT said:

The idea of art in a hospital is great but I believe that philanthropic installations are more meaningful and offer a more lasting legacy. I can't help feel the PCT in question has been given and has offered it's stakeholders extremely poor value for money.

More then likely but as always the headline figure of £3million means bugger all without seeing the rest of the budget.

I just object to the daily wail nashings of outrage when any money is spent which isn't on grey concrete and nurses