The Art of Television

[Chillum]

"The sculpture has been installed behind The Oratory gates (Liverpool).

It will stay there until 2008, when it will be found a new home in a BBC building, as part of the corporation's art collection."

The above is a quote from the BBC regarding a Tracy Emmin sculpture which was commisioned by the BBC at a cost of �60,000.

Do the BBC's really have the mandate to spend our license money on funding an art collection? I find this unbelievable. This has nothing to do with the merits of Tracy Emmin as an artist, I'm just astounded at the profligacy of the Beeb.

[kick3m0n]

You make a valid point chillum.  To be honest tho, the Beeb have committed greater sins against the licence payer.  At least this piece of art has the chance to increase in value, eventually and will always be owned by the Beeb, therefore could make them profit.  The same cannot be said of such "works of art" as Mad About Alice, Fame Academy and Graham Norton (5 million spent on him and not yet a prgrammed aired!!) to name a few.

[Mr.Ix]

I'm of the opinion that once we have paid the license fee, it is no longer our money and have no right on what it is spent on . We pay a license fee for just that. It is a License to be able to watch a television set. Its like the people who moan about what lottery money is spent on. Hello! Its not your money anymore , its's theres. Your bosses don't dictate what you spend your wages on do they? If you don't like what the beeb is spending the money on, stop buying the license and throw out your TV. Just my opinion

[Mr.Ix]

I ought to add that I think the License Fee should be abolished. Its an out-moded concept that no longer applies. TV has changed so much since the BBC were the only channel. I'd gladly suffer adverst on the BBC for a saving of �100 + a year.

[ursula62]

The licence fee is not a subscription to the BBC.

It's a licence to own and use equipment capable of receiving television signals.

The licence money is paid to a government department, and they fund the BBC out of that central pot.

[sammylane]

What if that were also true of charities? The BBC and the National Lottery are public organisiations that have made a pledge to fulfil a cerain role - not that far removed from charities really. They should be made to honour their pledges and there's no harm in us questionning their tactics.

[Chillum]

If I want to play the lottery, I have that choice. if I want to watch television, I have no choice but to pay the licence fee. It is absolutely my right to question how that money is used. They are not above question, they are not untouchable. They may well continue to spend OUR money on such things, but doing so will only hasten the already overdue demise of the licence fee .I am paying (albeit forceibly) for a television service, I am not paying for the whims of some executives within the organisation.