Monday, 28 July 2014


Artlink seems to have been going for as long as I've been living in these parts. It's a sort of community arts thing with a gallery in what was part of the methodist church on Princes Avenue. I'm not much taken with the idea of community art (the two words just don't sit together for me) and I have not set foot in the place. I did read recently they got some money from whoever doles out the stuff these days so they'll be happy for the time being and nicely set up for the culture fest that arrives in two and half years time.

Art work with arty symbols
Arty gates


  1. There are similar arts ventures here. I like that iron work.

  2. Art that enriches a community may have more to recommend it than art that sits in a high brow gallery and touches a tiny minority of so-called art lovers. So for me there is no jarring when I see the words "art" and "community" joined together. Subtly, it reminds ordinary folk that life isn't just about family relationships, the grind of work and putting food on the table.

    1. I'm not convinced that art enriches a community, it may deeply affect an individual but not a community. Mankind has always made art, artistic endeavour does not need a handout. I'm also not sure I've ever met any ordinary folk ... tell me what do they look like?

  3. Once upon a time, the artist had a wealthy patron; now the state has taken over the Maecenas role. But the wealthy patron only wanted the best art; the "community art" folk aren't bothered, as long as people express themselves.

  4. I think art enriches a community, William B. First visit Paris, then visit, say, Lancaster, California.

    As for handouts, I suppose it's too bad folks can no longer afford much in the way of patronage. I'd love to have a patron! I'd make wonderful works! (Maybe I'd rather BE the patron.) But if expressing ourselves in art is free, then I'm all for it. Even if it doesn't enrich the community it enriches the individual (ordinary or not), and it keeps me off the street.