Tuesday 6 January 2009

For your reading pleasure

Relating to yesterday's post, a reader sent in a link to this 2005 report on entry charges for non-residents by the Christchurch Art Gallery (PDF). The Council asked the Gallery to prepare a report reviewing current charging practices against national and international trends, and examine the possibility of introducing entry charges. From the report:

It is recommended that the Council:

(a) Not proceed with charging admission for non residents (Option 1) to the gallery owing to:
  • Adverse impact on international/national reputation, visitor perception and experience
  • Adverse impact on visitor numbers after introducing entry charges (based on international/national experience)
  • Long term viability of the gallery threatened (inability to attract major exhibitions owing to visitor numbers)
  • Financial disadvantage from introducing entry charges
  • Adverse local and tourist market reaction.

In other reading manners: a review by Adam Stenbergh of David Denby's Snark: It’s Mean, It’s Personal, and It’s Ruining Our Conversation.


Cheryl Bernstein said...

HNY Bestof3. What's your position on snark? Personally I am all for it and agree entirely with Adam Stenbergh that it's a "home-brewed antidote" against the idiocy of current events (and the occasional colleague).

Courtney Johnston said...

I'm torn. My "watched Reality Bites too many times at an impressionable age" side says that yeah - snark is the only way to respond to an over-spun world (and hyper-inflated wall labels)(and most relational aesthetics-type art).

On the other hand, my "watched the whole of The West Wing (once than once)" side says that while snark might feel good and raise some laughs, it's not going to stop the spin and bring back candid communication (or bring peace to the Gaza strip).

But over all - I agree with Stenbergh. I guess the other thing is: snark unites us - hence Twitter, Art Bash, all those who rail against Hurrell's anti-pseudonym argument, etc etc etc