Wednesday, 24 January 2018

The GDP of Ukip's Art

I was reading a financial article which suggested that GDP is no longer adequate as a measure of a country's wealth. The GDP could increase substantially, but if that extra wealth is confined to just the top 1% of earners the country as a whole doesn't benefit from that increase. It's a very cogent argument in these days of top earners getting multi-million pound bonuses for just doing their job while the pay of the workers remains static. Some new metric needs to be developed that adjusts for the level of inequality.

Ukip is a spent force - it was created as a voice of dissent within the Conservative party. The Conservatives have now come to heel with a firmly right-wing agenda and thus Ukip no longer has a purpose. It was only about one issue anyway - but what happens to its MEPs if it disbands; who do they align with for their remaining time, not that they're in the European Parliament much anyway? However, the antics of Ukip reinforce the idea that experts have a place and hopeless amateurs have no place in politics. Experts, eh?

A recurrent subject of mine... I was listening in the background the Start the Week on Radio 4 the other day which had Andrew Graham-Dixon, the art critic and broadcaster, commenting on something or other. I only really paid attention to the last few sentences where Graham-Dixon said that contemporary art is not art due to the fact it's a free-for-all and therefore it's impossible to have a hierarchy in a free-for-all. He echoed my sentiments completely - it's impossible to judge good and bad contemporary art. Monkey daubs have fooled many contemporary art experts and you cannot compare a splodge by a contemporary 'artist' to a Vermeer, a Rubens or a Rembrandt - they're entirely different animals.

No comments:

Post a Comment