Letters to the editor

The debate about public art, and who pays for it, continues. What do you think?
The debate about public art, and who pays for it, continues. What do you think?

What is public art?

I've read studies about the economic benefits of public funding of the arts.

A basic premise is government entities spending decisions with your money are wise. More than if it was your individual decision. 

Local government attempts to create "opportunity", or some such social good. 

But that is a patronising attitude (at least). What we do know is specific organisations and individuals benefit.

So who decides what artworks are selected? 

They are chosen by "grant making agencies" to benefit from the redistribution.

This is usually packaged as "private-public partnership", which is another way of saying crony capitalism.

There is also control of the marketplace under the guise of "levelling the playing field".

Who pays for public art then? Should “the people” pay? If they don’t, then who picks up the cost? Otherwise public artworks might disappear.

What about philanthropy where private donations are made for community benefit? This might start with sculpture.

Other artworks could also be donated to the public gallery. How about books for the city library?

Buildings could also be donated for common use. Parks and open spaces also could be the focus of philanthropy.

In my opinion there should be no public money spent on public artworks.

All public artworks should be donated by private individuals or entities. This is a way they can contribute to the society they live in.

Graeme Smith


Nothing personal

Jenny don’t take this personally but please put an end to these letters promoting your lifestyle as it is getting very tiresome.

I think the vast majority are over it. I have no problems with the way you want to live your life, I just don’t need to hear about it the same as you do not need to hear about how the vast majority of us live our lives.  

Greg Park


What’s in a name?

The name of the public hospital in Wagga was recently (some months ago) changed to Wagga Wagga Rural Referral Hospital.

I have no complaints about this change of name.

I want to know why on the NSW Health website, when one searches for this new name, allows for Wagga Base Hospital to be input and shown as a search result. Which then brings up a page for Wagga Base Hospital.

If the Department of Health and the local health body is serous about the new name being used, why has the department not approached or liaised with the appropriate bodies to have the large blue coloured "hospital direction" signs on the Sturt Highway close to the hospital changed to reflect the new hospital name?

If something is done then it must be done well and in full.

Laurence Kelly


In response

In Mrs Lynette Kensey’s letter (May 12), she said that the RSL had not responded to the original story that appeared in The Daily Advertiser on 18 April, 2017. The RSL sub-branch’s policy was stated in that story by Mr David Gardiner, the sub-branch’s Custodian of Memorials, ‘that a person’s home address had to be in Wagga Wagga at the time of their enlistment’ to qualify for inclusion.

She is but one of a number to the sub-branch regarding inclusion on the Honor Roll, all of whom have been informed of the criteria and have accepted it.

Ken May