Article from the local press in Bristol about spending on the arts in their local hospitals. The article has an odd tone – it tries to be balanced but as it doesn’t make any distinction between capital and revenue budgets or a clear distinction between exchequer (tax payer) NHS budgets and charitable fundraising, ends up making it sound like something dodgy has taken place. People just don’t get the distinction between capital and revenue, do they? It’s not like anyone in management in the NHS would ever be able to make a decision ‘we won’t upgrade that building, we’ll hire nurses with the money instead’. Budgets don’t work like that.
It is sad to see articles like this when arts in health in the Bristol area is flourishing. It just makes people in the field unwilling to talk to the press, knowing that whatever they say will be slanted to fit the underlying assumption that the minimum possible should be spent on the environment in public buildings (do we really all believe that?) Love the commenter who says the artwork should be provided by art students. It would be a lot more conceptual than the works mentioned/shown in the article! And I wonder who they think pays for framing, installation and maintenance of students’ artworks. Clue: it is not (generally) the students.
Source: SAH NewsBrief
