Art galleries

Recently there has been a great deal of discussion about plans for Southampton Council to sell two pieces of artwork for £5 million in order to fund a new museum dedicated to the Titanic. These proposals are very controversial, and are provoking a great deal of discussion in the local area.

My question is simple: What is the point of council art galleries? Every council from the Orkneys to Cornwall will have their own art collections, with galleries dedicated to displaying them to the public (although sometimes only a small proportion of the available artwork is displayed). They also employ curators and general staff to care for the artwork - hardly a core business for a council.

Art galleries are undoubtedly necessary, in the same way that museums or parks are. I would say the aim of such galleries is to educate the local population in art and to embrace the imagination of the viewer. Yet one of my abiding memories from going to the Derby City Council art gallery as a child was one of staleness. You would go back six months' later and see exactly the same exhibits. It was, frankly, a turn-off.

My proposal is simple: The central Government slowly buys all artwork held by councils and puts them into the national collection. In return, the national collection produces a large number of coherent exhibitions - for instance exhibitions of paintings by Turner, Lowry or Monet. These can then be 'loaned out' to council galleries who are part of the scheme. These exhibitions could be large or small, or could focus on periods rather than individual painters. They could be tailored to an individual area - for instance, 'East Anglia in the 1800's'. Such an exhibition could display many paintings that are currently held in many different collections.

What local art galleries need is a regular churn of exhibits, where things change every few months, causing both publicity (e.g. 'come and see the exhibition of Joseph Wright paintings; in the art gallery until the end of October!') and interest for the public. This will hopefully cause people to visit them more regularly, as there will often be something new to see.

As they would be part of complete exhibitions, the context and information on each painting could be presented in a much more holistic manner. It also means that councils can stop doing something that is certainly not a core job for them - acquiring and maintaining artworks - and instead concentrate on something that should be their core job - bringing artworks to the people.

If an area has an indelible link with a particular painter - say Suffolk for Constable, Lowry for Liverpool or Wright for Derby - then permanent displays can be made for them, as long as individual paintings within can be re-loaned temporarily to form other exhibitions. For instance, there might be a temporary 'Lowry' travelling exhibition, using items in-store in Liverpool along with some of the gems of his work.

It has an advantage for the national collection as well. At the moment the national collection has far more pieces that it can possibly display. It also loans many pieces out to other galleries around the country. Instead of loaning individual pieces out on demand, it will make entire, contextualised exhibitions that can tour the country. There will still be many pieces in store, but hopefully it will give them many more opportunities to be displayed.

Will this happen? I guess not. There are many practical considerations, with cost possibly being the most pressing. Space would also be a problem - art galleries around the country would differ in size, and an exhibition that was ideally-sized for a larger one would be too small for another. Yet, despite these (and other) problems, anything that gets more people to visit the galleries would be worthwhile.

Ejaculations

I have just finished reading a complete set of the Sherlock Holmes stories by Arthur Conan Doyle. And what a read they were! A series of great stories, well told by a master story-teller. I had read a couple of the stories when I was a teenager, but I freely admit that I had not appreciated them - my mind was more tuned towards stories of derring-do. Since then, my mind had been polluted by the varying standards of the TV and film adaptations (I am awaiting with apprehension Guy Ritchie's latest film, Sherlock Holmes, which I have the most tremendous fears for).

It was therefore with joy that I reacquainted myself with the series. They really are superb, and well deserve their reputation. It was a long read - 1,400 pages of small type in a large book - but it was well worth the perseverance. Very few, if any, of the collection of stories were disappointing.

The stories and writing led me to consider several things. Amongst these was the way that the English language has changed over the last hundred years. A while back I was chatting to someone about dialogue attributions, and I said that it always amused me when I saw 'ejaculated' used as an attribution in old texts. He had never seen it, and I had to admit that I could not recall where I had last seen it.

Well, the 'Sherlock Holmes' series of books are filled with them. Here are some examples that caused me to snigger:

• "What on earth does this mean?" I ejaculated ...
• "Not the Countess of Morcar's blue carbuncle!" I ejaculated.
• "It was a confession," I ejaculated.
• "My dear Holmes!" I ejaculated.
• "Joseph!" ejaculated Phelps.

The problem is that the verb has two meanings. The first is, well, the one used commonly nowadays. The other is to utter something suddenly. Both of these come from the same historical root; to eject suddenly.

Obviously such usage of the verb was perfectly normal at the time, but it would be thought odd to write any of the above nowadays, Indeed, it probably could not even be safely used in a historical piece set in that period.

Of course, it should be used. So I say freely ejaculate when you write! Ejaculate from the rooftops! Ejaculation is good!

Or, on a more sexual note: "Oh God, I'm coming!" he ejaculated...

Yes, you can see the problem.

On a more sensible note, if you wish to read Sherlock Holmes' books and you do not want them in dead-tree form, I suggest going to the 'Project Gutenburg' website and downloading them.

Also, whilst writing this piece I found a good website on Sherlock Holmes - the Sherlock of Peoria website.

Wedding

On Saturday, Şencan and I got married on HMS Warrior in Portsmouth.

It is probably a phrase that is overly used about such occasions, but it was a perfect day. The weather - threatening rain in the morning - was sunny by the time the ceremony occurred. The venue, HMS Warrior, the first steam-powered, iron-hulled, armoured warship, was fantastic, and it was great being surrounded by all of our family and friends, most of whom had travelled a long way to be there.

Our only regret is that we did not get a chance to spend as long taking to everyone as we would have liked. So many people came, yet the evening was so short. Still, I think that we managed to talk to most people, and our apologies to those who could not make it.

Şencan looked beautiful in her dress and I; well, at least I did not have mud on my trousers for once. The memory of that dress shall be emblazoned on my memory forever.

My brother, the best man, and his wife, the chief bridesmaid, did a wonderful job for us. The evening went smoothly, with not a little thanks to the two of them.

It was a superb evening. Photos will inevitably follow.

Lessons

As I have travelled through the journey of my life, I have learnt many important lessons. For example:
*) Treat people as you would like to be treated yourself.
*) Do not judge people by first appearances.
*) It takes years to build up trust, and only seconds to destroy it.
*) Wherever possible, do not give in to pain. Fight and master it.

Now, I have a new one to add to this illustrious list:
*) Do not keep the jar of gravy granules next to the similarly-shaped coffee jar.

I shall not go any further.

Hampshire Tigers parade in Romsey

On Tuesday I decided to go into the centre of town to see the 1st Battalion, Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment (1PWRR) parade through on their homecoming from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The parade was due off at 16.00, and so I headed down three-quarters of an hour early. I did not know quite what to expect, and was amazed to find that the town was bustling - so much so that I had to park on the verge of the bypass outside town, along with dozens of other cars on either side of the road.

A quick walk into town showed that there was little point in staying around the market square, where medals were due to be given out after the parade - the crowds were already five or six deep. I have never seen Romsey so busy. I made my way along the High Street, then up Latimer Street - still crowded - then cut across towards the abbey, where I finally managed to find a quieter spot. It seemed like the whole town - and more - had turned out.

The parade passed; a band in black trousers and scarlet jacket; then the desert-camouflage clad soldiers and finally the veterans.

After they passed I ran back to Latimer Street, where I got a glimpse of them passing again (there were too many people to see clearly).

What was remarkable about this was the numbers of people who turned out. There were thousands, literally, in a town not quite designed for such numbers. Whether you agree with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or not, it is good that so many people appreciate the valour of these brave men and women.

Arguments and writing

Do you know when you've spent too long writing historical fiction?
That's right, when you start arguing in an eighteenth-Century manner.

"Don't grin at me in that manner, it is most unbecoming!"

What on earth made me say that? Not only is it demeaning, it's also hilariously outdated. I'd just been editing a scene set in 1827, so it's probably down to that. What's next?

Forsooth, I can do little but disagree with the proposition that you have put forward.

or perhaps in dialect:

What'cha sayin' that for; stop or I'll scat yer 'ead.

It is, however, a great way of ending an argument, as we were both too busy laughing to continue.

Cuts, the CSR and future tax rises

The battleground for the next election looks as though it will be cuts. Labour want to send the same message that they did so successfully in 2001 and 2005; that the Tories will cut public services (on this occasion, by 10%). This time, however, the Tories have a strong counter-argument - that, due to the economic crisis, cuts are needed. Even Labour's own figures seem to point towards this.

Currently the Government is making it very hard to see where we stand. They are not going to hold a Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), which is due this year, and which will cover the Government's spending plans up to 2013. Their stated reasons for not doing one - that times are too uncertain to hold one - is farcical; any scheme that tries to set out plans for the future has to face uncertainties.

Labour are trying to force the Tories' hands; they want the Conservatives to detail their public spending plans, and then Labour will criticise those and come up with their own, less draconian ones. Yet that is not the way it should work; Labour is in Government, and they have access to much more data than the Tories, and they should be coming up with the plans.

The Government should govern, and the opposition should criticise, amend or support any proposed legislation. What we are getting is a stupid waiting game; the Tories waiting for Labour to release figures; and Labour, who are in much more of a position to release figures, are waiting for the Tories.

This will simply not do, and the ball is firmly in the Government's court.

The worst thing is that Brown is trying to define the Government in relation to what he says the Tories will do, not what Labour wants the Government to be doing. This is exceptionally important and is a sign that the Government has few genuine ideas. Just listen to Prime Minister's Questions: The only questions that Brown answers are the planted ones from Labour MPs. To everything else (and indeed some of the questions from his own party) he goes on a rant about what he says the Tories would be doing.

This is not good enough. He should worry less about what he thinks the Tories will do, and more on what his Government would do. Yet, as seen in the recent U-turns (and the part U-turn on ID cards this week), his Government appear to have very few policies.

It is still possible for Labour to win (if they do, I sincerely hope that it is not under Brown's leadership). If so, they will be faced with a choice: cuts to services, or tax increases. And I reckon Labour's post-election message will be as follows:

"We're cutting some areas (defence, transport, etc), but we will continue to grow core services such as education and health. Therefore we will put up taxes to pay for this growth and to help deal with the debt burden. There are too many inequalities in the country, and we will sort that out. The have's have to help the have-not's."

The next election may well be a choice between cuts to services and an increased tax burden. Yet there is no way that either side can say the latter of these, as increasing taxes is seen as being an election-losing issue. One of the policies that I used to agree with the Liberal Democrats on (with caveats) - the 1p income tax rise - has now been abandoned. It was a policy that, if they had firm spending constraints in place for the extra income, put clear blue water between them and the other two parties. Yet Nick Clegg abandoned it, right before the recession when that money might most have been needed.

Times are tough, yet the Government is not giving us the lead that we need. That lead is the truth on their own policies.