25 January 2007

Vanity

I suppose that it is slightly less hubristic than hiring an artist to paint their portraits. But even so, £9,000 seems a lot of money. The Evening News reports:
Legendary New York-based snapper Harry Benson has been hired to take portraits of the Scottish Parliament's Presiding Officer George Reid and his predecessor, Lord Steel.
The Glasgow-born photographer has worked with 10 US presidents and The Beatles, and an exhibition of his work at the National Portrait Gallery finished earlier this month.
But the commission, which will cost around £9000, has sparked accusations of extravagance with taxpayers' cash. Scottish Parliament officials will pay Mr Benson a fee of £4000 for each portrait.
Travel costs of flights from the US and two nights in the Capital are expected to be another £1000. The portraits will form part of Holyrood's art collection but at the request of Mr Reid, his picture will not be publicly shown until he steps down.

The real question is why? What possible benefit could there be to Holyrood's art collection in having foties of Lord S and Mr R? And, if there was such a benefit, could they not have paid for it themselves and donated the results to the Parliament?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Because one they will dead, and it will worthwhile to have representations of them. Any other body would do the same.

£4000 each is very little to pay a world renowned photographer, who just this last year had a large retrospective here in Edinburgh. This isn't a school photographer who lines you up and asks you to say "girls" and fires his flashgun.