Good of him

How much tax benefit does he get from the gift?

#1 Nothing like looking for a cloud in the silver lining. Who cares what tax benefit he get's from this? Far better that this collection be available for public viewing.

Well done and Thankyou

#2 Absolutely. #1 Get a life.
Fantastic donation which I am looking forward to seeing when I next come back to Scotland.
A wonderful gift to the people of Scotland. Thank you.

A welcome gift. Hope Mrs McConnell does not lose them, like she did with the Jacobite broadswords inscribed "Prosperity to Scotland and NO Union".

Why is there a picture of Linda Fabiani looking in a mirror accompanying this story?

Wonderful gesture and do hope they escape from the central belt so as others get the opportunity to view them.

Thanks, but no thanks. While there are plenty of living artists whose work has real merit, sadly few if any are included in this collection. The modern art mafia has been allowed to get a grip on our galleries to the detriment of works of genuine talent and soul.

Junk should be recycled not reviewed.

Scotland deserves better.

Have I read this wrong? 100m`s worth given to Scotland. Half or so goes to the Tate, when has that located to Scotland. 10m paid for the collection a fith of its value. Who did they pay if it was a gift to Scotland.

What a brilliant gesture - what I am dismayed about is the begrudging attitude of some of the 'posters'.

What a fantastic gift, I agree how cynical some people are.
I love modern art, but if you don't - don't go and see it. I don't like football but councils and government spend money on stadiums and the like because some people do. That's what makes the human race so interesting.

What a marvellous gesture, thank you. I will certainly make a point of going along asap to enjoy.

How anyone with any artistic taste can say that what's on offer is 'worth' £100 million, needs a serious dose of artistic appreciation. Agree with you Rules that the majority is junk.

Well done sir.

Well I am a philistine and proud of it, a dead sheep in formaldehyde? if thats "ART" then i can live without it.

14#paulr. Modern Art, as I see it, requires a degree of imaginative, speculative, political and symbolic imagination.Of which I`m sure you have.More importantly, it requires a certain, cynical sense of humor.You have it:)

He has put the non-doms to shame.

#14,you have proved part of it's point, you can't live without it - by commenting it demonstrates it has got some part of your life.

#1 - Do the math - it's a great gesture!!!

Fifty years ago - not a single one of the so-called 'artists' listed here - witht he possible exception of Dianne Arbus and Ian Hamilton Findlay - would have been given gallery room. This man D'Offay was at the spearhead of the 'movement' which has spent the last 30 years selling the public garbage and calling it art. Cows in formaldehyde (Hirst), homosexuals with bullwhips protruding from their anus (Mapplethorpe), Gilbert and George - 'professional gays' specialising in outraging public taste with obscenity, cheap silkscreen prints (warhol) - ALL of it is simple iconoclasm - shock the establishment with pronography, paedophilia, obscentiy, celebrity-ism and kitsch (Koons). For thirty years they managed to do it and became fabulously rich on the back of it. However, as Mr Lincoln famously said - 'you can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool ALL of the people, ALL of the time". The era of art as obscenity, art as outrage, art as sexual perversity - is fast fading. In 50 years you won't see any of this rubbish in any gallery - except as an example of how a movement can fool the establishment. D'Offay is 'offloading' a load of rubbish for £25 million of public money - and the dumb establishment is buying it - just at the time when it is about to fade from fashion. Transient rubbish is transient. It won't stand the test of time. In 100 years you will still be able to go to the Scottish National Gallery and see the genius of Monet, the glory of El Greco, the majesty of Carravaggio. You wont find Jeff Koons or Damian Hirst there in 2100 AD.

mmmm, modern art -its there to make you think. so enjoy thinking, and chatting. But more importantly it gives one the opportunity to put ones tongue firmly in ones cheek - and spout mince about how joyously life affirming it is.

Lovely stuff...

19#:)))

Some rather ungrateful comments on here. Public money being used to buy an investment for a fraction of its value is not imprudent. The tourism this will generate will yield a profit for your country and if the work does inspire the young, perhaps some might put down a Buckfast and pick up a paintbrush and canvas.

As I haven't seen the collection I would not venture an assessment as to its importance. But there is something salutary in making a gift, no matter its worth. "What's in it for me?" is the clarion cry of today and we are all the meaner as a result of its prevalence.

Good for him like or loath it, it's better for the public to have the chance to see it and make up their own minds.

#18 Tweedmouth SPOT ON!!! My good gawd!!! I would hate to have school children seeing some of the stuff that was mentioned in this article!

But what if America demands the return of American art to American museums?

Only in Scotland could this story be seen as a negative thing - what a bunch of whinging, dour moaners we are.

Only in Scotland would I read negative drivel about such a positive story.

The negativity started with # 1's ludicrous comments regarding tax breaks. Honestly, what is wrong with you people that you cannot see any benefit without an offsetting negative? Take a long hard look at yourselves in the mirror. You truly are pathetic.

Well done, Mr. d'Offay, and thank you!

Just to expand on the main issue at stake here. A painting or photograph has no INTRINSIC value - it is just marks on paper or canvas. The intrinsic value is merely the cost of the paint and the canvas - a few pounds. It only 'acquires' value when someone pays money for it - say £1000 and the next person in the chain then 'believes' it to be worth at least £1000. But this is nothing to do with art - it is merely market value. People like D'Offay have made millions by persuading people to 'believe' that a dead cow in a tank of formaldehyde is 'art' with a value of £ millions. Intrinsically, a dead cow in a tank of formaldehyde has zero value - you can't eat it or milk it. Consequently the 'value' of £x million is merely what some poor sucker 'believes' it is worth. The scam which D'Offay and his ilk have perpetrated on society - is to 'boost' the exhibits they have an interest in. Millionaires like Saatchi are persuaded to buy these dead sharks etc. for £100,000 - with the strategy that they can then use their advertising skills and influence - so that when they sell it on they double or triple their profits. All of D'Offay's 'art' is arguably worthless; it will not exist in galleries in 100 years time since it has no real artistic merit - it only has 'fashionable' momentum. So this shyster has pawned off a pile of garbage - mostly obscene or kitsch - on the national galleries - and they have used public money to enrich this guy beyond his wildest dreams. His argument that he is 'giving' us £100 million for free is pure bullshit. This 'art' has no real value - but we just paid £25 million for it. What a scam. What a shyster.

Well said Coldstream! It's funny the journalists didn't address the tax implications and whether it's a real gift, not to mention how he came across £25 million in the first place. The value is surely the tax rebate he gets - presumably 40% higher tax rate on "£100 million value" i.e. £40 million, which is still a profit on the £25 million he is said to have paid!

According to the National Galleries press release all taxes have been paid on the purchase price. Whether the collection is really worth 125 million I have no idea. However the works by Warhol alone must be worth several millions. Given the sheer size of the collection it is probably worth a lot more than the original purchase price of 25 million.

I think its a good thing that the National Galleries were involved in this purchase, it strengthens the exhibition of 20th century and contemporary art in Scotland tremendously.

The Alex Salmond 'feel good' factor continues....

A lot of these pathetic comments are similar to those made about the French impressionists. See what happened to them! Good for you sir.

There may indeed be an excess of criticism here - Ron Mueck's pieces were quite striking I would agree - not so Damien Hirst's! Perhaps though, there were some valid early criticisms of the French Impressionists. The lack of social content of Monet's landscapes for example. Similarly, why should critics of "modern" art not have some valid points of view. In addition, the money questions are not automatically irrelevant - I welcome the info on the tax side from CB (above) - it gave me more info than the Scotsman team!

I wonder what the Nat Galleries means by saying (according to CB, above) that "all taxes have been paid on the purchase price". If it is a gift, why would tax arise on it? Do they mean their taxes - but why does tax arise for the Nat Galleries when they receive a gift?

There does seem to be a shortage of information on this purchase (gift was a term used by Nicholas Serota, the National Galleries refer to it as a purchase) in the article and the postings to this forum. Full details of the acquisition are here:

http://www.nationalgalleries.org/collection/artist_rooms/4:5077/

Personally, I would say the purchase represents good value, as to buy all these works on the market would certainly cost much more. It's also a good deal for D'Offay: he gets his investment back in full, plus the prestige and respect afforded to him by the institutions and the art world at large.

Overall I think it is very positive for Scotland and the whole of the UK and I'm delighted the Scottish Government are clearly proud of this, it bodes well for Scotland's cultural policy going forward.

You may be right CB, though "value" is not merely "value for money" but also value in the situation (i.e. do these works complement other collections?) It doesn't seem to add much to the Scottish collections. Some of these pieces doubtless have resonance - the Ron Mueck figures struck a chord with many visitors for example. Some of the rest I have my doubts about. How much of the Nat Galleries budget is left for living Scottish artists?

32. SNP in 'taking credit at any opportunity' shocker.

Just WHAT has this got to do with the SNP?!

#38,

Nothing....but I knew writing that would get right on your t*ts! :D

# 29: Tweedsmouth:

Total rubbish.

You must live in a very dark and dour place. People like you give the Scots a bad name.

Sounds like you have never been in an art gallery in your life. Nor would you know art when you see it. Discussing the concept of 'value', only in terms of monetary value, tells me a lot about you and your 'values'.

You should be ashamed of yourself and the other ignoramuses on this feedback thread. What a bunch of losers!

Art appreciation is for the minority.Sell them off and build/upgrade hospitals.

Tweedmouth - also Paulr, Unimpressed one - excellent points - thank you. My sentiments exactly.
Perhaps the man finally realized what a bunch of c__p it all really is and and smartly turned it into a tax benefit. $100 million of the $125 million 'value' is just value on paper and seems to mimic the inflated prices of many, many homes here in the US - no one is buying them...so Mr. d'Offay shrewdly gets back his original investment. Not bad...for HIM

Wouldn't he have been better selling these artworks, and handing over a cheque for the £100million to the galleries? Imagine what they could have done with that dosh?

And the Scotsman has the front page headline completely wrong, the Tate is not in Scotland.

Why don't all of you Negative Nellies and Doubting Thomases go back into your dark little rooms, count your pennies, and calculate the inherent value of compound interest!

However, don't get overly excited, you might just blow out your candles.

Believe me when I say that you are beyond contempt.

Well Saltireblue, if your uncritically positive attitude to this art and the unclear financial gesture associated with it only leads you to conclude that those of a different opinion are "beyond contempt", that doesn't say much for the effect it has had on your mind!

Perhaps, Norman, because no one would PAY 100M for them -

Yes, 'beyond contempt'
A fair description of such 'art.'

39. That's also known as 'being called and duly busted'.

Back in your box, tedious nat.

At the National Gallery of Canada in the Permanent Collection we have a pile of felt artistically arranged in one of the larger rooms.

Most tourists seeing think that some workmen left behind some of their working material until they espy the label on the wall nearby.

It has languished there since the 1970s and the name of the "artist" will remain unnamed to protect the guilty. And you would not believe the price the Canadian taxpayer paid for it.

You are lucky, indeed, to get photographs by Diane Arbus and also the lithos or whatever by Andy Warhol.

#1 truthsleuth is a philistine and a poseur(euse). He or she spouts nothing but nonsense and subtefruge.

Scotland should be VERY grateful for the donation of Anthony d'Offay. Very well done, sir.

Comment# 18 and 29 the refernece to "gay art" is beyond any uselfulness to this article or the donation, perhaps the "writer" needs a course in art history and the sexual powers that have shaped it, if the "write" knew this he would see his "old masters" in a different "perverse" manner. Value of "art"? art has always been of value to humanity and prized as such, and even more so to the old masters who courted the rich and elite of their day. QUALITY Art materials art not cheap, and the process it takes to make such "ambguous art" is time consuming/costly, it would be far easier to paint "constable" canvases all day long. However, each to their own, you either like it or you don't.

When's the public enquiry

18 - good call for IHF. Little Sparta, one hasn't lived until one has visited it.

41 - a Sun reader writes.

He's right that the money isnt the big story.

He's wrong that the art is.

The big story is its a condition that viewing is free, and that makes it difficult to charge for seeing other the collections in the same buildings.

The man has just defeated Thatcherite charging for education maybe for ever. Politician of the year, I'd say.

What a generous gesture, as well as a refreshing infusion of 'controversial' work by talented artists.

Whether their work will stand the test of time...if we live long enough we'll find out.
Many of the works that we consider 'Priceless Masters' today, were created by artists who were also mocked and reviled during their lifetime.

Some of them died paupers, and few of them became wealthy unless they had a patron.
Perhaps it will be another generation who will correctly judge the merits of this work.

Have to say it's a funny kind of 'gift' which costs 26 million pounds!

Also I'm a bit troubled by the involvement of the Tate. I hope this isn't a case of the big gallery cherry picking all the best bits, and the wee gallery (eg. us!) left with the dross.

Taking my cynical hat off, this is an exciting collection of work, and the prospect of having major works by the likes of Boyce and Warhol on display in Scotland is mouthwatering.