This topic contains 28 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by 
- Posts
As many of you will know by now, TLF's expected base in 25 Parade, Robert's original studio, has now been offered to the South West Image Bank. This seems like a crazy move on the part of the Barbican Association [who own 25 Parade].
Well … thanks, Chris! BUT … really it was only written by me after some chatter on the fb group. It was really just evolved there & even though I put the words together … I don't feel I can take any credit for it.
Double page spread in today's press –http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Hunt-Lenkiewicz-museum/article-2631710-detail/article.html
Hi AnnieI think the idea of the petition is a good one but I'm afraid there are two statements in it which would mean I couldn't sign it:suddenly been halted by the owners of the building, the Plymouth Barbican Associationthe Plymouth Barbican Association to reconsider their decision and honour their agreement to rent the building to The Lenkiewicz FoundationHaven spoken with Ed Keast of the Association I think both these comments are extreemly unfair given the circumstances as described to me by Ed. As with all things there are two sides to this. As I understand it the foundation were offered a lease for a while which they refused to sign and then there is the matter of the £100,000 it would cost the Association if they just swapped buildings as the foundation was hoping they would.I think having 25 the Parade as a museum for robert's work is a brilliant idea which I completely support but antagonising the owners of the building without knowing all the facts might end up being detrimental to the course. Perhaps the foundation could more usefully launch an appeal to raise the extra money that would be needed so the Association is not out of pocket. Anyway, just wanted to say I support the idea but not sure about the wording in the petittion.xx
As I understand it, the South West image Bank were, at first, willing to consider a 'swap' – 25 Parade for St. Saviours church.St. Saviours church has been in the hands of Robert's executor for eight years, and unfortunately has been left to badly deteriorate to the point where floors are collapsing etc, and a very large amount of money will have to be spent on it. Not surprising then, that the Barbican Association don't want to do the swap anymore - who would?My question is - Who is now actually responsible for the upkeep and repairs to St. Saviours?
I didn't mean to imply that there is any blame to be heaped at PBA's door.
...I think that, even tho times are hard, it should be possible to secure funding to renovate St Saviours. for financial reasons.
Well… I don't know anything about the state of the building etc. but Jojo mentioned £100,000.
I'm thinking back to the wording of the prospectus in 'Paintings designed to Make Money' [I'm away from my files so can't quote] where Robert says, in an imagined review, dated many years in the future, that the work in the exhibition featured "a forgotten artist".
as I understand it the cost is to do with the floors needing replacing because of damage caused by the incredibly heavy book cases Robert put on them.
Interesting that social networking can get the ball rolling where perhaps there was no great will amongst the general public to do so before. Although I don't use it I understand Twitter might well be the fastest and potentially most successful way to continue to spread information about the petition – especially as it seems to have slowed somewhat. Perhaps some of the supporters that might not otherwise have done so might end up as part of the Lenkiewicz community here.I also note that some commenting on the petition form itself are adding their support to, in their own words, keep the studio open. Do they not realise the building has been vacant for what is fast approaching a decade? I hope there is good news forthcoming from the TLF in the near future whatever the outcome.
Thanks, K...
Thanks, K…
Well Marlowe, I guess it depends on where you stand.
I note that a Mike Yeats has recently offered a more negative opinion via the local/online press http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Museum-plan/article-2658392-detail/article.htmlI also note that Mr Yeats is a photographer and wonder if his disenchantment is because he has professional ties to the South West Image Bank. I believe this conflict of interests throws his statement into an altogether different light and although he is quite entitled to his own view of the situation I feel that anyone who takes the time to put such a statement in print should also be clear about their own agenda (assuming there is one). Here is a cached link to works attributed to Mike Yeats in the South West Image Bank archive (of which there are ALOT):http://tinyurl.com/34lhjzc
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.