Leave Picasso Alone.

As you’ve probably gathered from the howls of outrage echoing around Bill Bryson, Durham University has been caught up in something of a scandal over Big Chris’ £1.4million splurge on artwork for his precious Palatine Centre.

Hey big spender…

Now, I’ll try not to climb upon a self-righteous liberal pedestal here, but really – take a second. The University has spent money on something designed to (a) prove a valuable profitable investment, (b) better the aesthetics of the University, and (c) really, really impress the alternative kids.

Yet it’s being criticised by the same people who complain about the short-sighted nature of University spending, how hideous the DSU is, and how we really should try attracting a more diverse student population one of these days.

Leave Picasso alone.

All the more bemusing is how even the most conservative of the red-chino clad clan has suddenly become enraged about the absence of a living wage amongst some of the university workforce.

The absurdity of this appears to be lost on even the most vocal of students – and those hyperventilating over just how many pints you could buy with that seem to be missing their own point.

Obviously £1.4million is a large investment, but let’s take a brief breather on the second half of that statement: it is, undeniably, an investment. It adds to the University’s overall wealth, it provides financial security and it diversifies their portfolio of assets.

It makes basic financial sense and it’s nothing new. All of Durham’s ‘supposed’ competitors – Yale, Oxford and Cambridge, to name but a few – have sizeable investments in a myriad of diverse (and yes, expensive) art collections, which, in the current financial climate, are not a bad place to hide your cash.

Durham took a hit last year when £2million worth of Chinese artefacts were stolen from the Oriental museum. Yet, oddly, I don’t recall anyone complaining about their presence in Durham, even though I’m fairly certain the Oriental museum is make-believe and frankly I’m impressed the thieves knew which wardrobe to climb through to find it.

Staking out the Oriental Museum.

It’s not how much money the University spent on art that should be the problem here. The issue is that they are content to allow monstrosities like the DSU and Elvet Riverside to continue their decrepit existence.

I don’t see, however, why having an incredible collection of art and fixing these facilities or paying our staff more, have to be mutually exclusive!

Warhol didn’t win out over the water damage; it’s not as if they cracked open the piggy bank labelled “Fix Stuff” and poured it into “Pretty Stuff”. That’s not the way budgets or fundraising work, and the importance of one shouldn’t negate the value of the other.

If you want to get fired up about our underpaid staff and the utter nadir of eyesores that weary the Wear, be my guest, I’m right there with you. But that should not come at the expense – literally – of investing in incredible alternative assets. They are separate issues that require separate streams of funding.

At the end of the day, the Arts are already the underfunded bullied kid that gets shoved around in the playground. Let them have their moment.