Should we spend £50 million on restoring Canterbury Cathedral or on securing Damien Hirst's diamond skull for permanent exhibition in the UK?
Canterbury Cathedral v For The Love Of God
Jonathan Foyle - Canterbury Cathedral Stephen Bayley - Damien Hirst's For The Love Of God
One of our great cathedrals is cast against the most expensive artwork by a living artist.
Style guru Stephen Bayley argues that Damien Hirst’s artwork For the Love of God – a skull encrusted with over 8000 diamonds – should be bought for the nation; while Jonathan Foyle, of the World Monuments Fund, campaigns for the restoration of Canterbury Cathedral, urgently in need of funds for its ageing infrastructure.
Which National Treasure deserves £50 million?
Panel
Julie Goldsworthy - Liberal Democrat MP and Shadow Secretary of State for the Treasury.
Deborah Meaden - Successful businesswoman and dragon on BBC2's Dragon's Den.
Robert Hewison - Critic, cultural historian and associate of the think tank Demos.
Larry Phillips - Decision analyst.
For more information on Canterbury Cathedral and For The Love of God, see:
Which do you think would be the better investment?
The restoration of Canterbury Cathedral
540 votes
The purchase of Damien Hirst's diamond-encrusted skull
37 votes
Total votes: 577
This is not a representative poll and the figures do not purport to represent public opinion as a whole on this issue
Have Your Say
Which is more deserving of a fifty million pound handout and why?
Please state clearly if you wish to remain anonymous as your message may be read out on air or published electronically.
MCP London What surprising and stimulating programmes! I expected Hirst vs. Canterbury to be a 'no brainer', but it has occupied much of my thoughts, and been the topic of family discussion for two days now. What is art?, creativity?, heritage?, culture?, and how do you measure value and values? Thanks and more please.
Susan - North Herts I have visited Canterbury Cathedral and the structure, especially viewed from the inside, is totally awesome. To contribute towards its continuation would demonstrate that as a nation we actually have not been duped by the transient: we actually do respect the true talent that was employed in the construction of Canterbury Cathedral. I also think it worth preserving for the spirituality of the Crypt.
Mary Ann Phillips Damien Hirst's diamond skull, in one small object, speaks across generations directly of life and death, beauty and decay--the very heart of today's discussion. Yeats's words bring Hirst to mind, when he wrote: "...And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
Matt in London The profile of British art, and art in general, has been given a huge boost by Damien Hirst and other BritArt figures (collectors and dealers included) since the early 1990s. Whether or not you appreciate their art is irrelevant, as public interest in art has swelled. This is beneficial to all artists, not just those of a conceptual nature. The positive cultural and financial benefits of this are obvious. £50m to retain an internationally renowned part of the British artistic canon, and the direct and indirect investment and value associated with it, may be a rather astute investment.
Francesca Santoro L'hoir, Irvine, California Living in southern California where flashy transience reigns triumphant, I am confident that Britain will treasure the timeless magnificence of its cultural heritage over the trendy and trashy trinket of the moment.
E Mosley, London This is a great programme and I listen with interest to the arguments for and against each 'treasure' each week. Would it be possible to extend the format to other things maybe? Many political and social end desicions are presented in the news with scandal / outrage, yet the ideas and arguments behind it (and from all sides) are often left out or concealed in spin. It'd be a great way of picking things that are hot topics and debating them.It's really interesting to hear how people's decisions are reached and the types of criteria that need to be applied in order to make what might just be an emotional reaction into a (mostly!) rational one... As someone who can't always articulate my arguments clearly and succinctly, this is a great source of inspiration!
Peter Plodd - London Canterbury Cathedral could raise more money on a continuing basis by encouraging our contemporary artists to create and donate works for its site. Certainly Chichester did this many years ago under an enlighted clergyman. This would also ensure the continuation of a cultural heritage, and not merely retain a monument to the past.
Philip Clements, Eastry, Sandwich. The two cannot be compared.The cathedral is a great place for gatherings, for worship and other events.It is therefore functional as well as inspiring and life enhancing. It testifies to the skills and devotion of centuries.The skull is beautiful but its effects are necessarily limited. It is an object to be enjoyed but cannot affect people in the same ways.
Tara, Mojacar, Spain Damien Hirst is incredibly exciting creatively. I wanted to hate For The Love Of God when I heard about it on the radio, but when I look at it, it's absolutely transfixing. Profoundly wonderous and self-referential.
Susannah, Bedford Damien Hirst should exhibit the skull at Canterbury Cathedral!
Alison McGillivray - Crowborough I would give my vote to Canterbury Cathedral. As a Modern Languages teacher I took many parties of foreign students round the cathdral. It is full of interest, depicts the glories of the past and is relevant to the plight of man in the present and the future, as it concentrates the mind on the role of the human spirit directed by God on the problems of our world. Many valuable hours can be spent contemplating this wonderful edifice. How can this be compared to a flleeting glance at Damian Hirst's diamond studded skull.
Valerie Humphrey, Hampshire As a trustee of various heritage organisations and a member of the 'flock', I was pleased to hear Canterbury Cathedral 'win'. In these days when bling and celebrity are valued in a disproportionate way, places like Canterbury can provide a multitude of benefits, and appeal to a variety of interests whether cultural, historical, architectural or spiritual. How many 'brands' can give you that!
Neville Austin, St Albans There are many cathedrals in Britain, and many much more beautiful than Canterbury (Durham, Salisbury, etc.). The world is full of cathedrals. We could spend every penny on keeping them all pristine in aspic. We look too much to the past anyway. The CofE could easily divert resources from its great range of expenditures. And especially as it wants the money to expand the cathedral's activities, not just to do some repairs on the fabric. Hirst's skull is difficult to evaluate, only time will tell whether it becomes to be seen as a deep work of contemporary thought or merely an expensive decoration like a Faberge egg. But I vote for the future.
Sean, Chatham Stephen Bayley, comparing Canterbury Cathedral with Damien Hirst’s Jewel Encrusted Skull, said that ‘Hirst’s art is popular; art that only speaks to 7 people is not art….’ ; the number of people who a so-called artwork ‘speaks’ to, is no measure of its art . The world is full of much crassness, which is, supposedly, art, and liked by ‘many people’. Could it be that Hirst’s work is supposedly popular, because the Journalists covering such work think it is, and therefore tell us it is popular, when it is not?; Yet another case of the Emperor’s New Clothes (sigh)Finally, the Bejewelled Skull; a tacky trinket, fit for the age.
Tim, the Cotswolds I can't believe we're even having this vote; how can you even put the two contestants in the same "ring". The skull is a grotesque and brash expression of man's lust and greed for shiny trinkets. Whatever one's faith, or lack of it, it cannot begin to compare with the hours of human effort and love in the construction of a beautiful structure.
Steve Ashton, Anglesey Damien Hurst's skull does nothing for me - it looks like childish attempts to be clever and to make money. Canterbury Cathedral, on the other hand, is our ancestors' desire to glorify something not quantifiable without personal gain.
Kevin Dini The Cathedral was built for a community, the Skull was built for sale.
joseph cambridge the skull is very underwhelming when seen for real , the design of the jewelling , whilst well crafted , is pretty banal .It is what it is , a jewel encrusted skull . It really does not elevate the spirit , in fact , in a way , it believes in nothing . Its all in the packaging.The Cathedral really is a spiritual endeavour that speaks volumes about the human spirit . The comparative argument is utterly vacuous .Come on , open your eyes.
Andrew Worthing Can the diamond set skull really be classed as a piece of art "by" Damien Hirst? - He had no hand in the making of the piece; he simply had the idea, and commissioned it, from the brilliant technicians who actually created it, so in a sense he is the customer. i.e. he could be described as a "patron of the arts" but not as an "Artist".
Robert Huber U.S.A. Canterbury Cathedral of course.
Claire Bisset, Hampshire As an investment asset, would the skull retain its value if Damien Hirst created another? Or would it be diminished by the loss of uniqueness? The skull was an idea by Hirst but created by jewellers and other skilled artists, and could easily be done again (wasn't there a story recently that a purchaser of one of his works found out that it was actually done by Hirst's daughter?)There will only be ever be one Canterbury Cathedral, which should be treasured along with our other disappearing history.
C Haydon, Hampshire "For the Love of God"? Have we gone completely mad? How can the magnificence of Canterbury Cathedral ever possibly be compared with a flashy, trashy piece of so-called art? I am no artist but have studied anatomy and even I could manage a favourable likeness to a human skull in diamonds - given enough diamonds! ...and this is called Art?
Ian Mitchell (Amesbury near Stonehenge) Whilst often jogging past Stonehenge, I have only once walked to Canterbury Cathedral, over night along the Pilgrim's route. Are there pilgrims who walk to see the skull? If buying it, as exhibit or stock, is sure to support the preservation of the cathedral, then buy it and use it but otherwise preserve the cathedral directly. This debate really did bring out the volatile nature of some currencies of cultural value. The cathedral has some of the calling that has crowds at Stonehenge every time I pass it. Preservation wins out over speculation.
Lizzie in Dorset Damien Hirst's skull can be appreciated and discussed enough from a decent photograph, whilst Canterbury is a multi dimensional space to be experienced on many levels. Perhaps Hirst should donate his work to the nation. I would always see the money go to the Cathedral, especially in terms of continuing the traditional craftsmanship of the stonemason and stonecarver and other crafts.
Jo in Dorking Is this a joke? A masterpiece of gothic architecture or a piece of work by someone who saws up sharks to sell to the gullible.
Sheridan - Vancouver, Canada For the love of God ! It's all about Bling. It’s impressive, but in comparison to the jewel like windows at Canterbury, “Adam Delving” nearly 1000 years old, the skull pales into insignificance. Damien Hurst, could make a replica for the country, with semi-precious gem stones, then to all intent and purposes his art would be for all to see, and admire.But you can't make a replica of the Cathedral and its jewels...Those Arts and craft have truly died out. The beauty and power of the space is truly timeless, and you don’t have to be an architect to appreciate that.
J. Russell, Derbyshire Canterbury Cathedral may be a monument to the wealth and status of its original proprietors,but it also represents the creativity and craftsmanship of ordinary people - think of the numbers of highly skilled artisans who worked on the structure. In contrast, Hirst's skull merely represents the conceits of power and privilege.
Sara May Greece Someone will buy the Hurst piece so it will continue to exist, if we don't invest in Canterbury Cathedral it may not> No contest. However wonderful a diamond encrusted skull is, a Cathedral as lovely as Canterbury is an inspirational succour to far more people.
Christine in Spain Christianity is based on the unexplainable miraculous healings that Jesus did. Thomas Becket did the same. This is God in action. Becket is obviously loved by God as much as Jesus. Money cannot buy that, but should be used to maintain it.
Mark Theodorson London & Baltimore i think Hirst is a brilliant artist and very clever with his work but to compare anything that a single artist has done in the last 50 years with a an international monument that is hundreds of years of old and represents one of the major architectural achievements of mankind is simply hideous.Dont vote for Hirst, vote for history!!!
Jam in Stroud The only thing that is "original" about Damien Hirst's skull, is the cost and the diamonds. His message is as old as the hills - and offered no further unique insight into the human condition.
Vanessa Jeger Why has the Church of England failed to maintain Canterbury Catherdral? Isn't the church of England wealthy enough to do it's own repairs? Couldn't the Church of England raise the money by selling some of it's own land to build well planned, affordable housing estates and get people out of our city ghettos. This might be a Christian way raising money and helping society too.
Andrew Tottenham The discussion about the value of Hirst's work missed the point. Similar to all assets, people will only pay £50 million for the skull if they believe the value will increase; they will be able to sell it for more inthe future.
Roger, Portsmouth Re previous discussions – I’d have given the money to the Cutty Sark. It’s something visible and tangible, and clearly as a tourist attraction money spent on it is an investment. As for the film archive, of course no one wants to lose historical records, but the content of this collection seemed rather vague. I see little point in saving long forgotten film. You can’t save everything – where would you put it all, and who would ever see it all? It’s like the stuff in the British Museum, most of it has never been seen by the public.Which leads me onto next week’s subjects: the restoration of a Midlands colliery and the purchase of some Poussins. Why oh why do we spend a fortune on paintings by dead foreign artists, just because some toff brought them here? OK, so some of these artists painted in this country, but most of the art world at the time passed us by. They have little to do with us or our history. I think we have more connection to the African art collected by our Victorian forefathers.Madonna of the Pinks? Flog it to the Getty – they’ll at least show it to many more people and take more care of it than we could.
C. Haworth Impressive as Mr. Hirst's "skull" is it pales into insignificance to Canterbury cathedral on the national scale even though it is purported to raise some deep questions- some of which are no doubt relevant to the existence of a cathedral on the grand scale of Canterbury- i.e. the faith, energies, monies, motives etc that it took to create such an impressive if now sadly forlorn venture. One of the problems with Hirst's "skull" is that it is a one man venture fashioned from the materials that are the scorn of many lives in this and past eras-it remains extremely exclusive and not inclusive, it does raise questions but answers few if any and most people find themselves in an ecclesiastical or existential form of reasoning or searching due to the fact that they don't have answers but have a great deal of time to ask questions. On every level, including an artistic one, Canterbury certainly deserves to be funded rather than the whims of playboy exhibitionists.
Michael Holding The last time I saw Canterbury Cathedral it looked like a theme park - you have to hand over your cash just to get a decent look. The CofE might as well go the whole hog and just hand it over to Disney as "God World"!
C Pearcey, Cheshire- Preserve the colliery!
Malloch Caldwell The purchase of the skull would just be pandering to the inane pretensions of those with more money than sense. Canterbury Cathedral is a part of the UK's national heritage that must be preserved at all costs.
joyce morgan london canterbury is my choice some wealthy person can by the skull and leave it to the nation possibly...no one can buy the cathedral
fiona clai brown To maintain the cathedral involves the skills of many types of skilled craftsmen and women -stonemasons, engineers, glass workers metal workers etc etc. thus helping to bring useful fulfilling work to the lives of many who are crying out for non academic and real valuable creative work the social value alone is enough to justify the choice of Canterbruy cathedral as the recipient of £50,000000 for restoration- I was surprised no one mentioned this aspect during the discussion..
rose in cumbria no one has debated the symbolism and meaning behind the skull. my view is that it talks to the viewer about the emptiness and death of the spirit associated with ostentatious wealth - dont put your faith/energy /money in material objects! perhaps it should be invested in our real national treasure - our young people and our future. Photograph the objects/ buildings study them and talk about them while we have them but its no different to investing in weapons of mass destruction - or nero fiddling while rome burns! people matter more
dianne kaufman kent history is littered with reputations that have not survived, damien hirst may well be one of these, and of course, even if he is not, anyone can always make another skull.
Jill Pratt in Huddersfield Shouldn't it count for Canterbury Cathedral that the £50 million will go to masons and other workers therefore the future investment is in people.
Send us your views on this week's topic.
Disclaimer: The BBC will put up as many of your comments as possible but we cannot guarantee that all e-mails will be published. The BBC reserves the right to edit comments that are published.
Please state clearly if you wish to remain anonymous as your message may be read out on air or published electronically.
MCP London
What surprising and stimulating programmes! I expected Hirst vs. Canterbury to be a 'no brainer', but it has occupied much of my thoughts, and been the topic of family discussion for two days now. What is art?, creativity?, heritage?, culture?, and how do you measure value and values? Thanks and more please.
Susan - North Herts
I have visited Canterbury Cathedral and the structure, especially viewed from the inside, is totally awesome. To contribute towards its continuation would demonstrate that as a nation we actually have not been duped by the transient: we actually do respect the true talent that was employed in the construction of Canterbury Cathedral. I also think it worth preserving for the spirituality of the Crypt.
Mary Ann Phillips
Damien Hirst's diamond skull, in one small object, speaks across generations directly of life and death, beauty and decay--the very heart of today's discussion. Yeats's words bring Hirst to mind, when he wrote: "...And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
Matt in London
The profile of British art, and art in general, has been given a huge boost by Damien Hirst and other BritArt figures (collectors and dealers included) since the early 1990s. Whether or not you appreciate their art is irrelevant, as public interest in art has swelled. This is beneficial to all artists, not just those of a conceptual nature. The positive cultural and financial benefits of this are obvious. £50m to retain an internationally renowned part of the British artistic canon, and the direct and indirect investment and value associated with it, may be a rather astute investment.
Francesca Santoro L'hoir, Irvine, California
Living in southern California where flashy transience reigns triumphant, I am confident that Britain will treasure the timeless magnificence of its cultural heritage over the trendy and trashy trinket of the moment.
E Mosley, London
This is a great programme and I listen with interest to the arguments for and against each 'treasure' each week. Would it be possible to extend the format to other things maybe? Many political and social end desicions are presented in the news with scandal / outrage, yet the ideas and arguments behind it (and from all sides) are often left out or concealed in spin. It'd be a great way of picking things that are hot topics and debating them.It's really interesting to hear how people's decisions are reached and the types of criteria that need to be applied in order to make what might just be an emotional reaction into a (mostly!) rational one... As someone who can't always articulate my arguments clearly and succinctly, this is a great source of inspiration!
Peter Plodd - London
Canterbury Cathedral could raise more money on a continuing basis by encouraging our contemporary artists to create and donate works for its site. Certainly Chichester did this many years ago under an enlighted clergyman. This would also ensure the continuation of a cultural heritage, and not merely retain a monument to the past.
Philip Clements, Eastry, Sandwich.
The two cannot be compared.The cathedral is a great place for gatherings, for worship and other events.It is therefore functional as well as inspiring and life enhancing. It testifies to the skills and devotion of centuries.The skull is beautiful but its effects are necessarily limited. It is an object to be enjoyed but cannot affect people in the same ways.
Tara, Mojacar, Spain
Damien Hirst is incredibly exciting creatively. I wanted to hate For The Love Of God when I heard about it on the radio, but when I look at it, it's absolutely transfixing. Profoundly wonderous and self-referential.
Susannah, Bedford
Damien Hirst should exhibit the skull at Canterbury Cathedral!
Alison McGillivray - Crowborough
I would give my vote to Canterbury Cathedral. As a Modern Languages teacher I took many parties of foreign students round the cathdral. It is full of interest, depicts the glories of the past and is relevant to the plight of man in the present and the future, as it concentrates the mind on the role of the human spirit directed by God on the problems of our world. Many valuable hours can be spent contemplating this wonderful edifice. How can this be compared to a flleeting glance at Damian Hirst's diamond studded skull.
Valerie Humphrey, Hampshire
As a trustee of various heritage organisations and a member of the 'flock', I was pleased to hear Canterbury Cathedral 'win'. In these days when bling and celebrity are valued in a disproportionate way, places like Canterbury can provide a multitude of benefits, and appeal to a variety of interests whether cultural, historical, architectural or spiritual. How many 'brands' can give you that!
Neville Austin, St Albans
There are many cathedrals in Britain, and many much more beautiful than Canterbury (Durham, Salisbury, etc.). The world is full of cathedrals. We could spend every penny on keeping them all pristine in aspic. We look too much to the past anyway. The CofE could easily divert resources from its great range of expenditures. And especially as it wants the money to expand the cathedral's activities, not just to do some repairs on the fabric. Hirst's skull is difficult to evaluate, only time will tell whether it becomes to be seen as a deep work of contemporary thought or merely an expensive decoration like a Faberge egg. But I vote for the future.
Sean, Chatham
Stephen Bayley, comparing Canterbury Cathedral with Damien Hirst’s Jewel Encrusted Skull, said that ‘Hirst’s art is popular; art that only speaks to 7 people is not art….’ ; the number of people who a so-called artwork ‘speaks’ to, is no measure of its art . The world is full of much crassness, which is, supposedly, art, and liked by ‘many people’. Could it be that Hirst’s work is supposedly popular, because the Journalists covering such work think it is, and therefore tell us it is popular, when it is not?; Yet another case of the Emperor’s New Clothes (sigh)Finally, the Bejewelled Skull; a tacky trinket, fit for the age.
Tim, the Cotswolds
I can't believe we're even having this vote; how can you even put the two contestants in the same "ring". The skull is a grotesque and brash expression of man's lust and greed for shiny trinkets. Whatever one's faith, or lack of it, it cannot begin to compare with the hours of human effort and love in the construction of a beautiful structure.
Steve Ashton, Anglesey
Damien Hurst's skull does nothing for me - it looks like childish attempts to be clever and to make money. Canterbury Cathedral, on the other hand, is our ancestors' desire to glorify something not quantifiable without personal gain.
Kevin Dini
The Cathedral was built for a community, the Skull was built for sale.
joseph cambridge
the skull is very underwhelming when seen for real , the design of the jewelling , whilst well crafted , is pretty banal .It is what it is , a jewel encrusted skull . It really does not elevate the spirit , in fact , in a way , it believes in nothing . Its all in the packaging.The Cathedral really is a spiritual endeavour that speaks volumes about the human spirit . The comparative argument is utterly vacuous .Come on , open your eyes.
Andrew Worthing
Can the diamond set skull really be classed as a piece of art "by" Damien Hirst? - He had no hand in the making of the piece; he simply had the idea, and commissioned it, from the brilliant technicians who actually created it, so in a sense he is the customer. i.e. he could be described as a "patron of the arts" but not as an "Artist".
Robert Huber U.S.A.
Canterbury Cathedral of course.
Claire Bisset, Hampshire
As an investment asset, would the skull retain its value if Damien Hirst created another? Or would it be diminished by the loss of uniqueness? The skull was an idea by Hirst but created by jewellers and other skilled artists, and could easily be done again (wasn't there a story recently that a purchaser of one of his works found out that it was actually done by Hirst's daughter?)There will only be ever be one Canterbury Cathedral, which should be treasured along with our other disappearing history.
C Haydon, Hampshire
"For the Love of God"? Have we gone completely mad? How can the magnificence of Canterbury Cathedral ever possibly be compared with a flashy, trashy piece of so-called art? I am no artist but have studied anatomy and even I could manage a favourable likeness to a human skull in diamonds - given enough diamonds! ...and this is called Art?
Ian Mitchell (Amesbury near Stonehenge)
Whilst often jogging past Stonehenge, I have only once walked to Canterbury Cathedral, over night along the Pilgrim's route. Are there pilgrims who walk to see the skull? If buying it, as exhibit or stock, is sure to support the preservation of the cathedral, then buy it and use it but otherwise preserve the cathedral directly. This debate really did bring out the volatile nature of some currencies of cultural value. The cathedral has some of the calling that has crowds at Stonehenge every time I pass it. Preservation wins out over speculation.
Lizzie in Dorset
Damien Hirst's skull can be appreciated and discussed enough from a decent photograph, whilst Canterbury is a multi dimensional space to be experienced on many levels. Perhaps Hirst should donate his work to the nation. I would always see the money go to the Cathedral, especially in terms of continuing the traditional craftsmanship of the stonemason and stonecarver and other crafts.
Jo in Dorking
Is this a joke? A masterpiece of gothic architecture or a piece of work by someone who saws up sharks to sell to the gullible.
Sheridan - Vancouver, Canada
For the love of God ! It's all about Bling. It’s impressive, but in comparison to the jewel like windows at Canterbury, “Adam Delving” nearly 1000 years old, the skull pales into insignificance. Damien Hurst, could make a replica for the country, with semi-precious gem stones, then to all intent and purposes his art would be for all to see, and admire.But you can't make a replica of the Cathedral and its jewels...Those Arts and craft have truly died out. The beauty and power of the space is truly timeless, and you don’t have to be an architect to appreciate that.
J. Russell, Derbyshire
Canterbury Cathedral may be a monument to the wealth and status of its original proprietors,but it also represents the creativity and craftsmanship of ordinary people - think of the numbers of highly skilled artisans who worked on the structure. In contrast, Hirst's skull merely represents the conceits of power and privilege.
Sara May Greece
Someone will buy the Hurst piece so it will continue to exist, if we don't invest in Canterbury Cathedral it may not> No contest. However wonderful a diamond encrusted skull is, a Cathedral as lovely as Canterbury is an inspirational succour to far more people.
Christine in Spain
Christianity is based on the unexplainable miraculous healings that Jesus did. Thomas Becket did the same. This is God in action. Becket is obviously loved by God as much as Jesus. Money cannot buy that, but should be used to maintain it.
Mark Theodorson London & Baltimore
i think Hirst is a brilliant artist and very clever with his work but to compare anything that a single artist has done in the last 50 years with a an international monument that is hundreds of years of old and represents one of the major architectural achievements of mankind is simply hideous.Dont vote for Hirst, vote for history!!!
Jam in Stroud
The only thing that is "original" about Damien Hirst's skull, is the cost and the diamonds. His message is as old as the hills - and offered no further unique insight into the human condition.
Vanessa Jeger
Why has the Church of England failed to maintain Canterbury Catherdral? Isn't the church of England wealthy enough to do it's own repairs? Couldn't the Church of England raise the money by selling some of it's own land to build well planned, affordable housing estates and get people out of our city ghettos. This might be a Christian way raising money and helping society too.
Andrew Tottenham
The discussion about the value of Hirst's work missed the point. Similar to all assets, people will only pay £50 million for the skull if they believe the value will increase; they will be able to sell it for more inthe future.
Roger, Portsmouth
Re previous discussions – I’d have given the money to the Cutty Sark. It’s something visible and tangible, and clearly as a tourist attraction money spent on it is an investment. As for the film archive, of course no one wants to lose historical records, but the content of this collection seemed rather vague. I see little point in saving long forgotten film. You can’t save everything – where would you put it all, and who would ever see it all? It’s like the stuff in the British Museum, most of it has never been seen by the public.Which leads me onto next week’s subjects: the restoration of a Midlands colliery and the purchase of some Poussins. Why oh why do we spend a fortune on paintings by dead foreign artists, just because some toff brought them here? OK, so some of these artists painted in this country, but most of the art world at the time passed us by. They have little to do with us or our history. I think we have more connection to the African art collected by our Victorian forefathers.Madonna of the Pinks? Flog it to the Getty – they’ll at least show it to many more people and take more care of it than we could.
C. Haworth
Impressive as Mr. Hirst's "skull" is it pales into insignificance to Canterbury cathedral on the national scale even though it is purported to raise some deep questions- some of which are no doubt relevant to the existence of a cathedral on the grand scale of Canterbury- i.e. the faith, energies, monies, motives etc that it took to create such an impressive if now sadly forlorn venture. One of the problems with Hirst's "skull" is that it is a one man venture fashioned from the materials that are the scorn of many lives in this and past eras-it remains extremely exclusive and not inclusive, it does raise questions but answers few if any and most people find themselves in an ecclesiastical or existential form of reasoning or searching due to the fact that they don't have answers but have a great deal of time to ask questions. On every level, including an artistic one, Canterbury certainly deserves to be funded rather than the whims of playboy exhibitionists.
Michael Holding
The last time I saw Canterbury Cathedral it looked like a theme park - you have to hand over your cash just to get a decent look. The CofE might as well go the whole hog and just hand it over to Disney as "God World"!
C Pearcey, Cheshire-
Preserve the colliery!
Malloch Caldwell
The purchase of the skull would just be pandering to the inane pretensions of those with more money than sense. Canterbury Cathedral is a part of the UK's national heritage that must be preserved at all costs.
joyce morgan london
canterbury is my choice some wealthy person can by the skull and leave it to the nation possibly...no one can buy the cathedral
fiona clai brown
To maintain the cathedral involves the skills of many types of skilled craftsmen and women -stonemasons, engineers, glass workers metal workers etc etc. thus helping to bring useful fulfilling work to the lives of many who are crying out for non academic and real valuable creative work the social value alone is enough to justify the choice of Canterbruy cathedral as the recipient of £50,000000 for restoration- I was surprised no one mentioned this aspect during the discussion..
rose in cumbria
no one has debated the symbolism and meaning behind the skull. my view is that it talks to the viewer about the emptiness and death of the spirit associated with ostentatious wealth - dont put your faith/energy /money in material objects! perhaps it should be invested in our real national treasure - our young people and our future. Photograph the objects/ buildings study them and talk about them while we have them but its no different to investing in weapons of mass destruction - or nero fiddling while rome burns! people matter more
dianne kaufman kent
history is littered with reputations that have not survived, damien hirst may well be one of these, and of course, even if he is not, anyone can always make another skull.
Jill Pratt in Huddersfield
Shouldn't it count for Canterbury Cathedral that the £50 million will go to masons and other workers therefore the future investment is in people.