Letter: Webber's art
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Your piece on Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber's art collection ("Taxpayers subsidise paintings on Lloyd Webber's walls", 10 November) misses some points. First, the dog-in-the-manger is an old fable that you must re- read; it is undoubtedly better for all of us that some fine pictures are available for the public to see most of the time rather than never. Second, the apparent tax loss to us because of his method of purchase of some of his pictures is a minute fraction of the tax that he pays; he could leave and take it all with him - new prospective South Bank gallery and all. Third, Lloyd Webber is a donor to the Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber Art Foundation. He has at least some entitlement to the pictures, therefore. Finally, art needs its patrons to be encouraged not tormented with gloating photos of their failed marriages. How are these relevant to your argument?
Jeffrey Stern
Heslington, North Yorkshire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments