There is a lot of raucous uproar about the funding cuts to the arts in Canada by current Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Here's Bromby's opinion. This one steams me a little...
Bromby appreciates the arts, he has a degree in dramatic arts and a background in the theatre. The arts thrive because we live in a fairly prosperous society that enjoys being entertained and values art. Most of these people do not mind paying to be entertained or to pay for books, movies, music etc.
Good art has an audience and gets 'funding' from the people who appreciate it.
Bad art has no audience and needs 'funding' from people with pull in government.
Cutting funding to the arts does not hurt good art - it simply makes being a crappy artist an unsustainable career. We don't need more crappy artists.
OK 'crappy' is a subjective term - so then how is it decided who get funding and who doesn't? Are you telling me the government has a system of determining which artists are worthy of funding? People argue that just because art is not commercially successful, does not mean it doesn't have merit. The artist should be allowed to pursue the noble cause of art for art's sake, and the hard working store owner and police officer should foot the bill through their taxes for these delicate geniuses who are simply too precious to do real work.
People argue that the free market is cruel to artists - because it degrades the complexity of the artistic human soul to produce 'commercial' art. 'Commercial' simply means art that someone else would actually value and be willing to pay for. I hate to generalize but if no one would value it or pay for it- isn't that art simply bad? Why should hard working Canadians subsidize the decadent lifestyle of the artist pretentiously producing art for their own amusement and for the amusement of a minute group of elitists that feel the tastes of the general public are not sophisticated enough to appreciate it.
Art that is produced only for the gratification of the artist is masturbation - why not have the government subsidize that too?
- Bromby
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
With all due respect, there are a few things about your post that seem to lack substance:
Good art has an audience and gets 'funding' from the people who appreciate it.
Bad art has no audience and needs 'funding' from people with pull in government.
Should we start here?
Or perhaps there's a better place to begin a discussion about this issue - let's talk about parliamentary protocol for terminating legislated funding programs.
Re:Why should hard working Canadians subsidize the decadent lifestyle of the artist pretentiously producing art for their own amusement and for the amusement of a minute group of elitists that feel the tastes of the general public are not sophisticated enough to appreciate it.
Isn't this a strawman? I mean how are you going to assert the truth of that one?
Re:Art that is produced only for the gratification of the artist is masturbation - why not have the government subsidize that too?
Let me just offer you this:
this
Oh, and out of interest, I was wondering who your favourite Canadian artist(s) was(are)...You know, like do you prefer Atwood or Robertson Davies? Do you like Patrick Watson, Avril, Leonard Cohen? Do you like Cronenberg films? How 'bout those of Arcand? Have you ever seen the choreography of James Kudelka? The photographs of Jeff Wall or Rodney Graham? What art do you appreciate?
Hi mystereeso - glad to see an opposing viewpoint.
Nobody has ever given a valid reason as to why the arts should be funded by taxpayers. The only thing I hear as retaliation is that - "you hate the arts".
I personally would love to see the arts thrive. I also think that I'd like to see grocers and auto mechanics thrive - let's give funding to them too! I mean there are some auto mechanics out there whose work is 'less commercial'than other mechanics, but why should that prevent him from fulifilling his personal journey?
As for Canadian artists that I follow, I like artists, but I don't specifically follow them because they are Canadian - that's simply shallow. I am a big Cronenberg fan, but I prefer David Lynch - Rush is one of my favourite groups, I also like Neil Young. But these are artists I appreciate that also happen to be Canadian.
As for following 'parliamentary protocol for terminating legislated funding programs' - that sounds too slow. Sometimes its better to rip the band-aid right off.
- Bromby
Re:
Nobody has ever given a valid reason as to why the arts should be funded by taxpayers. The only thing I hear as retaliation is that - "you hate the arts"
Are you sure about that? What about The recent Conference Board of Canada Report? You can find it here
Re:
I personally would love to see the arts thrive. I also think that I'd like to see grocers and auto mechanics thrive - let's give funding to them too! I mean there are some auto mechanics out there whose work is 'less commercial'than other mechanics, but why should that prevent him from fulifilling his personal journey?
Haha! You're talking about Bombardier right?
Re:
As for following 'parliamentary protocol for terminating legislated funding programs' - that sounds too slow. Sometimes its better to rip the band-aid right off.
You are advocating minority government as executive fiat? Not exactly democratic is it?
Bromby's totally right about good art being self-funded. I've attended the unveiling parties of several collections and in each and every case, the paintings were sold for ridiculous rates. If they were able to sell a painting every few weeks they'd be making six figures kind of rates. The government doesn't need to subsidize good painters any more than it needs to subsidize good fashion designers or good writers or good actors. If you're "in vogue" it's a nice living. If you're not, then it's just like any other profession.
Oh, you're a patron then, Janus. Let's talk, what collections are you seeing "unveiled at parties"?
It seems that you, mystereeoso fancy yourself to have a finer appreciation of the arts. Which is why you seem to keep coming back to the question of which artists we prefer. The question is completely irrelevant as it is only a matter of taste. Even if I'm a huge Jeff Foxworthy fan - that still makes me a consumer of art. Whether you feel your sense of taste is better than the majority does not empower you to spend their money on something they don't appreciate.
Good artists already make money and don't need charity from the working class.
Actually, you seem to be reading a lot into my question to Janus, Bromby. Allow me to reiterate. What "collections" are you seeing "unveiled at parties"?
As to the matter of "taste" - give it some consideration and tell me what's wrong with the following statements made by you:
Good art has an audience and gets 'funding' from the people who appreciate it.
Bad art has no audience and needs 'funding' from people with pull in government.
I do wonder about these unveiling parties that Janus is going to - who's "unveiling" these "collections" (of I presume visual art) that sell for so much money and how do I get an invite to one of these parties?
My mistake, I was definitely reading more into that statement than was actually there.
As for the two statements you quoted - I give up. I'm not sure what is flawed about the statements, it is merely a comment on how I feel the free market is generous to the arts and there are many paying patrons. Perhaps the words 'good' and 'bad' are too subjective - because maybe it's simplistic to equate 'good' art with commercially viable art. But every professional has to do work that is less fulfilling to pay the bills until they make it.
If you love your art - sometimes you have to do a few Taco Bell commercials before getting to do Hamlet.
Prior to getting my degree and starting my own business, I worked security at several of the biggest buildings in Houston. At Williams Tower, on the first floor lobby (Williams Tower has 3 lobbies, two of which are public) exhibits are routinely displayed and are changed every 4-6 months. Roughly every other exhibit is a for-profit venture. When the old paintings or sculptures or whatever are taken out, the new ones are brought in over the weekend and after hours that Monday night they throw a black tie party complete with champagne and catered food. Bids on the paintings are solicited during these parties and for the period during which they are shown. When it's time for the exhibit to be taken down, the art is boxed and shipped to the highest bidder. The cheapest I ever saw a painting sell for there was $1500. If you don't believe me, google it.
Bromby, the goodness or badness of the work of art - is a decision for an audience to make. Art that doesn't get seen doesn't get assessed. No audience, no witnesses? Guess what? The artist and their work are presumed dead.
Janus, those sound like "rich galas" you have been attending. Interesting - they were in Houston! Let's talk about Canada my little Pumpkin! Have you ever been to an event like that here?
What does my home town have to do with the undisputable fact that good art is self-funding? Are you trying to tell me that there are no rich people in Canada and therefore Canadians should have theirs tax dollars spent on subsidizing an industry?? I neither agree with the inference you have come to nor the conclusion you've made based upon it. If you want to try to build a case for why art is not capable of self-funding, stop trying to dance around the issue and provide us with with solid counter-arguments.
Does a "black tie party complete with champagne and catered food" not sound like a "rich gala" to you? Was I supposed to come to a different conclusion? Lets talk about Canadian art in Canada since that is the election issue Bromby has so kindly brought to the fore.
I really prefer not to be exclusionary towards readers from other countries. The issues discussed are fairly universal and can be debated anywhere.
As for the gala being for the rich - isn't that good? Doesn't it prove that there is a market for art and that they have deep pockets?
I reject the argument that an artist can't get an audience without funding. Good artists will shine - with or without funding. I've been surrounded by artists much of my life. For the most part - the ones that complain about lack of funding are just making excuses. They have paint and empty canvasses at home, yet hang out in bars and coffee shops wasting their lives complaining about how slanted the 'system' is. A true painter paints. Nothing, not poverty or lack of funding can pry the paint brush from their hands.
Artists who need funding are the wannabes who 'dabble' and are looking for any way to avoid getting a real job.
Our society has an insatiable apetite for art - and individuals rich or poor throw tons of money down for music, books and movies. There is no reason that even a mediocre artist can't make a living.
Re: "As for the gala being for the rich - isn't that good? Doesn't it prove that there is a market for art and that they have deep pockets?"
Ask Stephen Harper.
Re: "I reject the argument that an artist can't get an audience without funding.
No one is making that argument ( or any other yet actually).
Re: " Good artists will shine - with or without funding. I've been surrounded by artists much of my life. For the most part - the ones that complain about lack of funding are just making excuses. They have paint and empty canvasses at home, yet hang out in bars and coffee shops wasting their lives complaining about how slanted the 'system' is. A true painter - paints - nothing - not poverty - or lack of funding can pry the paint brush from their hands.
Artists who need funding are the wannabes who 'dabble' and are looking for any way to avoid getting a real job."
Uh Huh.Prove it.
Re: "Our society has an insatiable apetite for art - and individuals rich or poor throw tons of money down for music, books and movies. There is no reason that even a mediocre artist can't make a living."
Nor is there any reason they shouldn't have access to Canadian diplomatic, consular support when through their success, their proven artistic merit they are invited to exhibit or perform elsewhere on the planet.
First of all, Canada is not the sole realm in which art is produced, nor is it the sole realm in which there is a market for it, nor is is the sole realm where artists live, nor is it somehow unique in its relationship with artists. Claiming that Canadians are some how special when it comes to their policy decisions is wrong, and claiming that just because I'm an American and my opinion therefore has no merit is bigoted.
Secondly, I still haven't seen you argue that good art is not self-funding.
Thirdly (and the reason I bothered to post again), the notion that artists love art is very true. To "prove it" as you so elegantly challenged, I will relay another bit of information about my personal life.
1) One of my best friends has a degree in art. He is a web graphics designer. He doesn't paint, he doesn't travel, he doesn't get invited to black tie galas, but he's still an artist with a decent income.
2) The mother of my room mate has her degree in art. She is a bona fide artist. She doesn't paint, she doesn't travel, she doesn't get invited to black tie galas. She converts artwork that pre-teen cancer patients make for holiday greeting cards into layered images so that they can be mass reproduced. She makes a good living.
3) A friend of mine from elementary school graduated with a degree in art. He HAS traveled and been invited to black tie events showing off his work. His last really cool post modern thing was a diorama of a room. In the room was a "clapper" that turned on a recording that clapped. Anyone who clapped on the lights triggered the recording that turned them off again. He's a barista at starbucks.
Even mediocre artists can find money in artistic fields designing artistic things. They just have to provide some sort of contribution to society to has some monetary value.
Well put Janus.
Re:
"First of all, Canada is not the sole realm in which art is produced"
and
"nor is it the sole realm in which there is a market for it"
and
" nor is is the sole realm where artists live"
and
"nor is it somehow unique in its relationship with artists"
That is four straw men in a row. Who is making those claims and where?
Re:
"Claiming that Canadians are some how special when it comes to their policy decisions is wrong".
I believe the point, Janus, is that virtually every country in the first world has some sort of national arts funding. So again, hot air is what you have managed to say in words;-)
Re
"and claiming that just because I'm an American and my opinion therefore has no merit is bigoted."
Nice try. But that has simply not been said here. Let me just refer you to the first bit of Bromby's post:
"There is a lot of raucous uproar about the funding cuts to the arts in Canada by current Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper."
If you are of the opinion that a request for sticking to the topic - of recent cuts to Canadian arts funding programs amounts to bigotry, I must say your opinion ( Canadian, American whatever it is) really doesn't have much merit.
Re:
"Secondly, I still haven't seen you argue that good art is not self-funding."
Hello?
Re:
"Even mediocre artists can find money in artistic fields designing artistic things. They just have to provide some sort of contribution to society to has some monetary value."
I refer you here
The study that you've linked to (which I assume you didn't read) is about movies, television, music, radio, books, magazines, newspapers, software developers, and the internet. It doesn't help your point -- in fact, it supports my own point that good art is self-funding. It goes into fairly respectable detail about the ammount of money that for-profit artistic enterprise is generating for the Candian ecconomy.
The study that you youself have cited indicates that, if I was generous enough to add photography to the visual and performing arts, you get 1/7th of that so-called industry that produces that 4% of Canada's GDP. Assuming (and I don't agree with the assumption AT ALL) that 100% of the visual and performing arts would vanish completely without government intevetion, you've lost 4.8 billion dollars worth of enterprise to save 7.7 billion dollars of the tax payer's money.
Thank you for proving my point.
The cultural sector includes, yes, movies books, the internet and television and also, visual art(which includes photography) theatre, music and dance.
Your interpretation of the study is bizarre, but entertaining. Maybe take another gander at it. Or since you're interested in how taxpayers money is spent - (Canadian taxpayers right?) check out some of the ways our government spent our money in the months leading up to the election.
While you do seem to have some rather strong yet unfounded opinions about the arts, Janus, you haven't made a single coherent point yet.
Before we get off topic, there are hundreds of examples about how our government spends our money that I don't approve of. In general the conservative point of view is that governments take far too much money from taxpayers programs and initiatives that the government should not be involved in at all. However, both Canada's Conservatives and the US Republicans have been guilty of tax & spend.
What I object to is the feeling that artists (or anyone else) are somehow entitled to my money. This creates a climate where artists are encouraged to be dependant rather than enterprising.
Oh good. Let's stay on topic.
And let's take it point by point:
Tell me about this "feeling" you have "that artists (or anyone else) are somehow entitled to your money."
If your argument is with taxation in general - fine eliminate taxes. And stop pissing on artists.
If someone offered you stock that returned eleven dollars for every single dollar you invested, would you buy it? Would you say it was a fairly shrewd investment? I ask you because that is the return on the Canadian government's investment in the arts/cultural sector.
Re:
"This creates a climate where artists are encouraged to be dependant rather than enterprising."
It might create a climate of dependency IF government was the sole source of funding for the arts which it is not. Never has been.
Yes - absolutely I would invest one dollar to get eleven dollars - in a heartbeat.
So would any private sector investor. Capitalists always seek a return on their investment - and if investing one dollar in a venture - even an artisting one were likely to provide a return (even a 20% return, compared to the 1000% return cited in your example) that artist would be hounded by willing investors.
If that artist needs time to develop their art, they can work at Starbucks in the mean time to refine their craft.
I get the feeling that we are going in circles here - I feel Janus and myself have hit a number of bullseyes but the bull still keeps coming.
Re "Yes - absolutely I would invest one dollar to get eleven dollars - in a heartbeat."
So where is your personal investment in the arts?
Read what you wrote:
"Capitalists always seek a return on their investment - and if investing one dollar in a venture - even an artisting one were likely to provide a return (even a 20% return, compared to the 1000% return cited in your example) that artist would be hounded by willing investors."
Artsisting? what kind of a bullseye is that?
Sorry, Artisting?
Back up - you said
"Why should hard working Canadians subsidize the decadent lifestyle of the artist pretentiously producing art for their own amusement and for the amusement of a minute group of elitists that feel the tastes of the general public are not sophisticated enough to appreciate it."
Cultural industries account for 7.4% of Canada's gross domestic product, to the tune of 86 billion in revenues in 2007. Those industries employ over a million Canadians. The average artist in Canada earns 23,000 before taxes anually. Tell me about the decadent lifestyle of the pretentious artist we're supporting?
Artisting was a typo - supposed to be artistic.
BULLSEYE!!!!
Most of my investment capital is in real estate and my own software company. An investment that will predictably give a 1000% return is a ludicrous idea - it does not exist. If it did it would be devoured instantly by packs of guys in suits and ties.
I fund the arts when I buy music, movies and books - I NEVER download illegally. I chide friends who do - unlike many leftists who scoff at copyright when its convenient.
ok artistic
Re: " An investment that will predictably give a 1000% return is a ludicrous idea - it does not exist."
Well those are the statistics for 2007 on government funding and the arts - Are you just going to deny it?
Also how do you respond to my last question?
also when you buy a cd - you consume the arts - funding or rather investing is something else, no?
Also how do you respond to my last question?
I wonder the same thing. How do you respond to my last question. You have a tendency to not read things, so I'll say it again: Please make, as concise as you possibly can, an argument for why public money should be given to an enterprise that I have repeatedly proven to be self-funding.
In your response, kindly refrain from citing studies you didn't read or misquoting abstracts you don't understand.
I get the feeling you're here to argue, not debate. If I'm right, your next reply will dance around the issue, criticise the way I framed my question, and then posit questions that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Yep - I said that I don't invest in the arts, I merely fund it as a consumer. But money is money - as a business owner, I get capital from two places - investors and revenue from customers. Some businesses get grants and goodies from the government but as a conservative I am primarily against that. It is entirely possible to fund a venture, artistic or other through private means - either from pure revenue or from private investors looking to gain a return.
What we're disputing is the claim that artists have a moral right to get that investment at the expense of the taxpayer who may or may not be interested in the arts. If that artistic venture has actual potential to provide a monetary return (as that government funded report ludicrously claims to be 1000%) then those individuals would be swarmed by private. investment.
My question was for Bromby Janus, and he answered it. Thank you Bromby for differentiating between the types of funding you get and the types of funding of which you approve.
And thank you for reiterating your dispute. So allow me to also reiterate.
No one has said artists have a moral right to funding, nor has anyone said artists funding should supercede other programs. Nevertheless, we do have funding for culture, and a tradition of funding the arts in Canada, a tradition arrived at via democratic process.
The last round of pre election cuts to the arts were made by members of a minority government in secret, outside parliamentary protocol, by executive fiat. This is not democracy at work and yes, artists are mystified and angry about it.
Interesting that you remain in denial about the validity of the stats - of course that's your prerogative even if it does leave you with egg on your face.
Janus, you bet I came here to argue and I have said why - the two of you are saying some very unfounded things about art and artists. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but it seems pretty unfounded in fact, no matter how many friends you have that went to art school and work at starbucks.
I know you probably just want some attention - everyone needs love. Good luck in life and remember, next time you're shelling out money for something - it's printed right there on the twenty.
So, beyond making personal attacks on people, insisting people back up their arguments while providing no support for your own, and links to things you haven't read, you have nothing to add?
Yeah, I think we're done here. Thanks.
Seriously.
Break out those twenty dollar bills and have a good long look at them Janus, and remember, as a two faced individual you have more eyes and ears than ordinary people - so be sure to get out there and take advantage of them. You're one LUCKY tadpole!
Post a Comment