Canadian Arts Funding

[vanisleflamesfan]

Reading the discussion of Harper’s cuts to the arts in the debate thread has really got my blood boiling over this issue. Please forgive me if you don’t think that this deserves a separate thread, and please forgive the length of this post, but this is something that I feel very strongly about.

This is a truly difficult topic. First of all, there is a real issue here that tends to get muddled up in people’s personal opinions of art. Just because you don’t like the work that an artist is creating, does not mean that it does not have value. If you have a difficult time in appreciating or understanding contemporary art, perhaps you should ask yourself a question: have you ever really tried. Perhaps you don’t have the knowledge to understand what you are looking at from an artistic perspective. Art tends to be one of those things where the more you know about where it is coming from, where it has been and what it meant in the past, the more you can appreciate where it is now and what it is trying to say now. You have to think about art, you have to make an effort to engage with it. I mean seriously, I am not saying that you have to like all art; in fact, the point of some art is that you will hate it. Art is meant to challenge you, to make you think, to make you react on an emotional level. Any emotional response is fine, just have one. Go and look at some contemporary art. The point here is that you cannot dispel the value of the cultural industry in this country just because you don’t happen to like a particular piece of art.

First off, let me give you my personal reasons for having an interest in this issue. I work in a museum. I spent many years paying tuition to gain the education that is required to work in this field. I do not work in the art section of this museum but rather I am focused on the material culture of indigenous peoples. I spent years in school learning how to care for, conserve, catalogue, interpret, research and exhibit the material culture of aboriginal societies. Am I an artist? No. Is the food on my table paid for largely by the Canadian tax payer? For the most part, yes.

I could have spent my years in school learning how to do something else; I could have been an engineer, or an oil and gas marketer. And I assure you, had I made that choice, I would have a lot more money in my pocket than I do now. I am not some rich snob standing around at a fancy gala complaining that the government does not give me enough money. I don’t want more; I just want to be paid fairly for what I do and I don’t think that this is unreasonable. Don’t think for a second that Harper’s cuts to arts funding don’t threaten that. The museum I work at, like most museums, is a not for profit agency. We require government funding to keep the lights on, to conserve the collections that we hold in trust for all Albertans, to continue to do the work that we do. There are legitimate social and ethical reasons why museums need to be run in a not for profit way. You can’t privatize culture, you can’t turn over the collections of the province to a private company. You can’t let a corporation dictate to you, and editorialize the content that you put on the walls. We are academics, we research and study collections and then we present the findings of that research to the public in the form of exhibitions. We are in the business of representing truth and facts; that cannot be compromised.

Every day I work with a collection of cultural artifacts that belong to the people of Alberta. That’s right. The people of Alberta own a massive collection of artistic, historical and cultural objects that would, on the open auction market, have a fair market value of millions upon millions of dollars. My job is to care for those objects, to see that they last for the next ten generations of Albertans to learn from. And I am not alone, my museum employs nearly two hundred people like me who feel that there is a value in education, who feel that giving Albertans access to the collections that they own is important. At the end of the day that is what my museum, and museums all across this country do; we educate. Some may educate people about art, be it historical, contemporary, visual, film or otherwise. Some may educate people about their history, or in my particular case, about the cultures of the indigenous people in this area and all around the world. And we do this every day because we know that there is value in teaching people about these things. There is value in learning about other ways of seeing the world, other ways of structuring a social system, other ways of looking at art or history or music or dance. Another poster, in the debate thread, mentioned that he had no idea about the social conditions on some Canadian reserves. There are museums all around the country working with First Nations communities to make these issues known, to give the issues facing contemporary Aboriginal cultures a wider scope. We provide time and space to showcase the work of contemporary artists who are screaming this message to Canadians through their work. Don’t try to tell me that this work has no value just because you don’t happen to like a piece of contemporary art.

The actual nuts and bolts of arts funding in Canada has to do with bringing the work that I, and others like me, do to all Canadians. It has to do with allowing people in Swan Hills or Brooks or Grande Prairie to see the artistic, historical, and cultural objects that they own. It is about allowing these people to learn from these collections in the same way that people in Calgary or Edmonton can. There are so many misconceptions regarding arts funding in Canada that I can’t even really begin to try and dispel them here. However, I will say this; the largest misconception seems to be that arts funding means paying a salary to an individual artist. That is not correct. The bulk of arts funding in Canada goes to support larger structures that make artistic, historical, and cultural materials available to all Canadians. Harper can sell the idea of cutting arts funding to Canadians by making them believe that his government no longer wants to pay to support artists who are making difficult, controversial, even silly art. But the real heart of this matter is that his cuts make it harder for museums to do their work. It makes it harder for the Calgarian violin virtuoso to get a job with the Calgary Philharmonic. It makes it harder for a small town historical society to prevent a valuable historical object from falling into the hands of a private collector, never to be seen or learned from by all Alberta citizens. These things are important and they have nothing to do with propping up an individual artist with a government grant. Harper’s cuts mean deeply affecting the ability of cultural organizations to continue to educate all Canadians.

So the next time you think you are fine with Mr. Harper cutting funding to the arts, go to a museum. Go to learn something about the history of the place you live in. Go to learn something about another culture that you may have an incorrect assumption about. Go to get enraged or inspired by a piece of challenging contemporary art. Or just go for the sheer aesthetic pleasure of looking at something beautiful. After that, you can begin to rethink whether or not that has any value to you as a Canadian.

[burn_this_city]

I agree with a lot of what you say. I just feel that there are certain artists out there who do not deserve public funding. Exhibits made of feces have absolutely no artistic merit. Its shock garbage designed to gain media attention for someone with no artistic talent.

[peter12]

The government has no business funding arts or culture. It is my opinion that these are supposed to be the product of a society. If you truly believe what you are doing is worthwhile and profound, you should be able to reach out to your community for support. Many good artists have done this and it has worked out very well.

[Ronald Pagan]

Government's should fund public goods like bridges and such. To some extent I believe that art is a public good and governments have some obligation to funding artistic ends. The problem is valuing art's contribution to society and it is an inherently personal opinion.

Commercially viable art doesn't need funding but alot of art isn't commercially viable and still has intrinsic value.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by fotze

I actually like the shock artists and the more interesting art more than bronze broncos and paintings of landscapes. But that being said I think with scarce resources (cash) the citizens of the country have to draw up a priority of X "things" to spend that money on and allocate a percent to those things. What the resulting priorities and their average allocation works out to be is what the gov't should spend money on. My questionaiire would unfortunately have arts on the lower end of the priority list. I have a basic budgeting outlook. You spend your money on the things you feel are the most important.

Dude, I totally agree. I like the weirder stuff too. My point is though, that true art is a social responsibilty, not a government one. Granting agencies have their own biases and I think art should be free of that. It's supposed to be spontaneous and daring, not based on whether you can get the appropriate funds.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Government's should fund public goods like bridges and such. To some extent I believe that art is a public good and governments have some obligation to funding artistic ends. The problem is valuing art's contribution to society and it is an inherently personal opinion.

Commercially viable art doesn't need funding but alot of art isn't commercially viable and still has intrinsic value.

I don't think anyone would argue with that, however is it government's role to fund this or is it the work of society through voluntary organizations?

[mykalberta]

Everyone supports the arts. The question is what % of the budget should go to it.

If you have a % in mind please list the other % = 100 so we know where you would cut etc.

Its not that I dont want to support the arts, its that I dont want to pay more taxes to support it, and as such I have higher priorities for things that my tax dollars should go to.

Also, I dont believe that Arts is simply the way Canada defines itself vs the US. Alot of what is considered art in this country simply exists as a back door anti American sentiment.

Canada needs to realize that it has less people than California and as such we need to pick and choose our arts battles. I think more money should be directed at less "Canadiana" which basically means Anti Americanism and more pro Canadian heritage and culture. So what if we like some of the same things the US does, or if we like to watch US TV shows. Quit trying to shove Corner Gas down our throats and direct that money to educating people via cinema, tv, museums etc about our rich history.

Why someone hasnt made a "Band of Brothers" for Canada I will never know.

[Ronald Pagan]

Why would community organizations fund art any more than they would fund a bridge?

They probably wont fund either.

If you believe that individual donors should fund arts then I would counter that by saying that by-in-large they don't.

[The Ditch]

I donated $1000 dollars a year for a couple of years to Alberta Ballet but they were so pretentious and smug I stopped doing it, I find that a lot of the arts isn't accessible to someone who isn't really involved, the average joe if you will.

[Thunderball]

Arts should be funded by patrons. Not the government.

What the government should do, is make it in the best interests of patrons to invest in the arts, primarily with tax breaks/incentives, and the occasional subsidy for museums/festivals/global exhibits/etc.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

If you believe that individual donors should fund arts then I would counter that by saying that by-in-large they don't.

You are correct... largely because the current Canadian tax system does not make it very lucrative to be a philanthropist... which is greatly in contrast to the US approach.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Why would community organizations fund art any more than they would fund a bridge?

They probably wont fund either.

If you believe that individual donors should fund arts then I would counter that by saying that by-in-large they don't.

That's a load of crap. A bridge is a lot different than a song. I buy a lot of independent artists work and I almost always make a point to buy artists that are NOT supported by government grants. I go to concerts regularly across Canada and the United States.

This is all out of my pocket and not the governments. Look at some of the major granting agencies in Calgary alone. They are huge in supporting artistic endeavours. Look at the long list of corporate sponsors for Calgary's Sled Island and Folk Festivals. Give me a break, Ronald.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Arts should be funded by patrons. Not the government.

What the government should do, is make it in the best interests of patrons to invest in the arts, primarily with tax breaks/incentives, and the occasional subsidy for museums/festivals/global exhibits/etc.

Bingo. Let's see 100% tax back on charitable investments. Americans make great art with little or no government involvement.

[MarchHare]

The government has no business funding arts or culture. It is my opinion that these are supposed to be the product of a society.

The same could be said of other sectors, though. Should the government be funding agriculture or any other industry that receives subsidies from the taxpayers, or should those sectors also live or die on their own?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The same could be said of other sectors, though. Should the government be funding agriculture or any other industry that receives subsidies from the taxpayers, or should those sectors also live or die on their own?

I think it's a huge disrespect to the institution of free expression to consider it just another sector that government should fund. What is art? It's the expression of the individual's and society's story and how it relates to life. This is alot more important than simple economics.

And to answer your question, put me in the camp of libertarians who say government should stay out and let sectors sink or swim under their own effiency standards.

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by peter12

That's a load of crap. A bridge is a lot different than a song. I buy a lot of independent artists work and I almost always make a point to buy artists that are NOT supported by government grants. I go to concerts regularly across Canada and the United States.

This is all out of my pocket and not the governments. Look at some of the major granting agencies in Calgary alone. They are huge in supporting artistic endeavours. Look at the long list of corporate sponsors for Calgary's Sled Island and Folk Festivals. Give me a break, Ronald.

I'm talking about public goods here. Songs are excludable. Bridges and Murals are are non-rivalrous.

Art shows, generally aren't excludable or rivalrous. The government, if it considers that art shows and murals have value, should fund them if it wants them to exist.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

I'm talking about public goods here. Songs are excludable. Bridges and Murals are are non-rivalrous.

Art shows, generally aren't excludable or rivalrous. The government, if it considers that art shows and murals have value, should fund them if it wants them to exist.

How is a mural a public good? Do we need a government agency that is responsible for painting culturally appropriate paintings on the side of buildings in need of an artistic facelift?

How about if a community or society wants an art show, mural, or culturally-accepted drum circle, they don't pay tax on their expenditures and they do it themselves? Why is it the government's business to determine what has value and what doesn't? That's censorship-lite and no one is good enough for that role.

[CaptainCrunch]

Ah Paris

I have a view of art that a lot of people don't agree with. I believe that the arts funding has been poorly managed because previous governments threw money at the cool or easy solutions and refused to actually create a program that encouraged grass routes arts. Thats not to say that the Conservatives have done this, but they have made one promise that I like.

First and foremost, funding shouldn't be going to the wine and cheese galas which are in place to sell art and artists, whether they find corporate sponsership, make people pay for entrance or whatever. If people like the art or the artist they should be more then willing to pay to get in, and to buy the art.

I strongly disagree with the government paying artists, or subsidizing their work, thats not the role of government, and it enters into the whole screaming of censorship if they fund one artist more then another, or if they decline to fund a movie, or artwork or whatever. If an artist is serious about making movies or art work or whatever then a big part of this as artists is to find funding from art appreciators, or banks or sponsers.

If an artist is not selling his or her art or film or etc, it shouldn't be up to Canadians to bail them out, I shouldn't have to help fund the making of Bubbles Galore, if I want my money to go to it, then it should be my choice to go to the movie, or rent the movie or buy the movie. If I have no appreciation for meat dresses, or if a crucifix dipped in Urine or a picture of jesus molesting a baby is personally offensive to me, then as a individual I find it offensive that the government is using my money to fund it.

My money shouldn't be going towards a 20 foot tall painting where the artist painted three lines and then sold it to the government of $1.3 million dollars.

Artist should be like business, the ultimate goal is to get people interested in your art, so they need to find a way to promote it, hey I'd be all for the government funding educational programs to encourage interest in arts or films or books, but that money is better funded by going to education instead of the artists pocket.

I like the idea of the government offering help for parents to enroll their kids in arts or dancing or whatever programs to build up grass roots support and interest from kids and helping parents do something for their kids.

In terms of priorities, to me it takes a bottom pier to economics, the environment, healthcare and national defence.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by fotze

If thats what the citizens want then yes, if not, then no. That's why I think that on every tax return you check off departments and priority of each on your tax form. The government doesn't even have to listen to it but it will give them a hell of a lot stronger sense of what the people want than the election process does.

If the government can't bring off a proper gun registry, then this is going to cost a 100 billion qutrillion bazillion dollars to scope out and implement.

[vanisleflamesfan]

Sigh...

I realize that my original post was long and boring, and I don't blame you if you didn't bother to read it, so let me sum up:

Arts funding in Canada actually has very little to do with paying individual artists to create art. That is what Harper wants you to believe in order to sell you on these cuts. Judging by how the bulk of the discussion has centred around how people don't think that government should give money to artists to create art they don't like, I would say that his work in this matter, is truly and effectively done.