Canadian Arts Funding

[kevman]

Originally Posted by 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.

I was just going to ask for the Coles notes version

Can you provide me a link to what was actually cut? In last nights debate Harper mentioned that he "cut programs that no longer worked" or something to that extent. Agreeing or Disagreeing with the term "Arts Cuts" is pretty hard when most people, myself included, don't actually know what was cut...

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by 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.

Cut is such a funny word... what Harper did was cut the expected increases to the arts funding, not the actual budget. He also said he would cut programs that didn't work.

I agree with you though to a point. Galleries, Museums, Libraries, etc., are a public trust. Governments do have to run and maintain them to an extent.

What gets me is Gordon Pinsent and the "Hollywood North" troupe crying poor because they can't buy the expensive chardonnay for their next meet and greet. He's not crying for your sector, he's crying for his. His sector is not deserving of public funds, nor are artists. The public trusts however are deserving of support, and by keeping those institutions afloat, and making it worthwhile for the private sector (corps. and individuals) to keep it strong, the system is maintained. Hell, look at the Zoo and all the private sponsors they have. Imagine if the government improved the tax benefits for charitable donations.

[vanisleflamesfan]

What Harper has cut so far is The Museums Assistance Program (MAP) by $4.63 million. MAP provides financial assistance to regional Canadian museums and galleries to improve Canadians' access to their heritage and foster the preservation, protection, and management of collections of Aboriginal cultures.

He has also eliminated the ETS or Exhibition Transportation Service. ETS was a federal government program which provided shipping services exclusively to public art galleries and museums across Canada. This service made it possible for small museums to host large exhibitions. I work in a large museum and since the demise of ETS our shipping costs have gone up by around 65%.

This effectively makes it impossible for smaller museums to host any susbstantial exhibitions.

As you can see, none of these cuts directly has anything to do with giving money to individual artists. But all of these things affect the ability of museums to continue to do their work.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by 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.

Calgary Philharmonic Orchestra for one.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by 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.

Very true. And even of money that benefits artists, much of it is directed toward institutions such as museums, galleries, festivals, publishers, etc. It is them, not the government, who makes the decisions about what artists benefit from funding. And when the government does directly supply money to artists, it is usually for promotion and distribution, as opposed to for creation of art. Most government grants for artists have requirements that you're continuing to grow your audience, increasing your private sector revenue and decreasing your dependence on government funding. The entire system is geared towards making artists more financially independent, not less.

[loob job]

Originally Posted by 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.

Couldn't agree more, put the money into health care.

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Very true. And even of money that benefits artists, much of it is directed toward institutions such as museums, galleries, festivals, publishers, etc. It is them, not the government, who makes the decisions about what artists benefit from funding. And when the government does directly supply money to artists, it is usually for promotion and distribution, as opposed to for creation of art. Most government grants for artists have requirements that you're continuing to grow your audience, increasing your private sector revenue and decreasing your dependence on government funding. The entire system is geared towards making artists more financially independent, not less.

Exactly!! Thank you!!

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

What Harper has cut so far is The Museums Assistance Program (MAP) by $4.63 million. MAP provides financial assistance to regional Canadian museums and galleries to improve Canadians' access to their heritage and foster the preservation, protection, and management of collections of Aboriginal cultures.

He has also eliminated the ETS or Exhibition Transportation Service. ETS was a federal government program which provided shipping services exclusively to public art galleries and museums across Canada. This service made it possible for small museums to host large exhibitions. I work in a large museum and since the demise of ETS our shipping costs have gone up by around 65%.

This effectively makes it impossible for smaller museums to host any susbstantial exhibitions.

As you can see, none of these cuts directly has anything to do with giving money to individual artists. But all of these things affect the ability of museums to continue to do their work.

Honestly, I appreciate the passionate defense of your position but I don't buy it, and your example just confirms my original thinking.

Whether it’s through check boxes, deductions, or just plain old giving or tickets, arts funding (and a million other things) should be voluntary. Some funding to preserve the assets makes sense, but the rest I don’t see.

There is nothing preventing smaller museums from getting anything they want, they simply have to find a way to fundraise on the front end or back end. If the exhibits are worth seeing people will pay to see them or travel to see them. And if no one will drive from a small centre to a large to see the stuff, or pay to see it in their own back yard, then the exhibit itself has little value. The stuff might, but not the production.

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Honestly, I appreciate the passionate defense of your position but I don't buy it, and your example just confirms my original thinking.

Whether it’s through check boxes, deductions, or just plain old giving or tickets, arts funding (and a million other things) should be voluntary. Some funding to preserve the assets makes sense, but the rest I don’t see.

There is nothing preventing smaller museums from getting anything they want, they simply have to find a way to fundraise on the front end or back end. If the exhibits are worth seeing people will pay to see them or travel to see them. And if no one will drive from a small centre to a large to see the stuff, or pay to see it in their own back yard, then the exhibit itself has little value. The stuff might, but not the production.

There are very real monetary factors that prevent smaller museums from getting “anything they want” without government intervention. Fundraising works because donors get tax breaks, and as such, the government has stipulated what you can and cannot raise funds for. The costs associated with bringing in even a small or moderate sized exhibit can be very high. Conservation, packing, shipping, insurance etc. are all costs that are very high. These costs cannot be paid with donor dollars. This is where the government used to come in with subsidized services such as ETS. Funding that has been cut has been funding that allows museums to defray these costs. Even if you could fundraise for these things, most communities that are the home to smaller museums do not have the corporate backing that would be able to donate at such a high level. Even here in a large centre, at a large museum, exhibition title sponsor’s donations are quite small, not nearly large enough to mount an exhibition in its entirety. Additionally, all donors, whether they are private or corporate, are getting large tax incentives to do so. This amounts to government subsidization anyways. It is one thing to applaud the corporation who donates to a museum, but they are ultimately getting a tax break which comes from the government. Whether you like it or not, the government decision to no longer assist museums to transport objects properly results in a reduced access on the part of the citizens to their collections.

Funds taken in by the museum from admissions are another matter. There is not one museum that could afford to operate based on the money they generate from admissions. Again, I work in a large museum and over the years we have had some ‘blockbuster’ exhibitions. Even those did not pay for much. Admissions pay for a (very) small percentage of operating costs (electricity, heat, staff costs, etc.). You can also not fundraise for these kinds of things. Consider the example of museums in Great Britain; most of the National museums have no admission charges because government support is so strong. Why charge people to see their own collections when that money is a pittance anyway?

Governments have with museums a contractual duty of care responsibility. The citizens own the objects and the citizens trust their government to care for them. The governments give money to the museums to care for their objects in the trust of the citizens. When a government hamstrings the museums and their ability to do the best work possible with the collections, they are really failing their obligations to the people. This is your stuff. Do you want it cared for by the professionals who are trained to care for it? Is a school group in Lloydminster less deserving of seeing a quality educational exhibition than a group in Calgary? As was stated in a Globe and Mail article this morning, the Alberta government gives more money to the horse racing industry than it does to cultural endeavours such as museums. This is government money going to private industry to support horse racing. Is this more valuable to the culture of Alberta than museums, galleries, orchestras, etc.?

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

What Harper has cut so far is The Museums Assistance Program (MAP) by $4.63 million.

He has also eliminated the ETS or Exhibition Transportation Service.

I have modified the above quote for length.

A few questions...

For MAP, was it solely for Aboriginal Cultures? Also is there a website that lists the museums who recieved funding in different years and for what?

I will agree that on the surface, the goal of that fund seems noble, but until I see the numbers I cannot make a decision as to whether that was a good way to spend money - how much exactly in a year goes to "aboriginal cultures" remembering that the number of aboriginals in this country is less than ~1%

For ETS - was that for the trasportation of Canadian "art" or "art" in general. What do you mean by small museums, Edmonton/Calgary or Red Deer/Lethbridge?

IMO if small (Red Deer/Lethbridge) type museums cannot cover the costs of an exhibit then they dont deserve to have them. Art shouldnt be provided just for the sake of providing them. If the local popluation isnt going to support the costs or operation then IMO they dont deserve to see them locally.

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I have modified the above quote for length.

A few questions...

For MAP, was it solely for Aboriginal Cultures? Also is there a website that lists the museums who recieved funding in different years and for what?

I will agree that on the surface, the goal of that fund seems noble, but until I see the numbers I cannot make a decision as to whether that was a good way to spend money - how much exactly in a year goes to "aboriginal cultures" remembering that the number of aboriginals in this country is less than ~1%

For ETS - was that for the trasportation of Canadian "art" or "art" in general. What do you mean by small museums, Edmonton/Calgary or Red Deer/Lethbridge?

IMO if small (Red Deer/Lethbridge) type museums cannot cover the costs of an exhibit then they dont deserve to have them. Art shouldnt be provided just for the sake of providing them. If the local popluation isnt going to support the costs or operation then IMO they dont deserve to see them locally.

MAP is not just for Aboriginal related projects. It has five areas of concentration: Access to Heritage, Exhibition Circulation Fund, Aboriginal Heritage, Organizational Development, and the Canada-France Agreement.

MAP funding priorities:

• Projects that tell the story of Canada's cultural and natural diverse heritage, and promote Canada-wide perspectives (travelling exhibitions, outreach activities, collaborative initiatives, partnerships, etc.);
• Projects that foster and support Aboriginal heritage activities;
• Projects which strengthen the overall management of key museological functions in heritage organizations;
• Projects under the Canada-France Agreement on Museum Cooperatation and Exchanges

MAP projects 2006
MAP projects 2007

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I have modified the above quote for length.

A few questions...

For MAP, was it solely for Aboriginal Cultures? Also is there a website that lists the museums who recieved funding in different years and for what?

I will agree that on the surface, the goal of that fund seems noble, but until I see the numbers I cannot make a decision as to whether that was a good way to spend money - how much exactly in a year goes to "aboriginal cultures" remembering that the number of aboriginals in this country is less than ~1%

For ETS - was that for the trasportation of Canadian "art" or "art" in general. What do you mean by small museums, Edmonton/Calgary or Red Deer/Lethbridge?

IMO if small (Red Deer/Lethbridge) type museums cannot cover the costs of an exhibit then they dont deserve to have them. Art shouldnt be provided just for the sake of providing them. If the local popluation isnt going to support the costs or operation then IMO they dont deserve to see them locally.

As far as ETS, it was for the transportation of any and all museum exhibitions, individual pieces of art, art collections, etc. Any museum could use ETS. The museum paid a small amount (a fraction of what we pay now to private carriers) and the government subsidized the rest. The museum I work in can pay these fees for the private carriers (who provide below museum standard care and handling by the way) but most smaller museums cannot.

And as for smaller museums not deserving to have exhibitions because they can't support them, see my above post. I work in a large museum and even we could not afford to host many exhibitions without government assistance.

[GGG]

I really like the content in the original post and I think I agree with you somewhat. My position on the arts is that the government should provide the oppurtunity for art and culture to exist. To this extent they should provide the buildings and grants to subsidize the operating costs of museums. Where I draw the line is at content. The government should not be giving money to aquire art or support collections or bring in world class soloist that should be up to the patrons and donars. As soon as the government is involved in funding the actual content it becomes sensored.

On a side note is the upside down church on display yet? I like the double entendre on the name where the church can be considered as the title states "A device to root out evil" or can easily be mis read as "root of all evil"

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

Is a school group in Lloydminster less deserving of seeing a quality educational exhibition than a group in Calgary?

If they don't have a children's hospital does it mean we deem their children them less deserving of care? Clearly not. I don't think this is the argument.

Not all giving is tax supported. Not-for-profits exist and thrive with little or no government funding and no tax reciepts for supporting them. And many people support charities with no tax implication. My family spends a lot of time and money at the zoo. Last year we collected $0 in tax breaks as a result. Or at least cashed in zero.

What you are saying cannot be done is in fact done all the time.

It's not a difficult equation. If the idea or group or show is supported, the money is available. If not, it's not. If the support is tax deductable I'm fine with that. That still means people and corporations were willing to pony up their own money for something they believed in. If the rest of us chip in too thats ok with me.

[Phanuthier]

Interesting topic. Art is a funny industry, its a industry that doesn't really return $ for the $ invested but its something society needs, which is really the crux of the issues. Bankng and engineering can show and backup their requests because they can offer a monetary return and art can't. Art also isn't one of those industries that can stand on their own unlike businesses like banking, engineering, production etc; and its qualitative value can only be understood by a small portion of those that have money, and arts-appreciators that aren't in the upper class.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by 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:

You have actually made one of the better arguments that I have read on this subject.

I struggle with justifying the funding. I believe there is some merit to supporting worthwhile community efforts that educate children and provide the arts (in various forms) to those who might not othewise be able to experience them.

All too often though we see examples of funding being blown on completely useless endeavours.
My husband recently blogged on some of these. http://www.corymorgan.com/?p=60

Then we have another example from someone I'm kind of related to
(though he probably wouldn't admit it...)

Paul Gross fulfils a dream

Financially, the movie got a surprising $5.5-million kick-start from former Alberta premier Ralph Klein during Alberta's 2005 centennial celebrations, stunning the province's film community long accustomed to applying for limited film grants through the province's bureaucracy. The federal government added $3.5 million.

But the bulk of the movie's budget --up to $11 million -- has been acquired through private donators, investors and corporate sponsorship. It's a new way of doing business in Canadian film.

Many have said Gross exercised his innate "Albertan ingenuity" by going outside standard guidelines for funding, but the pressure that comes from spending private money is undoubtedly adding to the filmmaker's burden.

http://www.passchendaelethemovie.com/html/press.html

I did not agree with Paul getting nearly all of Alberta's 2005 Arts funding or the way he went about getting it.
And I think he underestitmated his own abilities to raise the funds and I believe he could have raised the entire amount.

Which is what I think some people are trying to say; that if it is a worthwhile project it will find a way to fund it's creation....
without government spending taxpayers money.

[Rathji]

Does funding the "Arts" really cost that much that it is worth gouging to balance a budget? Give these people some money so if I want to go to a museum I can without flying to another city (or country). Also where would our Gollum look alikes go tonight if they didn't have the CPO?

[NiklasSundblad]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Calgary Philharmonic Orchestra for one.

A substantial portion of the CPO's budget is government grants from all three levels. While it is true fundraising and sponsorship accounts for a larger percentage of their budget than other Canadian orchestras, they could not survive int heir present form if about of a quarter of their budget was cut.