40th Canadian Federal Election - Welcome to another Conservative Minority (whee!)

[Ronald Pagan]

Reawakening a previous mini-debate...

Looks like BMO favours deficit "keynesian-style" spending.

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/serv.../Business/home

“The boom has turned to bust. Canada, too, is headed for recession and our government will awaken to the need for deficit spending.”

Keynesianism sure is discredited and obsolete... in right wing think tanks.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Reawakening a previous mini-debate...

Looks like BMO favours deficit "keynesian-style" spending.

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/serv.../Business/home



Keynesianism sure is discredited and obsolete... in right wing think tanks.

Yeah except BMO is one of two "Big five" banks that are a serious going concern. They would love deficit spending if it was buying equity stakes in Canadian banks much like the TARP program is doing in the US. When unemployment levels are still low and government right now is bloated after years and years of good times creating government jobs and departments that serve little purpose, I'd argue it's more prudent to dig deep than borrow money to spend on even more inefficient measures to pump money into the economy. While this certainly isn't a normal time in the economy the "depression doomsayers" are really just people that either haven't lived through a serious recession or have forgotten after 20 or so years.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Reawakening a previous mini-debate...

Looks like BMO favours deficit "keynesian-style" spending.

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/serv.../Business/home



Keynesianism sure is discredited and obsolete... in right wing think tanks.

This is called self-interest, Ron.

[Ronald Pagan]

Laugh.

Okay, BMO is indexed across the economy. It's self interest is ensuring that the economy doesn't do badly.

It wouldn't be proposing things that are detrimental to the economy, it's a frickin bank.

Nice try.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

When they made their budget cuts, didn't they actually increase arts funding?

No. They totally, totally didn't. What they did was increase "arts and culture" spending. Specifically, they declared that the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver are a cultural event and they substantially increased funding for that.

Arts funding they slashed mercilessly.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by driveway

No. They totally, totally didn't. What they did was increase "arts and culture" spending. Specifically, they declared that the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver are a cultural event and they substantially increased funding for that.

Arts funding they slashed mercilessly.

To me the Olys are a cultural event and a positive way to promote Canada on the International stage, so good for the government for blowing up the spending for that.

Still not sure why the government should be in the business of arts and film work and music.

I like the idea of the government helping parents to get their kids interested in Arts programs through funding/tax cuts.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I like the idea of the government helping parents to get their kids interested in Arts programs through funding/tax cuts.

Its an interesting idea, but the challenge with that is that it assumes that people have the money upfront to get involved. Same with the sports participation tax thing. It reminds me of that Canadian Tire commercial i think it is, where the kid goes into a restaurant looking for a job. the guy at the counter dismisses him and says something along the lines of "what kid, aren't you too young to be working yet? Shouldn't you be out playing hockey?" And the kid answers "I'm trying to". Its a nice idea, but sometimes I wonder if it will help given how expensive things are to get involved in in the first place.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

To me the Olys are a cultural event and a positive way to promote Canada on the International stage, so good for the government for blowing up the spending for that.

Still not sure why the government should be in the business of arts and film work and music.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I have no issue with the government funding the olympics, I like the Olympics both from a cultural and sportive point of view. I do have an issue with them claiming it as an "artistic" event.

The reason that the government should be in the business of the arts is that a) they are essential, and b) no one else provides the money. I'm extremely pro-art. My education is in the fine-arts and it's my line of work. The sad truth is that if art funding is left purely to the private sector, the result is stale, boring, uninventive and unchallenging art.

I understand that a lot of people have difficulty with the notion that their tax dollars are funding bizarre performance peices, or borderline pornographic photographic works, or Voice of Fire (which is really, really stunning if you ever get to see it). To a great many people art is totally peripheral to their way of living, and I understand that.

The thing about art is that it is absolutely central to both civilization and humanity. Civilizations are invariably judged by the art they leave behind and the degree to which their culture influenced their surroundings. If Canada as a nation is to have influence on the direction that global society takes, a huge part of that will be through our artistic contributions.

An example: Canada is in many ways responsible for Documentary film. The earliest documentary was Nanook of the North, the National Film Board popularized the form and around the world is held in extremely high regard for the fundamental role it played in the development of Documentary as a viable style of filmmaking. The effects of Canadian government funding can be seen in every program you watch on Discovery, History, A&E, every Micheal Moore film (or every response-to-Micheal-Moore-film), and in even in every Reality-TV show (not high praise, I know, but it's true).

Secondly and more importantly, the inherent need to produce and enjoy art is the only acceptable proof of the existence of the human soul.

If society is to have any value other than preventing us from being tiger-food, it must be in its ability to promote behaviours which advance both the empirical and moral knowledge of the species. Art is the best - and to my mind only - method which allows for both forms of knowledge to be expanded simultaneously.

This is why governments should be involved in the funding of art, whether it have obvious popular appeal or value or not.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by driveway

Secondly and more importantly, the inherent need to produce and enjoy art is the only acceptable proof of the existence of the human soul.

Um, if people want to express themselves in a sub-commercial manor why can't they do this on their own. I don't like the idea of contributing money towards peoples hobbies. Heck, if I had my druthers I would write poetry, dance, paint, write songs, and make short films, all day long as a means of my own expression, but I'm far too busy trying to feed myself and advance other goals that are more important to the day to day functioning of North American society (Especailly in an economic Crisis). People can still be creative without the government defaco choosing who does and doesn't get funding for sub-commercial art.

[MarchHare]

I don't know if this has been discussed already, but the Conservatives, contrary to expectations, didn't sweep Alberta -- the NDP won a seat in Edmonton.

I saw this pic on another site and thought it was worth sharing:

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Um, if people want to express themselves in a sub-commercial manor why can't they do this on their own. I don't like the idea of contributing money towards peoples hobbies. Heck, if I had my druthers I would write poetry, dance, paint, write songs, and make short films, all day long as a means of my own expression, but I'm far too busy trying to feed myself and advance other goals that are more important to the day to day functioning of North American society (Especailly in an economic Crisis). People can still be creative without the government defaco choosing who does and doesn't get funding for sub-commercial art.

If you were any good at any of those things, you could easily do both. I know lots of artists, musicians, and writers of both the professional and 'sub-commercial' variety, and few if any of them receive money from any level of government; government funding simply is not set up in such a way to provide money directly to artists: it goes primarily to museums, galleries, performance organizations, recording studios and production companies to help with their organizational infrastructure and operating costs. The people who are actually creating art either need to create are that is commercially viable, find another way to support themselves through regular jobs, or mooch off a rich relative or benefactor (not the government).

If you want to say that you don't think the government should fund or support record studios, museums, production companies and other similar organizations, go ahead and make that argument, but don't perpetuate the stereotype of artists getting checks from the government to sit at home all day and create non-commercial artwork, music, or literature, because it's absolutely false.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by octothorp

If you want to say that you don't think the government should fund or support record studios, museums, production companies and other similar organizations, go ahead and make that argument, but don't perpetuate the stereotype of artists getting checks from the government to sit at home all day and create non-commercial artwork, music, or literature, because it's absolutely false.

It's not like those institutions that are getting funded get blank cheques to spend as they see fit. I'm sure there are "Canadian/Local" content rules and other strings attached to ensure funds trickle down to otherwise subcommercial artists. Just because artists are not getting cheques directly from the government does not mean they aren't still getting paid out indirectly.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

It's not like those institutions that are getting funded get blank cheques to spend as they see fit. I'm sure there are "Canadian/Local" content rules and other strings attached to ensure funds trickle down to otherwise subcommercial artists. Just because artists are not getting cheques directly from the government does not mean they aren't still getting paid out indirectly.

A publisher gets money to publish books, but they pay the author based only on the books that sell. An art gallery gets money to put on art exhibitions, but the artist gets revenue only from the actual pieces that sell. If a organization records the work of a composer, the composer gets funding for printings of the CD as well as for radio play. Yes, they do get a trickle-down benefits in that the arts organization will cover event hosting costs or production costs, but in terms of financial revenue, in most cases the artist still works on a model where revenue is entirely a product of demand.
Bringing in a 'subcommercial' artist does a gallery, publisher, or production company absolutely no good, because if their revenues go down, this reflects poorly in their reporting and they'll get less government funding next time. There's a strong incentive to bring in artists who have the potential to make money, while allowing organizations the security to be able to take a risk on unknown but potentially successful artists.

Now, there are exceptions, where artists are able to apply directly to the government for the creation of artistic work, but this is by far the minority of cases, and counts for an extremely minimal percentage of government arts funding.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by driveway

or Voice of Fire (which is really, really stunning if you ever get to see it).

Oh really? Guess it is one of those things that just goes over my head.


I think the elephant at the zoo has created pieces with more depth.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Oh really? Guess it is one of those things that just goes over my head.


I think the elephant at the zoo has created pieces with more depth.

18 million dollars for a line. Or is it three? Something tells me they could have used that money in a better way.

It is this kind of silliness that makes people cringe when it comes to art funding. We seem to support second (third?) rate artists and our best go elsewhere.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by HOZ

18 million dollars for a line. Or is it three? Something tells me they could have used that money in a better way.

It is this kind of silliness that makes people cringe when it comes to art funding. We seem to support second (third?) rate artists and our best go elsewhere.

Yup, no argument there. As much as I'm a proponent of arts funding (not necessarily increasing it, just not cutting it), there are a lot of examples of funding being poorly allocated. As far as Barnett Newman goes, I have no problem with his work or of colour field painters in general, but I'd much rather see a museum acquire something like this through a private donation. Say to one of your wealthy benefactors, 'We want that piece; go buy it for 1.8 million and we'll give you a plaque.' Use the actual government money for fostering Canadian arts and culture.

[4X4]

What the hell is that?

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by octothorp

An art gallery gets money to put on art exhibitions, but the artist gets revenue only from the actual pieces that sell.

Oh there are moneys paid to "artists" alright....

The Banff Centre, one of the country's most prestigious cultural institutions, has provided about $1,300 in financial assistance for a Mexican performance artist to ejaculate into glass vials as part of an international artist exchange agreement.


Israel Mora, 33, masturbates privately into seven glass vials that he says represent seven members of his family. The vials are then placed in a cooler, which Mr. Mora currently has strung up between two trees at the Banff Centre.

Mr. Mora has also been wheeling the cooler around the streets of Banff on a small cart.
Mr. Mora is at the centre on a $4,000, seven-week residency. The government of Mexico is covering two-thirds of the cost and the Banff Centre, which receives about 22% of its $42-million budget from government funding, is covering the rest.

Sick stuff...

[Devils'Advocate]

When was "Voice of Fire" purchased? What year?

[Shawnski]

1990