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

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

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

Sick stuff...

I'm disappointed that you didn't use a 'trickle down' pun!

But the Banff Center isn't a gallery, so it doesn't fit my example. We also don't know whether any government money was put toward this project; government funds make up only 22% of the Banff Center's revenue, and likely all of that money is designated for operational and organizational expenses, not for small projects like exchange programs.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I'm disappointed that you didn't use a 'trickle down' pun!

But the Banff Center isn't a gallery, so it doesn't fit my example. We also don't know whether any government money was put toward this project; government funds make up only 22% of the Banff Center's revenue, and likely all of that money is designated for operational and organizational expenses, not for small projects like exchange programs.

Well clearly that money must be too much if they can afford to pay for crap like this over and above their government allotment

[driveway]

Well that semen-art thing sure helps deflates my 'proof of the soul' argument - but it doesn't disprove it.

And voice of fire - like all large-scale art, doesn't translate when you reduce a 5' x 12' painting to three inches by eight inches and slap it up on the net. It's like a Rothko, you really need to see it if it's going to work.

I agree, art's not for everyone. That doesn't mean it doesn't benefit you.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

1990

So it was purchased by a Conservative government so that Conservatives 18 years later could spit on arts spending? I mean, that's only $100,000 per year for absolute positive proof that arts spending is wasted money, so I would say that was a great investment on their part.

No wonder it was said that if Mulroney wanted to improve his popularity by 5 points he would just find who in his government approved that purchase and fire them.

[Ronald Pagan]

Has anyone actually seen Voice of Fire at the National Art Gallery?

Lol what a bunch of philistines. Prairie bumpkins arguing about what art is more or less valuable.

I'll tell you what, Voice of Fire's value has more than doubled since the Government bought it.

A general rule of thumb: when you have no idea about the subject you're talking about, it's best to just keep your mouth shut.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Has anyone actually seen Voice of Fire at the National Art Gallery?

Lol what a bunch of philistines. Prairie bumpkins arguing about what art is more or less valuable.

I'll tell you what, Voice of Fire's value has more than doubled since the Government bought it.

A general rule of thumb: when you have no idea about the subject you're talking about, it's best to just keep your mouth shut.

Wow, and you wonder why maybe you don't get the respect that you think you deserve on this board, its post like this.

In terms of Voice of Fire's value, awesome, then the government should put it up for sale and see if anyone will actually throw a couple of million dollars at it, because I've seen it up close and personal and it certainly didn't blow my skirt up in awe.

Maybe this is the best time to sell it, I've dealt in the art market, and just because a piece of art has theoretically doubled in value doesn't actually mean its value is double. I've seen pieces of art that have quadrupled in value because of various factors such as the death of an artist, but when it comes time to sell it you get nowhere near that kind of interest.

Also in a country with a troubled economy, a crumbling health care system, poverty and yes environmental problems, please forgive me if I think that funding of the arts should take a really low priority in terms of doling out money.

[Ronald Pagan]

I agree that funding for the arts should have a lower priority especially in uncertain economic times.

My angry rant was directed toward people who deride Voice of Fire who have probably never seen the piece in person, who have no idea about the artist, the piece, its significance and its subsequent value and then go on to say that it was a bad investment.

Voice of Fire is a beautiful piece. Don't believe me? Go see it live. It was painted by a revered artist for a price that, at the time was a bargain. If you want to go on about wasteful art spending then don't point to Voice of Fire because it was bought at an undervalued price then and the value of Barnett Newman paintings have exploded.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

I agree that funding for the arts should have a lower priority especially in uncertain economic times.

My angry rant was directed toward people who deride Voice of Fire who have probably never seen the piece in person, who have no idea about the artist, the piece, its significance and its subsequent value and then go on to say that it was a bad investment.

Voice of Fire is a beautiful piece. Don't believe me? Go see it live. It was painted by a revered artist for a price that, at the time was a bargain. If you want to go on about wasteful art spending then don't point to Voice of Fire because it was bought at an undervalued price then and the value of Barnett Newman paintings have exploded.

So because it was painted by a 'revered artist' and its value has doubled that suddenly means that it is more than a single line ( or 3 lines ) on a large canvas? Arts value to soceity is in what it LOOKS like. I don't care who painted it. This isn't a international measuring contest to see who has the most valuable art by the trendiest artists.

You want trendy and over priced? Go buy a MacBook Pro and " keep your mouth shut" as you so nicely put it. I just don't want my government footing the bill for it.

[Ronald Pagan]

Have you seen Voice of Fire in person?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

A general rule of thumb: when you have no idea about the subject you're talking about, it's best to just keep your mouth shut.

I guess we won't be hearing from you anymore?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Have you seen Voice of Fire in person?

As I mentioned before, I did go and see the painting, and it didn't impress me, change my life, make me have a massive 45 minute long orgasm. In fact as I sat there looking at it for 10 long painfull minutes trying to get a feeling about it, the only thing I could come up with was, we bought this for more then a million bucks?

I'd get more satsfaction out of staring at the naked body of an overweight one legged prostitute.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

As I mentioned before, I did go and see the painting, and it didn't impress me, change my life, make me have a massive 45 minute long orgasm. In fact as I sat there looking at it for 10 long painfull minutes trying to get a feeling about it, the only thing I could come up with was, we bought this for more then a million bucks?

I'd get more satsfaction out of staring at the naked body of an overweight one legged prostitute.

Great... now you have given some artist in Edmonton an idea...

Art funding should be one of those "good times" funding ideas. The government's purpose in life is not to buy and sell paintings, even paintings that make money nor is it to fund semi-literate rock bands on European vacations.

If the art was good, those that want to see it will pay to go see it. If the art is bad and it dies off - oh well. Those that bitch and whine about funding it can open up their pocket books to go make it happen.

And yes, I feel the exact same way about sports franchises. Under no circumstances should a government be bailing out an unsuccessful sports franchise. If people don't want to buy the tickets to support the team, then that's too bad for the team.

Sports funding for children to participate is not the same thing.

[peter12]

It's stuff like this that really gets me depressed about what people thinks actually constitutes art.

EDIT: I've seen "Voice of Fire" and like Cap'n was overly unimpressed. Contrary to what Ron thinks, I am not just some "prairie bumpkin." I love art, especially music, and I think I have a fairly good idea as to what art is. Real art takes soul and experience and it speaks to everyone.

[CaptainCrunch]

Art is subjective, one mans art is another mans toilet, thats another reason why I have problems with art funding in general.

Not every piece of art represents defined Canadian culture, yet the government has to decide on what showings and galleries and film artists get funding for examples, and it suddenly becomes an implied argument of censorship if the government funds lets say "Man peeing in coke glass" and doesn't fund or funds less for "Lillies in the field".

Honestly, to me, Art should be funded through the private sector and not the public sector.

Films are released to the public for consumption, and there are dollars associated to that, if I don't like it, my personal money shouldn't go to it, and I get offended if my tax dollars go to it. That film should live and die through box office and DVD sales.

In terms of art, gallaries should be more active in generating interest in these artists, and trying to sell tickets and selling the pieces. Again if they don't get the public response that is sufficient to support that form of art, then they need to reconsider their target audience.

If the Canadian government had major film studios we'd still be bailing out the makers of Water World because they considered that film to be an art form and could have requested funding for it.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by old-fart

And yes, I feel the exact same way about sports franchises. Under no circumstances should a government be bailing out an unsuccessful sports franchise. If people don't want to buy the tickets to support the team, then that's too bad for the team.

Sports funding for children to participate is not the same thing.

Agreed. If the Flames/Stamps/whoever can't make a go of it on their own, they shouldn't be propped up. Ditto with any artist, actor and musician.

However, when it comes to Stadia, Galleries, Theatres and Museums... there's nothing wrong with Government support. Not outright ownership or annual welfare-type subsidy, but a contribution, be it tax breaks, interest-free loans, incentives, or one-time subsidy.

As for Voice of Fire, the only thing it does is diminish my faith in mankind. Sure, its an expression piece, but so is anything really. Why anyone would pay more than cost of materials and a basic labour cost for that artwork (so a few hundred to a couple thousand tops) is beyond me. That doesn't make me a philistine. Art requires talent and a genuine soul. That thing has neither.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Art is subjective, one mans art is another mans toilet, thats another reason why I have problems with art funding in general.

Not every piece of art represents defined Canadian culture, yet the government has to decide on what showings and galleries and film artists get funding for examples, and it suddenly becomes an implied argument of censorship if the government funds lets say "Man peeing in coke glass" and doesn't fund or funds less for "Lillies in the field".

Honestly, to me, Art should be funded through the private sector and not the public sector.

Films are released to the public for consumption, and there are dollars associated to that, if I don't like it, my personal money shouldn't go to it, and I get offended if my tax dollars go to it. That film should live and die through box office and DVD sales.

In terms of art, gallaries should be more active in generating interest in these artists, and trying to sell tickets and selling the pieces. Again if they don't get the public response that is sufficient to support that form of art, then they need to reconsider their target audience.

If the Canadian government had major film studios we'd still be bailing out the makers of Water World because they considered that film to be an art form and could have requested funding for it.

I agree with this statement.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Art is subjective, one mans art is another mans toilet, thats another reason why I have problems with art funding in general.

Not every piece of art represents defined Canadian culture, yet the government has to decide on what showings and galleries and film artists get funding for examples, and it suddenly becomes an implied argument of censorship if the government funds lets say "Man peeing in coke glass" and doesn't fund or funds less for "Lillies in the field".

Honestly, to me, Art should be funded through the private sector and not the public sector.

Films are released to the public for consumption, and there are dollars associated to that, if I don't like it, my personal money shouldn't go to it, and I get offended if my tax dollars go to it. That film should live and die through box office and DVD sales.

In terms of art, gallaries should be more active in generating interest in these artists, and trying to sell tickets and selling the pieces. Again if they don't get the public response that is sufficient to support that form of art, then they need to reconsider their target audience.

If the Canadian government had major film studios we'd still be bailing out the makers of Water World because they considered that film to be an art form and could have requested funding for it.

Brilliant. Especially about implied censorship.

In a democratic society, art is primarily about freedom. Distribution of public funds based on lobbyists etc... is simply not free. You want to record an album, sculpt something or whatever, go to your community, your family and friends.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Art is subjective, one mans art is another mans toilet, thats another reason why I have problems with art funding in general.

Not every piece of art represents defined Canadian culture, yet the government has to decide on what showings and galleries and film artists get funding for examples, and it suddenly becomes an implied argument of censorship if the government funds lets say "Man peeing in coke glass" and doesn't fund or funds less for "Lillies in the field".

Honestly, to me, Art should be funded through the private sector and not the public sector.

Films are released to the public for consumption, and there are dollars associated to that, if I don't like it, my personal money shouldn't go to it, and I get offended if my tax dollars go to it. That film should live and die through box office and DVD sales.

In terms of art, gallaries should be more active in generating interest in these artists, and trying to sell tickets and selling the pieces. Again if they don't get the public response that is sufficient to support that form of art, then they need to reconsider their target audience.

If the Canadian government had major film studios we'd still be bailing out the makers of Water World because they considered that film to be an art form and could have requested funding for it.

Excellent post. Sums it up well.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Art is subjective, one mans art is another mans toilet, thats another reason why I have problems with art funding in general.

Not every piece of art represents defined Canadian culture, yet the government has to decide on what showings and galleries and film artists get funding for examples, and it suddenly becomes an implied argument of censorship if the government funds lets say "Man peeing in coke glass" and doesn't fund or funds less for "Lillies in the field".

Honestly, to me, Art should be funded through the private sector and not the public sector.

Films are released to the public for consumption, and there are dollars associated to that, if I don't like it, my personal money shouldn't go to it, and I get offended if my tax dollars go to it. That film should live and die through box office and DVD sales.

In terms of art, gallaries should be more active in generating interest in these artists, and trying to sell tickets and selling the pieces. Again if they don't get the public response that is sufficient to support that form of art, then they need to reconsider their target audience.

If the Canadian government had major film studios we'd still be bailing out the makers of Water World because they considered that film to be an art form and could have requested funding for it.

Energy development deserves public funding? Finance industries? Auto industries? What makes these more deserving of governmental help then the arts and entertainment industry? What about tourism?

I'm in software development and used to deal with the SR&ED side of things. I know full well how much public money goes to support my industry.

The Arts and Entertainment industry is a viable diversification of Canada's economy. Why should it be discriminated against?

When allocating public money to support national industries, value judgments have no place. The only thing that matters is whether or not the net gain from the investment is worth it.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Have you seen Voice of Fire in person?

Nope.

My point wasn't if the painting is any good, my point is you thought our government should be spending money on something that was good because

It was painted by a revered artist

I don't care WHO painted it, if it is nothing more than I can do in Paintshop in 30 seconds. It doesn't make the 'art' part of the painting any more meaningful for me to have some trendy hotshot artist be the one who did it.

Explain to me how something that has nothing to do with the physical art itself can make the art somehow more than 3 lines on a canvas?