350 million from province for museum...None for arenas

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

To be fair, all levels of government pour a LOT of money into sports as well.

I'm not sure if you heard, but a year or so ago there was this big thing called the Olympics, where the government put up a lot of money for sports.

Not all ventures are completely self sustaining, and some of them need help.
That's why things like museums, and bobsledding get more government money than some other things like hollywood movies and professional sports.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Table 5

While I agree that hockey is an important part of Canadian culture, the arts are one of those things that is severely lacking in a place like Calgary, where as hockey is pretty well represented already. Why not attempt to boost a deficiency to make it a more rounded placed to live?

I would agree...but then its up to those who enjoy it to make it better, not the taxpayers.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by transplant99

They already have a museum as well. What's your point?

Ever been to it? I understand that Rectal Place is an old and lame arena for the NHL, but it still functions.

I would argue that hockey is more a part of Canadian culture than anything else in existance.

There is a lot more to being Canadian and Canada than hockey.

Ahhh...so the ONLY purpose of a museum is to preserve culture then? It has nothing to do with allowing people to enjoy what they like? If that's the case, then there is no reason for museums either...just build a massive warehouse with state of the art security and lock it up. it will always be preserved that way.

I don't know where you get the bolded part. As for the rest of it....

No idea what this means.

It was a fairly straight-forward question.

What's that got to do with anything?

Was directed at puckluck, not you. His comment that "you couldn't pay me to go to a museum." The Louvre in Paris is one of the greatest experiences one can have, imo. Maybe if we built a world class Museum here then he might be inclined to go.

[transplant99]

Ever been to it? I understand that Rectal Place is an old and lame arena for the NHL, but it still functions.

Again...i am saying give no money to them OR the arts. The museum still functions as well.

There is a lot more to being Canadian and Canada than hockey.

Of course there is. There is a lot more happening in an arena than just hockey as well...in fact concerts happen in them and last I understood that is considered...art.

I don't know where you get the bolded part. As for the rest of it....

To use your own argument...It was a fairly straight-forward question.

Was directed at puckluck, not you. His comment that "you couldn't pay me to go to a museum." The Louvre in Paris is one of the greatest experiences one can have, imo. Maybe if we built a world class Museum here then he might be inclined to go.

That's the point, its your opinion. Its a personal preference. I would suggest that average taxpayer person is more likely to enjoy something occuring in an arena than any museum that could be constructed. Thats the way Calgary/Alberta/Canada is for the most part. If a museum would be such a wonderful investment for the area, surely someone can pony up the money themselves and run it at least at a break even point.

I am not against the arts as a whole. Some things I like, some things I dont. I do know that neither arenas nor museums etc should necessarily receive public funding however as neither are essential services...or if one gets it then both should and it should be based on which one more people would use or be more inclined to attend as to what level of funding.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I would agree...but then its up to those who enjoy it to make it better, not the taxpayers.

There are some things out there that you just can't expect to be self-sustaining, but it serves society for the better to have them around. Things like roads and health care are heavily subsidized too, and the true costs aren't necessarily past down to their users, but they benefit our society.

I think people have to get past this idea that if they don't personally use/do something, then that thing is useless. Art will always be one of those sectors that will need benefactors. Great pieces of art hardly every make sense economically, but I'm not sure why that is such a problem. Just think of all the things you visit while on vacation to a foreign country, I bet at least half of them are pieces of architecture or art that were heavily subsidized....and yet it's what makes those cities special.

When people come here to NY, they go visit the MET, the Natural History museum, the Statue of Liberty, the Guggenheim, Central Park.....none of those things are necessary to survive, but they sure as hell make life more enjoyable.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Again...i am saying give no money to them OR the arts. The museum still functions as well.

For a provincial capital it is most certainly a pathetic building. I wonder what international visitors/investors who come from places where art and expression is a higher priority think of it? Or do they only go to Edmonton to shop and watch the Oilers?

Of course there is. There is a lot more happening in an arena than just hockey as well...in fact concerts happen in them and last I understood that is considered...art.

Fair enough.

To use your own argument...It was a fairly straight-forward question.

Except you were speaking in hyperbole. You know the answer to the rediculous question you posted.

That's the point, its your opinion. Its a personal preference. I would suggest that average taxpayer person is more likely to enjoy something occuring in an arena than any museum that could be constructed. Thats the way Calgary/Alberta/Canada is for the most part. If a museum would be such a wonderful investment for the area, surely someone can pony up the money themselves and run it at least at a break even point.

Who the hell is average taxpayer person? You?

Also, Museums cost a hell of a lot for something that doesn't generate a lot of profits. Ever seen the insurance rider for an exhibition of priceless masterpieces? Hell, even the Mona Lisa at the Louvre is a fake. The original is not for public viewing.

I am not against the arts as a whole. Some things I like, some things I dont.

Would you pay to see the things you like?

I do know that neither arenas nor museums etc should necessarily receive public funding however as neither are essential services...or if one gets it then both should and it should be based on which one more people would use or be more inclined to attend as to what level of funding.

More people use the Louvre in a year than Rectal Place. If you build it they will come, as the old addage goes. Access to world class facilities with internationally renowned exhibitions would be a real shot in the arm to this province.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Again...i am saying give no money to them OR the arts. The museum still functions as well.

I am not against the arts as a whole. Some things I like, some things I dont. I do know that neither arenas nor museums etc should necessarily receive public funding however as neither are essential services...or if one gets it then both should and it should be based on which one more people would use or be more inclined to attend as to what level of funding.

Taxpayer funding of the arts often has beneficial economic results, in addition to the cultural benefits thereof.

EG: in 1983 two street performers, Guy Laliberte and Daniel Gauthier received a 1.5 million dollar government grant in relation to the 450th anniversary of Jaques Cartier's discovery of Canada. They continued to receive government funding through 1987. Today, their company, Cirque du Soleil has global revenues in excess of $800 million and employs over 4000 people.

[transplant99]

For a provincial capital it is most certainly a pathetic building.

So is Rexall...no?

I wonder what international visitors/investors who come from places where art and expression is a higher priority think of it?

What does it matter what others think that aren't from Alberta...are they paying for it?

Or do they only go to Edmonton to shop and watch the Oilers?

I would venture a guess that there are hundreds of individual reasons why anyone goes to Edmonton at any time they choose....just not sure any of them are to attend art exhibitions, but that really has nothing to do with anything.

Who the hell is average taxpayer person? You?

A bit touchy are you? Average taxpayer is just that....the average guy/gal who pays taxes. Not a hard concept to grasp.

Let's put it this way...how many people used the Saddledome last month versus how many people attended the Glenbow at any time in the last year. Now which one would be more worthwhile to upgrade based on how many people would enjoy it more...since its those same people that would be footing the bill.

Also, Museums cost a hell of a lot for something that doesn't generate a lot of profits. Ever seen the insurance rider for an exhibition of priceless masterpieces? Hell, even the Mona Lisa at the Louvre is a fake. The original is not for public viewing.

Then the cost/benefit ratio suggests that taxpayers should not be funding such endeavors...no?

Would you pay to see the things you like?

Yes I already do and have my entire life. I don't, and shouldn't have to, pay for things I dont like and dont enjoy. Kind of my entire point.

More people use the Louvre in a year than Rectal Place. If you build it they will come, as the old addage goes. Access to world class facilities with internationally renowned exhibitions would be a real shot in the arm to this province.

Then the Louvre doesn't need public money...right?

Originally Posted by Table5

There are some things out there that you just can't expect to be self-sustaining, but it serves society for the better to have them around. Things like roads and health care are heavily subsidized too, and the true costs aren't necessarily past down to their users, but they benefit our society.

I think people have to get past this idea that if they don't personally use/do something, then that thing is useless. Art will always be one of those sectors that will need benefactors. Great pieces of art hardly every make sense economically, but I'm not sure why that is such a problem. Just think of all the things you visit while on vacation to a foreign country, I bet at least half of them are pieces of architecture or art that were heavily subsidized....and yet it's what makes those cities special.

When people come here to NY, they go visit the MET, the Natural History museum, the Statue of Liberty, the Guggenheim, Central Park.....none of those things are necessary to survive, but they sure as hell make life more enjoyable.

Agree with everything you said here...I do. What I am also saying however is that people are up in arms about giving money for arenas...yet an arena would fit all ^^^ criteria just as easily.

My entire first point in this thread was why the arts supporters think they should get money from government but not those who want to enjoy hockey games/concerts/whatever. The money is all coming from the exact same pot.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by driveway

Taxpayer funding of the arts often has beneficial economic results, in addition to the cultural benefits thereof.

EG: in 1983 two street performers, Guy Laliberte and Daniel Gauthier received a 1.5 million dollar government grant in relation to the 450th anniversary of Jaques Cartier's discovery of Canada. They continued to receive government funding through 1987. Today, their company, Cirque du Soleil has global revenues in excess of $800 million and employs over 4000 people.

So does building venues to host major events...like arenas.

Cool story about Cirque de Soleil though, did not know that.

[octothorp]

It's true that hockey is a major part of Canadian culture, but simply going to a hockey game is not an act of culture, any more than the simple existence of a painting locked in a crate some where is an item of culture. If culture was just the the act of attending a sporting event, there would be nothing to separate it from baseball in the US or football in Britain. But these are all markedly different cultural experiences because of what they evoke inside of us.

What Canadian hockey fan raised here in Canada did not love and relate to Roch Carrier's protagonist in the Hockey Sweater? Are we not culturally richer for having the notion of childhood allegiance and loyalty to a team articulated so well? That work was written by a writer funded by the government, first published by a small publisher also funded by the government, and then immortalized in a short film made by a government agency. It is a work that simply would not exist were it not for government funding for the arts.

The arts, at their best, are not culture, but an articulation of our culture that allows it to be passed from one mind to the next and one generation to the next. It would be difficult to fathom a Canadian national identity that did not involve the literature of Mordecai Richler and Margaret Atwood, the artwork of the Group of 7, the music of the Tragically Hip, or the films of Bruce McDonald or Denys Arcand. All of these artists (and the publishers, recording studios, production companies, etc.) had funding sources (usually government) that allowed them to function outside of purely market conditions.

The reason that Canada (and most other civilized countries) fund the arts through tax revenue and the government is that we recognize, overall, that such a model is the only away to create a merit/potential model of funding (apart from massive philanthropic organizations that exist in the US but are rare anywhere else in the world. You can ask why such organizations are rare in Canada - the closest thing we have in Calgary is the Rozsa Foundation, which is extremely well-run but relatively small - but that's another debate).

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Agree with everything you said here...I do. What I am also saying however is that people are up in arms about giving money for arenas.

I do think both deserve funding, hockey is as important to Canadian identity as anything. I guess my feeling is if there's an extra dollar to spend on any of this stuff, my inclination would be to give it to the arts as it's more lacking than sports at the moment. But at the end of the day though, both hockey facilities and arts facilities need attention, and as a tax payer, I would be inclined to support both.

[Addick]

The way I look at it is as follows, if the operators of a museum had just enough money to build the facility, maintain it, and break-even, or even have an acceptable loss, they would. On the other hand, if the operators of a sports stadium had just enough money to build the facility, maintain it, and break-even*, or have an acceptable loss*, they probably would not. As such, even though the subsidisation of a professional league sporting facility would benefit the general public, the owner of sports teams would be using subsidies for purely financial reasons (i.e. to make a profit). In contrast, I believe the motives of museum operators are solely in the interests of creating a public good (i.e. something for the enjoyment and enlightenment of others).

Basically, without public money the museum would probably not exist; so we should subsidise it. Without public money a sporting facility can be built, so let's allow the 'more efficient' private sector to find a way to make it work.


* I'm talking about their complete financial situation and not just the books for their stadium.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I do think both deserve funding, hockey is as important to Canadian identity as anything. I guess my feeling is if there's an extra dollar to spend on any of this stuff, my inclination would be to give it to the arts as it's more lacking than sports at the moment. But at the end of the day though, both hockey facilities and arts facilities need attention, and as a tax payer, I would be inclined to support both.

In general, I don't think taxpayers should support the arts. Art will happen whether we give it money or not. I'm glad there are museums, but I don't think it would change many people's lives much if they weren't around in Calgary.

It would be interesting to see how many unique visitors the Glenbow gets in a year that are not a part of school trips, etc. That is, how many different people go there voluntarily in a year and let's put a figure on how much that costs per visitor. If the cost works out to $400 so some lady can gawk at a vase for an hour forget it. If it's a couple bucks, I'm cool.

That said, I practically lived at the Science Center when my kids were babies/toddlers and can't wait for the new one.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

Sidenote: Did you EVER really think you'd get to make a "Yes, Minister" reference on the internet?

The show ended in 1988.....the same year ARPANET received it's first T1 Backbone, and the Intel 386SX was released.

Hot damn was my 386sx exciting! I still remember it like it was yesterday

[Mtt48]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

It's called the Glenbow.

The Glenbow is a joke and is in no way a contemporary art museum. Every major city in Canada has one, even Saskatoon, yet Calgary doesn't. This is why people think there is no "culture" here.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Mtt48

The Glenbow is a joke and is in no way a contemporary art museum. Every major city in Canada has one, even Saskatoon, yet Calgary doesn't. This is why people think there is no "culture" here.

Never said that the Glenbow is a contemporary art museum, but neither is the Royal Alberta Museum (which was your assertion).

[Street Pharmacist]

Doesn't really deserve a new thread, but what is the stick up this guys arse?

Uncompromising Man pans Wiser’s whisky ad

"...Mr. Bliss, a historian and author who is considered one of this country’s most honoured public intellectuals, shot off a letter to Corby, the Wiser’s distillery. He said the commercial was “tasteless, ignorant trash – at best s######ing juvenilia,” and suggested its encouragement of the desecration of art contravened the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle1975294/


Seriously?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Mtt48

The Glenbow is a joke and is in no way a contemporary art museum. Every major city in Canada has one, even Saskatoon, yet Calgary doesn't. This is why people think there is no "culture" here.

Says who?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1803231/

"Calgary, in fact, is the country’s most cultural city by expenditures. In 2008, Calgarians spent $1,020 each on arts events and art works, a two-per-cent increase from 2005. Saskatoon was second in 2008, at $1,000 per capita. Canada’s most populous city, Toronto, ranks seventh ($868), Vancouver is 11th ($795) and Montreal 12th ($722)."

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Doesn't really deserve a new thread, but what is the stick up this guys arse?

Uncompromising Man pans Wiser’s whisky ad

"...Mr. Bliss, a historian and author who is considered one of this country’s most honoured public intellectuals, shot off a letter to Corby, the Wiser’s distillery. He said the commercial was “tasteless, ignorant trash – at best s######ing juvenilia,” and suggested its encouragement of the desecration of art contravened the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle1975294/


Seriously?

HAHA!

Love it when the tuxedo wearing stuffy-stuffs get their knickers in a knot over the most mundane things.

And being an artist/author, I wonder if someone said the same thing about his "work" what he would have to say.

Ignorance is Bliss?

[cznTiburon]

Just want to comment on some of the other comments being made. When stating that the saddledome has pulled in a higher traffic than the glenbow, and which would be better to upgrade would it not be the glenbow?

Hockey teams/Arenas are already fairly self sufficient, where as the museums we currently have are not. The ability to attract people to a museum stems from the quality of the museum and it's displays. I would think that a lot of locals would support the flames over a museum but when you are thinking about the ability to attract international visitors you have to look at a broad spectrum of items.

When going to paris, the majority of people would go to the Louvre over a soccer game. We don't have a desination like that, and in order to gain the foot traffic, and tourism that would be required to have a "self sustainable museum", money will have to be used from our taxes to upgrade.

Our hockey teams are doing fine the way they are. yes they do need better arenas, and maybe the govt should spot some money, but it shouldnt be near the money they give to the arts since there is so much money already involved with teams.

Hey if the arenas are so bad, let the players cut some of their wages and put it towards a league pot that can be used to help build arenas