Has anyone actually seen Voice of Fire at the National Art Gallery?
No, I have not seen it. That does not exclude me from having an opinion on it. I ran in an election(s) and plenty of people had opinions about me without ever meeting me.
Quote:
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.
The issue is not todays value of the art, it is the fact that government even supports it in the first place. I would rather see the money go towards educating our youth. In my opinion that is a far better investment in out future.
Quote:
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.
Actually I have created some artistic pieces and sold them. However people wanted me to mass produce my pieces and I would rather not do that. I do not have my hand out to the government to support me creating unique pieces. I realize I will not make a living at it and do not expect the rest of society to subsidize me.
I am also married to someone who carves and sells his work through a gallery in the Rockies without government subsidies.
He wrote this piece you might be interested in.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan
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.
All your blue square worthy, pretentious and elitest comments aside, let's look at your value assumptions.
it was undervalued at $1.76 million
it has more than doubled in "value" since
Since this occurred 18 and a half years ago, perhaps you could enlighten me on what HASN"T at least doubled (or tripled/quadrupled) in value since then? Hmmm?
Milk, gas, cars, housing, Flames tickets, etc, etc, etc.
It was a deplorable use of taxpayers money at the time, and is NOT a good work of art in any way shape or form.
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?
When your talking about funding, are you talking about tax breaks or money directly going from the government to these industries?
A couple of points, the energy, finance, auto are mass creators of jobs, their products have a massive trickle down effect on the economy, and they have to make a profit and be run properly, there are also controls on their products. In terms of the mass bail out of the auto and manufacturing industry, while I disagree strongly with direct government support of these industries except for corporate tax cuts, the money is being put into place to attempt to save a lot of jobs. Tourism is well worth investing in because it is a fairly massive industry, and the people that come to Canada on vacation are going to spend money.
You can't say the same for arts, you can pump a ton of money into it, but thats not going to make people neccessarily come out and prop up the industry. Your also talking about subjective product, again, if I find a crucifix dipped in Urine to be offensive to me, I'm fine with the artist producing it, I'm fine with him promoting it and selling it, however I'm not fine with tax payer dollars supporting it. Same with films.
In terms of overall economics, the return on investment especially in tough economic times is much greater with energy production, etc, then it is with film making, paintings etc
Fine, I'm just not comfortable with the concept of the government proppping up arts and films, I think a stronger effort could be made in providing something like tax incentives to corporations thats donate to the arts which would open up the ability to use private funds
Quote:
Originally Posted by llama64
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.
Fine, I'm just not comfortable with the concept of the government proppping up arts and films, I think a stronger effort could be made in providing something like tax incentives to corporations thats donate to the arts which would open up the ability to use private funds.
The government is damned if they do and damned if they don't with art funding. If they fund one film or one gallery and not another then the screams of censorship echo through the media.
Just like with sports teams that approach corporations to support their arenas with naming rights and advertising, maybe the arts industry should be taking the same approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by llama64
The Arts and Entertainment industry is a viable diversification of Canada's economy. Why should it be discriminated against?
I don't really think its discrimination, in a limited budget, while arts and film etc are a viable diversification, the return on investment, and the ripple effect through the economy is minor compared to the ripples caused by energy, automotive, tourism and others. so the actual funds spent on arts should be balanced to that.
If the government wants to support art through the purchase of said arts, or through the issuance of repayable low interest bonds to film makers then thats fine, but then the government should expect to hear the backlash for the purchase of the above noted painting as an example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by llama64
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.
Then in order to secure that net gain in investments, the arts industry has to make itself worthy of the net gains, which to me means that films should have to rely first and foremost on sales, and art has to rely on the ability to sell that art and get it into the mainstream.
Just my two cents.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
All your blue square worthy, pretentious and elitest comments aside, let's look at your value assumptions.
it was undervalued at $1.76 million
it has more than doubled in "value" since
Since this occurred 18 and a half years ago, perhaps you could enlighten me on what HASN"T at least doubled (or tripled/quadrupled) in value since then? Hmmm?
Milk, gas, cars, housing, Flames tickets, etc, etc, etc.
It was a deplorable use of taxpayers money at the time, and is NOT a good work of art in any way shape or form.
That's a good point....
So what the original poster is really saying is the government should have bought real estate in Calgary instead of that painting, if making money is what the government is supposed to do....
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.
The problem with this is that if the main consideration is what the audience will certainly like or certainly buy, the result is always, always crap.
For an easy example look at the difference between Broadway musicals and Fringe festival theatre. Big musicals are built for the public, they are showy, do well economically, and are invariably artistic shlock. Sure they're entertaining, but that's all they are.
Fringe theatre on the other hand often fails, it's often terrible and does poorly from an economic standpoint. Only one person I know of has ever built a reasonable career on the back of the Fring circuit (TJ Dawe). However, the work being done at Fringes accross the country (and Canada has the most interesting and vibrant fringe community in the world) is frequently challenging and regularly artistically impressive. It's art that is actually about what it is to be human - the ultimate question that art is constantly asking.
Quote:
You can't say the same for arts, you can pump a ton of money into it, but thats not going to make people neccessarily come out and prop up the industry.
According to a Conference Board of Canada report released August 28, 2008, the cultural sector of the Canadian economy directly contributed about $46 billion dollars, or 3.8 per cent of GDP last year.
Another analysis indicated that the culture sector's actual impact on the economy is broader, $84.6 billion in 2007, or 7.4 per cent of total real GDP.
also:
Quote:
Arts and culture industries employed about 616,000 people in 2003, almost four per cent of national employment. However, the culture sector contributed a total of 1.1 million jobs when direct, indirect and induced effects are taken into account.
and
Quote:
Countries around the world, as well as many cities and regions, recognize that a dynamic culture sector plays a key role as a magnet for talent, enhances economic output, and acts as a catalyst for prosperity.
For an easy example look at the difference between Broadway musicals and Fringe festival theatre. Big musicals are built for the public, they are showy, do well economically, and are invariably artistic shlock. Sure they're entertaining, but that's all they are.
Fringe theatre on the other hand often fails, it's often terrible and does poorly from an economic standpoint. Only one person I know of has ever built a reasonable career on the back of the Fring circuit (TJ Dawe). However, the work being done at Fringes accross the country (and Canada has the most interesting and vibrant fringe community in the world) is frequently challenging and regularly artistically impressive. It's art that is actually about what it is to be human - the ultimate question that art is constantly asking.
Except that it becomes the old argument, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, then why am I funding it?
There are finite dollars in any government budget, and to me, it shouldn't be up to the government to fund something that very few people make the effort to support.
If the fringe theatre or arts is not getting the interest from the general public to go out and see it or experience, then its not up to the government to pay for or sponser something for the few. In your example, broadway does not require funding if its making a profit, the fringe festival stuff thats incapable of supporting itself because of lack of interest doesn't really deserve the funding, its a bad investment.
Again, the government could certainly encourage private sector support for the arts through the creative use of incentives to the corporate community to support the arts.
Instead of outright funding, offer the galleries, and films for example low interest bonds or loans which would encourage them to promote and grow their fields of art.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
If the fringe theatre or arts is not getting the interest from the general public to go out and see it or experience, then its not up to the government to pay for or sponser something for the few.
I feel completely the opposite. If it's not getting the public support that is exactly when the government should step in with funding.
How many nations in the history of humanity can claim ownership of a government-run media outlet which is the single biggest critic of the government?
Only if the government is one particular party.
I don't believe that the CBC should be funded. I believe it should be forced to support itself through subscription fees and advertising.
I honestly only watch the CBC for hockey night in Canada, everything else that they produce is pretty much unwatchable. I will watch their news net station, but I balance it off with other news shos.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
How many nations in the history of humanity can claim ownership of a government-run media outlet which is the single biggest critic of the government?
Haha, only if the government is Liberal. Come on, man... The CBC has like one journalist who could be considered right-wing at all and it's... Rex Murphy.
I happen to like the CBC too and quite a bit of the programming, such as Newsworld. I would even pay for it out of my own pocket, I just don't want my tax dollars going towards it.
I feel completely the opposite. If it's not getting the public support that is exactly when the government should step in with funding.
I just completed a book of poetry. I don't want to post it all here because, frankly, you should have to pay to read my brilliant, life altering, inspiring verse. To give you a tease though, the first poem starts like this...
There once was a man from Nantucket...
I know, great opening line! However, so far, the public has not deemed my poetry worthy of support. Unbelievable I know...
Can you please point me to the appropriate government agency that should step up and support my "art"? For me to write so brilliantly, I require certain "inducements" shall we say, and they can be expensive. I like to refer to them as Operating Expenses.
I just completed a book of poetry. I don't want to post it all here because, frankly, you should have to pay to read my brilliant, life altering, inspiring verse. To give you a tease though, the first poem starts like this...
There once was a man from Nantucket...
I know, great opening line! However, so far, the public has not deemed my poetry worthy of support. Unbelievable I know...
Can you please point me to the appropriate government agency that should step up and support my "art"? For me to write so brilliantly, I require certain "inducements" shall we say, and they can be expensive. I like to refer to them as Operating Expenses.
Thanks.
This sounds like exciting and important work you're doing! Unfortunately, with it's lack of vision, the Canadian Government does not make any money available to unpublished writers or poets. Unfair that it ends up hurting serious poets like yourself, but there are just too many people who would abuse the system. However, if you are able to get some of your poetry into recognised, juried publications, then you might have a shot at funding, and should you actually get a complete chapbook published, your chances improve greatly. Unfortunately, I fear that your work may be a little bit ahead of its time - it's what some people call sub-commercial. I recommend that you start scribbling your poems in public places, in a sort of Basquiat - fashion, and eventually the establishment will come around. When it does, I'm sure you'll find the financial incentives you need to push your work to even further extremes.
When your talking about funding, are you talking about tax breaks or money directly going from the government to these industries?
A couple of points, the energy, finance, auto are mass creators of jobs, their products have a massive trickle down effect on the economy, and they have to make a profit and be run properly, there are also controls on their products. In terms of the mass bail out of the auto and manufacturing industry, while I disagree strongly with direct government support of these industries except for corporate tax cuts, the money is being put into place to attempt to save a lot of jobs. Tourism is well worth investing in because it is a fairly massive industry, and the people that come to Canada on vacation are going to spend money.
You can't say the same for arts, you can pump a ton of money into it, but thats not going to make people neccessarily come out and prop up the industry. Your also talking about subjective product, again, if I find a crucifix dipped in Urine to be offensive to me, I'm fine with the artist producing it, I'm fine with him promoting it and selling it, however I'm not fine with tax payer dollars supporting it. Same with films.
In terms of overall economics, the return on investment especially in tough economic times is much greater with energy production, etc, then it is with film making, paintings etc
Fine, I'm just not comfortable with the concept of the government proppping up arts and films, I think a stronger effort could be made in providing something like tax incentives to corporations thats donate to the arts which would open up the ability to use private funds
Fine, I'm just not comfortable with the concept of the government proppping up arts and films, I think a stronger effort could be made in providing something like tax incentives to corporations thats donate to the arts which would open up the ability to use private funds.
The government is damned if they do and damned if they don't with art funding. If they fund one film or one gallery and not another then the screams of censorship echo through the media.
Just like with sports teams that approach corporations to support their arenas with naming rights and advertising, maybe the arts industry should be taking the same approach.
I don't really think its discrimination, in a limited budget, while arts and film etc are a viable diversification, the return on investment, and the ripple effect through the economy is minor compared to the ripples caused by energy, automotive, tourism and others. so the actual funds spent on arts should be balanced to that.
If the government wants to support art through the purchase of said arts, or through the issuance of repayable low interest bonds to film makers then thats fine, but then the government should expect to hear the backlash for the purchase of the above noted painting as an example.
Then in order to secure that net gain in investments, the arts industry has to make itself worthy of the net gains, which to me means that films should have to rely first and foremost on sales, and art has to rely on the ability to sell that art and get it into the mainstream.
Just my two cents.
You cannot possibly state that the energy industry is more profitable and then state that not funding the entertainment industry isn't discriminatory. My point is simply that it makes sense for the Government of Canada to do everything it can to support it's national industries. We live in a country where the Government has significant influence over the economy. It always has, and likely always will.
The Arts and Entertainment industry is not a declining sector. I know people with a science background love to poop on frou frou things like the arts, but recognize there is more to it then some moron peeing on a crucifix. Think the music industry, movie industry, advertising, graphic design, information technology, etc. These are all sectors that have routes in the Arts. Neglecting these areas could have much further consequences then you may be considering.
I suppose it comes down to one's view point on Government intervention in the economy. Personally I'd like to see the tax system revamped to remove all notion of "tax incentives" and "tax exemptions". Have a set rate for differing economy bodies and then re-invest the money collected directly into the economy through direct funding and grants.
I cringe at the thought of these so called tax incentives and exemptions. It's overly complicated and requires a massive buracracy just to manage (something which I consider a gigantic waste of public resources).
I just completed a book of poetry. I don't want to post it all here because, frankly, you should have to pay to read my brilliant, life altering, inspiring verse. To give you a tease though, the first poem starts like this...
There once was a man from Nantucket...
I know, great opening line! However, so far, the public has not deemed my poetry worthy of support. Unbelievable I know...
Can you please point me to the appropriate government agency that should step up and support my "art"? For me to write so brilliantly, I require certain "inducements" shall we say, and they can be expensive. I like to refer to them as Operating Expenses.
Thanks.
Well, with a book of poetry there are a few routes that you could take. There are a number of small publishers who may be interested who receive government funding, though I would suggest taking a look at what these companies publish to see if your book fits with their catalogue.
As for straight-up government grants, they are difficult to acquire as an individual writer (trust me, I should know), but the Canada Council for the Arts is definitely the people you want to approach, although it is very difficult for an unpublished author to receive any kind of grant. Generally they go to established artists.
If you're honestly looking to get in on the government art-funding gravy-train, what you're going to need to do is establish an art company that produces (usually that produces other-people's art, not so much your own) and get at least a couple of products under your belt. You'll probably need to start as a not-for-profit society so that you're eligible for grants, which will require a board of directors who receive no money from the company. Then you yourself will become an employee of the not-for-profit, and you can then be paid a salary by the company.
Also, I may suggest that the artistic terrain you seem to be working on has been pretty well worked over. In particular noted author Isaac Asimov has an excellent book of dirty limericks out. I believe you can purchase it from Amazon.com, if you're interested.
Remember, six consecutive identical words is generally considered the benchmark for plagiarism.
For those that saw "Voice of Fire".... did you follow the instructions and look at the white wall? Someone said they looked at it for five minutes and got nothing out of it.... well, you're not supposed to. You are supposed to stand directly in front of it, stare straight on for 2 minutes and then turn to the white wall. What you see on the white wall is the "Voice of Fire", not the painting.
Of course you sorta get the same thing if you stare at the bright neon green in Excel....
