Is it the Gov't's job to support the Arts?
ShepherdsDog @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:25 am
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2008/02/26/arts-reax.html
I for one don't believe the government should be involved in this. It is not the governments responsibility to support artists .......or those who claim to be artists (seeing as what can be construed as Art is a highly subjective matter).
sandorski @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:02 am
Within reason, yes, if need be. Many things enrich Society and the Arts is one of those things. An enriched society goes beyond Entertained, it also passes creativity on to those who merely spectate.
romanP @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:49 am
To say that the government should not fund arts is about the same as saying that government should not support Canadian culture. I guess it's no wonder so many people have a hard time identifying Canadian culture.
ridenrain @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:38 am
Indeed:
$1:
Bubbles Galore, the Canada Council and Ontario Arts Council-funded lesbian porn fantasy film, was shown at the 1997 Freakzone International Festival of Trash Cinema.
Manitoba artist receives $15,000 from the Canada Council to string up dead rabbits."
$1,500 (!) grant to an emerging Native poet named Molly Morin who subsequently published a poetry chapbook called "Where Did My Ass Go?"
Manitoba artist receives $15,000 from the Canada Council to string up dead rabbits."
$1,500 (!) grant to an emerging Native poet named Molly Morin who subsequently published a poetry chapbook called "Where Did My Ass Go?"
If free money from the government isn't a Canadian value, then I just don't know what I'm entitled to.
mtbr @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:08 pm
No...just like I told the guy from Harris-Decima on the phone friday night they can fend for themselves.
Mustang1 @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:14 pm
I'm not about to fully support every self-declared artist, but, promoting and safeguarding a nation's past and culture is certainly well within a government's political philosophy. Besides, we've done this since the beginning and the benefits clearly outweigh the costs.
xerxes @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:20 pm
Yeah, what Mustang said. sure, a lot of modern art is pretentious and downright bizarre (to put it charitably) but other artistic ventures are totally worth it. Museums are worth it as are recording artists and television shows.
Streaker @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:34 pm
Yes, government should support the arts - and without making judgements about what is good art and what isn't.
mtbr @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:42 pm
Streaker Streaker:
Yes, government should support the arts - and without making judgements about what is good art and what isn't.
Yeah...a couple of painted lines hanging in a museum is art
Streaker @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:48 pm
mtbr mtbr:
Streaker Streaker:
Yes, government should support the arts - and without making judgements about what is good art and what isn't.
Yeah...a couple of painted lines hanging in a museum is art
And the estimated value of that work has gone up quite nicely since then. The museum made a good investment.
At any rate, good artists aren't afraid to ruffle a few feathers.
paisley_cross @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:00 pm
sandorski sandorski:
Within reason, yes, if need be. Many things enrich Society and the Arts is one of those things. An enriched society goes beyond Entertained, it also passes creativity on to those who merely spectate.
Who decides which artistic activities should be supported? We have just seen an example of where the government wants to cut off funding of films it does not like. Should the judgment re funding be made on the basis of artistic merit or politics?
Wullu @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:20 pm
Not only no, but HELL NO!
It is not the governments job or position to support the arts. That is our job as citizens of the country. If we choose not to support some wingnut artist or to not support the local philharmonic that is our choice. In the case of the later, a piss poor one, but it is still our choice.
The very idea that we would need or even want some pencil pushing crat to decide what is art is, is utterly mind boggling. Art is something different to every person in this country.
Loader @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:21 pm
The Government should fund literary, visual and performance arts because in the long run, these are some of the things that help define Canadian culture. It just kills me when you see some painted lines, or twisted hunks of metal that some artist got paid big $$ for and looks like hell, but on the other hand when I look at Inuit, First Nation or Group of Seven art, I am glad that that this work is being promoted and preserved.
sandorski @ Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:24 pm
paisley_cross paisley_cross:
sandorski sandorski:
Within reason, yes, if need be. Many things enrich Society and the Arts is one of those things. An enriched society goes beyond Entertained, it also passes creativity on to those who merely spectate.
Who decides which artistic activities should be supported? We have just seen an example of where the government wants to cut off funding of films it does not like. Should the judgment re funding be made on the basis of artistic merit or politics?
Artistic Merit and Need. Certain Artists don't have Need, mostly newer Artists. Only other Artists could really determine "Artistic Merit", although there could be exceptions.
Ya I saw something the other day talking about Government might want their $$ back if unsatisfied with the Art. That's not going to work.
ShepherdsDog @ Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:30 am
$1:
and without making judgements about what is good art and what isn't.
Bullshit. Too many people claim to be artists that have the creative abilities of a brain damaged chimp on acid. Performance Art (Interpretive Dance) is just an example of shit that deserves to be relegated to the garbage heap.