A couple attending an art exhibition at the National Gallery were staring at a portrait that had them completely confused. The painting depicted three black and totally naked men sitting on a park bench. Two of the figures had black penises, but the one in the middle had a pink penis.

The curator of the gallery realized that they were having trouble interpreting the painting and offered his assessment. He went on for nearly half an hour explaining how it depicted the sexual emasculation of African Americans in a predominately white, patriarchal society. In fact, he pointed out, "Some serious critics believe that the pink penis also reflects the cultural and sociological oppression experienced by gay men in contemporary society."

When the curator left, a Scottish man approached the couple and asked:

"Would you like to know what the painting is really about?"

"Now why would you claim to be more of an expert than the curator of the gallery?" asked the couple.

Because I'm the artist; I painted this picture," he replied. "In fact, there are no African Americans depicted at all. They're just three Scottish coal-miners. The guy in the middle went home for lunch."

It is all just a big cop-out. So they do not have to work for their living - like everybody else does - and to give tax money to these air-heads.

There is absolutely no need for governments to fund the arts. Art has existed since long before anyone conceived of the idea of either government or money. When we find caves that our ancestors lived in, we find paintings on the walls. Dig up a long lost village and find decorative art work and pottery etc.

So why do we. After 20 plus years of working in close proximity to arts groups, I have come to conclude that the reason politicians give money to them is in order to buy their services when the need arises.

They are a very handy group to have on your side when you want to run a political campaign. They can take nice pictures of you and your family to slip under doors. They can make lawn signs that are need in the thousands etc. They man phone banks for politicians in order to raise money or for get out the vote efforts. They help fill up the street with protestors when a Mike Harris comes along to amalgamate your city and threatens politicians jobs.

And that is why we have funding for the arts.

The "artist" claims 400,000 people are going to see his Red Ball.

Where does he get this number and how is it that, even if true, this generates revenue for the community?

A vandal who would paint the wall behind it could make the same claim, that 400K people will see his graffiti, but in what way does that generate revenue for the community?

Real artists don't need government grants, their art sells to private parties who often become philanthropic and donate them to museums or perhaps lend them.

Art stores are a good free alternative to museums, one might even like a piece so much that they would then buy it.

The "artist" depicted in the video probably has never sold one that way, though.

Culture comes from the masses and not through taxation, it's a grass roots thing.

I reside part-time in China. There is a huge 20+ city block area in Beijing completely devoted to art called 798 Art District. I’ve visited a couple times and have still not covered everything. The art is outstanding and as a whole frankly much more interesting than so much of the garbage I see back here. I found out on my first visit that there is no government support at all of this. All the artists pay rent and survive financially on their merit alone. Some of them have become quite rich in the process. It proves absolutely that art not only does not require taxpayer funding but the quality suffers because of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/798_Art_Zone

While I have no problems with "funding the arts" as per se, I do object to the government giving out taxpayer's dollars on my behalf.

My difinition of funding includes everything from pledging PBS to throwing a loonie or two in a street busker's hat. The point is that it is my decision on how to use my money.

Eye and Now magazines, the local lefty rags, have been going on and on about this inflatible red ball for a couple of weeks now, and the thoughts that have come to my mind are "fraud" and "wouldn't it be fun to puncture that thing?"

Good to see someone confront this crap head-on.

bob c

let me shorten your post for you

"they are lieberals"

there that's shorter and just as honest

I say let them clean stables or stalls all day, then in the evening they can paint, or what ever. Shovelling sh!t all day would be an excellent inspiration for the art in the evening!!!!

"A government-subsidized artist is an incompetent whore."
-- Robert A. Heinlein

GYM;

Here is a true story for you. When Bob Rae was running Ontario, his government bought a lot of local art. It ended up in a warehouse. When the warehouse was full, they dumped it all in the landfill and proceeded to buy more to fill the warehouse again. That, and a few more stories I could tell you, was all I needed to know.

It is a total waste of time talking to the guy who is getting the free ride to bring his big red beach ball to Canada.

Of course he is going to advocate teat sucking.

The bigger problem is added traffic congestion this thing causes. The ball was blocking the sidewalk on Queen St the other day which in turn blocks traffic with pedestrians.

If it wasn't "art", it would be deemed a public nuisance.

The artist notes that "People are actually suspicious of Luminato because it's NOT fully government funded."

I know I am. In my personal opinion a work can't legitimately be called "art" unless it's been juried and approved by a bureaucrats. Even the paleolithic cave paintings in Altamira had a a tiny little Canada Council logo underneath them.

Name me *one* lasting piece of art -- music, painting, sculpture, prose -- that wasn't funded by government. I know, I know, there'll always be people who'll give "Don Quixote," say, as an example of a great non-funded work, but it was a terrible book. Way too long, and confusing.

Give me a big red ball any day.

OWW!

I'd like to know how much Ryerson University paid (or was paid) to host this artist. Quite the racket they've got going on if the taxpayer-funded budget from one entity went towards supplimenting the taxpayer-funded budget of another. The reasons I am proud to say I went to that university are quickly being outnumbered by the reasons I am NOT proud of having gone there. If someone wanted to do an article on political correctness gone mad, it would be just the place.

Oh, goody. My fave pet peeve. Pardon me while I insert some on-topic links from my blog and kick Sarah (can't let go of the public teat) Polley around some more:

http://www.neutralhillsstills.ca/words/?p=11
http://www.neutralhillsstills.ca/words/?p=12
http://www.neutralhillsstills.ca/words/?p=18

What gets me is the Conservatives didn't get the seats they needed for a majority because Quebec didn't like the cuts to the arts. Morons.

Wrong, Rodney at June 19, 2009 1:57 PM.
They didn't get a majority because:
a) the Maritimes are full of welfare junkies
b) the Bloc is permitted to exist

The Maritimes alone, if the CPC had won all the seats, could have given them a majority without Quebec. But the idea that rent seekers and teat suckers were responsible for the minority is true.

It's time the west had those 11 more seats they deserve.

Who needs doctors or tanks when we can have tax funded balloons........

My first thought "A wonderful, inspiring piece depicting the ballooning of national debt by the liberal mindset." Then "A satire into the fear that communism would take over teh world." Then I realized it was just a big red ball.

Looks staged, but makes a good point. Why TF should "Canadian Culture" be government-funded? Oh, wait, I get it, it's to differentiate us from those evil Americans and "show solidarity" with Quebec what with our inherent inferiority complex and the passive-aggressive need to appeal to everyone.

Maybe two big skin-coloured balls would have been better.

Rodney, It isn't that "Quebec didn't like the cuts to the arts," it is that CBC Radio-Canada, et all, who control the airwaves and propaganda in Quebec didn`t like the cuts and they abused their position to make it APPEAR that Quebec was up in arms.

Most Quebeckers, like the rest of Canada, are not represented by the CBC RadCan crowd.

Note the double-standard? The sign was not free speech, but some stupid red ball is.

The left will gladly deny your right to express yourself when they disagree with you.

I don't blame the 'artist' at all.
I would like to kick a few balls around the offices of the bureaucrates that funded him.

People get very testy when you threaten their sinecures, eh?

I wonder if I could get a grant for my art project. It depicts three individuals; an Albertan (made out of oil rig and refinery parts), a farmer (made out of farm machinery parts and guns), and a lumberjack (made out of chainsaws, axes, etc.) They are each pissing on the grave of P.E.T.

How fast and how much do you think I will get?

how is it that the "artist soon to be even more famous" steals the "Busted" artwork from the representative from taxpayer.com ?

I'm not against the idea of the government funding art. It's just that the art world seems so utterly dependent. So in need of *art* being their day job, while I always thought of art that doesn't generate enough profit to sustain itself, as being... a hobby.

The correct label for this guy is "Welfare Recipient", not artist.

Kate...just for the fun of it apply for a grant and 'go crazy'.
I can imagine the many creative ways you could express yourself....

I would urge everyone to attend the Ontario College Of Art's open house.
You can't miss the building, I actually really like it.
Highest standards in Ontario.
You will flip out.
One notable piece that comes to mind, was 4 plaster casts of big hairy vaginas stuck to the wall.

It's unbelievably inspiring, seriously, none of you will believe it.

"Video, has been removed, terms of use."

ian at 1:04, thanks for the laugh, I'll be committing that one to memory.

Ummm, how is it that an American worker, the 'Artist', can get access to Cdn. funding? I keep hearing/reading of instances where Canadians, on business trips to the US, have been turned back by US Customs; "Working illegally in the US" or words to that effect.
An Architect friend up here in B.C., hired by a US client to design a project, had exactly this scenario happen to her.
Wusses we are.

I'd like to express my rage at art funding cuts through transgressive interpretive dance. Unfortunately, my grant hasn't come through. Yet again, my creative talent is silenced!

Kurt Perschke [creator]:"...curious, the people who aren't in the cultural institutions want to be the curators..."

Curious how some creators (inflator in this case) with little talent, think they are the cultural institutions, and want to be paid as artists.

And why do the supposed avant garde, artsy crowd like the government so much? Government funding allows them to be supposedly cutting edge, but that just translates into disgusting, rather than insight or revelation. Nope, just the usual cliches that have been beaten to death for decades.
I guess the big red ball was fun, but wasn't there some local artist north of Trawna that could have done it?
Still, it's kind of neat they named the whole festival after my car...

"A government-subsidized artist is an incompetent whore."

What, then is a government-subsidized farmer?

A producer.

the Maritimes are full of welfare junkies

So what's your point, OZ? The west is also full of welfare junkies.

"this video has been removed due to terms of use violation"

Google, you are a censor! Along with the persons who reported it.

When I applied for a Canada Council grant for a book on Canadian history, my application was rejected because I had "the prospect of commercial success". I should have just dragged a big red ball to Ottawa (and hidden my Canadian passport) and got some support. There is no justification for spending taxpayers' money on the arts - they should stand on their own like I had to or get private funding.

I saw that stupid red ball being squeezed into an archway in downtown Toronto a couple of weeks ago. 'Didn't pay much attention.

Now, I realize I should have.

The Taxpayer.com guy should have asked twitface-inflatable-ball-maker (NOT artist) if he knows that a full 1/3, often more, of Canadians' hard earned salaries are taxed -- a much higher percentage than in the U.S.A..

'Not that he'd care.

"Culture" that red ball ain't. Crap would be a far more accurate definition.

terms of use violation? I certainly doubt that taxpayer.com has objected. They want this message spread around. What, therefore, could be the problem?

batb, don't you think it would be more fun to ask the "artist" about his inspiration, and what he feels is unique and ... artistic about his ball?

Snappy comeback: What, then is a government-subsidized farmer? ~ philboy 3:59 PM
Snappier: A producer. ~ Cooper at 4:04 PM

and philboy if you don't think a subsidized farmer is a producer; why not eat some of the artists products. At least after that, they will turn into what they were thought of.

What to see a real artist? Go to http://www.francetremblay.com/originals.html

France was my manager at Nortel. Best manager I have ever had in my entire career. When I was laid off from Nortel, I got another techie job, but France took the opportunity to do what she really loves and made a career out of that. Amazing, inspiring person. I wouldn't even attempt to compare the work of France to the mindless idiot in the video.

Her work is artwork. How does one know? Because is stands on its own merit. It is beautiful, her technique is amazing, it is innovative, and only a VERY small % of artists could duplicate her work. And she supports herself and her family with hard work and she earns every peny she gets.

His "work" is the result of him and a bunch of his parasite friends sitting around the pub one night inventing the most ridiculous ideas and bet on who can get government funding. This dick head won the bet.

I'll bet the Canadian government would pay a million dollars for this gigantic clown nose. They could put it next that other big piece of million dollar piece of crap with three stripes painted on it.

They both exemplify the simple minds that fund and buy this kind of garbage.

You don't need to be discriminating when they are paying with other people's money.

philboy if you don't think a subsidized farmer is a producer

I didn't say they weren't producers... but
they are also, as oz put it, welfare junkies.
You see, all of you stalwart champions of the free market, including the CTF bozos, don't seem to have a problem with subsidies, as long as you approve of what's being subsidized.
How can one argue with such a philosophically
consistent position?
The utter hypocrisy of the small dead mind
is astounding.

I met an artist on a Government grant once. I was told how easy it would be for me to get one and I did not have to do much. Was told I can get lots of money for doing nothing. I mentioned the obvious, I’m a clown. The short story is that I may not be financially well off, but at least I feel I earned every penny - and pay taxes on it.

My motto: “Why put an amateur in Ottawa when you can get a professional”. After all somebody has to oppose the Rhino Party.

If I had the support - I asked Elections Canada about requirements and I just don’t have thousands to register - it would be easy to get the signatures from voters and I would run against any LIEberal - Perhaps Biffy or DeYawn - and win.

Seriously though, if you have an artistic ability you can make it without the help from government. I would rather give the money to support our Olympic teams. At least you know they work for the help they get, along with personal sacerfices to represent the greatest country - Canada.

philboy you are completely clueless if you think farmers are welfare junkies.

philboy is defaulting to invective a bit quickly. Many SDA commenters have a "problem" with subsidies, no matter who gets the taxpayer money. I think the argument here is the priority of what the money subsidizes, farm produce or red rubber balls. Didn’t someone make a song about that?

Why is anything subjective being publicly funded? We need better roads more than we need lazy artists and the stripes they paint.
This is not to say we don't need art, period, only art that will stand the test of time. We have perfectly good artists not getting noticed. Where is their money?

[quote]France was my manager at Nortel. Best manager I have ever had in my entire career. When I was laid off from Nortel, I got another techie job, [/quote]Bob Crooks

Re: Nortel Chapter 11 I think the employees are missing an important issue... If you signed an employee contract, like in the US, which assigns patent bragging rights to the scientist but the Company gets exclusive rights to the patent... The solution to Employee benefits may come through the claiming of those patent rights. (It is not unusual for a severed employee to successfully bargain for Patent rights) Those Patents are a huge profit center, going forward, and the Corporation has technically voided the contract

Existing Model: RCA was sold to GE. The RCA Patent rights & Employee benefits were placed into a RCA Trust...The licensing & revenue produced by the RCA employee patents was "huge". That trust has performed beyond expectations. It was the right thing to do.

On subject: Support all Canadian ART.. Its the one thing that is, for sure, Canadian.

We can also thank arts grant for the horrid Hip Hop that has come out of TdotOdot for the last 20yrs. Had there been some motivation to sell records perhaps Tdot's rap music might have been/ be decent.

What ignorant and juvenile comments, philboy. Farmers aren't 'welfare junkies' and how arrogant and insulting of you to write such a thing. Nor are they taking subsidies like those so-called 'artists' who can't and won't get a wage-job and instead, insist that the taxpayer pay them to 'feel emotional'.

Farmers get subsidies in the form of low interest loans, tax breaks, cartels (like Quebec alone gets to produce various dairy products and is sheltered from the open market..ahh. quebec), cash backs, wheat and grain subsidies. Why?

Because the farmers are producing commodities that SELL on the open global market and because our environmental realities constrain us to a short growing season.

This means that the produce is and must be competitive with subsidized farms and longer growing seasons in Europe, China, India, Brazil, the USA and so on.

That 'artist' isn't producing anything that sells in the market. The artist isn't competing with SIMILAR products on the open market that can be sold more inexpensively because of longer growing seasons, and because of government subsidies in those countries. The artist has no equity, no equipment to speak of, no operating costs.

It isn't that subsidies produce more or less agriculture, but, the competition between large scale and medium/small farms makes agriculture a difficult enterprise. And yet, a robust economy is based around, not large megacompanies, but around small and medium businesses. Therefore, a national economy that supports this type of business enables more of its citizens to be locally self-employed, to employ local workers..than the big megacorporations.

The Luminatis are red faced about wearing their clown nose in public.

Many SDA commenters have a "problem" with subsidies, no matter who gets the taxpayer money.

Uh, no, not so so... you, the bear, cooper don't seem to have a problem with some subsidies.
The CTF has certainly never met a farm subsidy they didn't like.
The truth may sting, but it's not invective.

At least we weren't forced to fund him showing his body fluids in a jar. This is just another example of the art's community fleecing the public to pay for their hobbies. A real artist does not expect the people to fund his/her work, the faux artist have no talent and resort to creating worthless junk like that giant rubber ball. A grossly obese man wearing grape smugglers passes for art in Quebec, the rest of Canada call it obscene and a man on a beach.

Slow day in mom's basement for philbot.

I just remembered, here's the Red Rubber Ball dedicated to philboy.

Actually Philboy, if the government stopped stealing from Western farmers, they wouldn't have need for 'subsidies'. Tough to call it 'subsidies' when they tell you what you can earn, who you have to pay your 'earnings' to, and then return a pittance (minus the red tape fees) and call it a subsidy.

Your point once again?

General, please, could you please expound on your
demented little theory. It sounds much more entertaining than the usual, predictable, small dead hypocrisies.

pillboy

I'm about to start haying, come and give me a hand will you!!!!!

and general is correct, the western farmers git screwed

"I'm about to start haying, come and give me a hand will you!!!!!"

You'll have to explain the term "haying" to philbot. It's a very good possibility that he doesn't know a swather from a combine. Besides, he's probably plagued by allergies and is prone to blistering of the hands when exposed to a little physical labour.

Seriously though ... don't give this guy an audience. He thrives on attention which motivates him to distribute crap in all directions. Much like a manure spreader.

Anyone comparing a farmer who actually produces something that people want and need to a subsidy based artist producing .... well, nothing of value, is not worthy of conversation.

Didn't propose a theory, Philboy, this is what you call facts and reason.

Don't know which words you were having a problem with, but I'll try and dumb it down without having to employ the sock puppets for ya:

In 1984, NZ embarked on a then-almost unheard of program of privatization, they lowered agricultural 'subsidies' (as well as wage and price controls)

At the time everyone screamed bloody murder about how the NZ farmers were going to literally die in their fields - if they could still afford them - and go bankrupt to boot.

Feel free to Bing it for yourself, but there's one of the first I found:

http://newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/features/0303/newzealand_subsidies.shtml

When you stop stealing ("Canadian" Wheat Board) from WESTERN farmers ('cause EASTERN farmers aren't Canadian, apparently) you realise that you no longer have to bribe them with their own money. Ain't economics great?

If you're still having a problem with this, talk to Captain Capitalism. We don't know each other, but I'm sure he'd have a good time telling you that normal corporations don't enjoy the same revenue/profit ratios that the good ol' "Canadian" Wheat Board does.

Again, a quick search reveals that in 2004 the Board took in just over $4 billion (4.02 or something) with $3.91 billion in profit. That's terrific margin. Succulent even.

Happy to entertain.

Why not leave the money in the hands of the people and let them decide what their culture is by spending it on what they, not the government, believe to be worthwhile art and cultural events?

If each individual got to choose whether or not to pay an artist to drip blood out of his anus wouldn't we be giving people more choices and more control of their own culture?
Perhaps we would do support an 'artist' who drips blood out of his anus, or perhaps we would all spend it on monster trucks shows.
Or beer and popcorn.
But it would be our choice, not some idiotic bureaucrat sitting on a grants board in Ottawa.

"There is absolutely no need for governments to fund the arts. Art has existed since long before anyone conceived of the idea of either government or money."

Yes the way art has been perverted is with the idea of the "professional artist" who does nothing but their craft... Not the cave man, who drew on the wall after hunting all day, or even the Greek sculptor, who in his youth would've defended Sparta/Athens etc. just like every other male citizen.

I strongly support arts education for children, it has mental-development fringe benefits; but the idea of adults whose business plan consists of Applying for Canada Council Grants, just sickens me.

Former musician with University degree in music speaking here. Hey everyone's allowed one big mistake in life. Now I work in healthcare (non-union, for commision. Saves the taxpayers money and I get paid better than a paramedic. It rocks.)

"I'm about to start haying, come and give me a hand will you!!!!!"

Ah, biff, the arrogance of the welfare junkie.
You want me to fund your lifestyle and do
your work??

Anyone comparing a farmer who actually produces something that people want and need to a subsidy based artist producing ....

If you were producing what people want, you wouldn't be a welfare junkie.
Stan's got the right idea:

Why not leave the money in the hands of the people and let them decide what their culture is by spending it on what they, not the government, believe to be worthwhile art and cultural events?

That should go for red rubber balls or biff's hay.

And General, I am touched that our mental health facilities allow patients access to the
interweb.

How come I can't get the video to play?

Pillboy...you are touched,just not the way you mean it,brain dead left wing hypocrite.

Yeh, the video has been pulled due to some bogus claim of violating the terms of use? What the hell does that mean? No porn, no violence, what else is there? Maybe the OHRC felt threatened...

The CTF's entire You Tube channel was shut down due to copyright violations. Three BNN clips were highlighted in this revoking of the ENTIRE CHANNEL!

The red ball video is back up at the new channel, www.youtube.com/ctfcanada.

The video itself is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgbOr3O-3JA.

If the "art" shows are such a great revenue generator, as claimed by the "artist", then why do they only survive on extorted taxpayer dollars?

My guess is the claim itself, that the shows are revenue generators, are simply progressive lies written by an individual or group who gets their funding from ... Taxpayers!!

Maybe they should convert the big red ball into a giant condom to protect us from the screwing over we are getting from the political elite and the tax slurping useless pieces of crap that they keep giving our money to.

They could then claim they are helping society practice "Safe Tax". That'll make us serfs feel better about our contribution.