Novelist Brigid Delaney is just better than us:
As a member of our creative caste, Ms Delaney wants to capture the buzz and thrum of city life. She wants to inspire “recognition” and, above all, “empathy.” It’s just that she’d prefer not to empathise too much with those non-creative people. Say, by working for a living and paying her own bills.
As a long-time supporter of the arts, I can empathize with Ms. Delaney’s position.
The wife and I subsidize the artistic juices of a local writer, a woman who comes on Tuesdays to dust, vacuum, polish and do our toilets (and not being the marksman I once was, wash the little floor mat around my personal appliance). I presume that during the rest of the week, she writes her insights on the human condition. Although come to think of it, I believe she mentioned having other patrons who subsidize her on Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursday and Fridays. It’s how we benefactors to the arts “give back” to society.
As a long-time supporter of the arts, I can empathize with Ms. Delaney’s position.
The wife and I subsidize the artistic juices of a local writer, a woman who comes on Tuesdays to dust, vacuum, polish and do our toilets (and not being the marksman I once was, wash the little floor mat around my personal appliance). I presume that during the rest of the week, she writes her insights on the human condition. Although come to think of it, I believe she mentioned having other patrons who subsidize her on Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursday and Fridays. It’s how we benefactors to the arts “give back” to society.
Liberal madrassas, also known as Universities, can put them up for free, that way they’ll be close to the only aficionados of their ‘art’.
I wonder where those liberal madrassas will get the funds to do that.
I have two words for Ms. Delaney and her ilk: Charles Ives.
If the “creative class” were to reflect in all truthfulness, they would realize they are solely dependent upon the patronage of the dreary uncreative masses, who they curl their lip in contempt at, for their income. The less creative in the creative class who realize that in the free market for artistic output their offerings are lacking, are boosters of involving a kleptocratic government as an agent to rob the uncreative soiled masses of their hard won monies and redistribute it to the idle “creative class” of which they declare themselves regardless of talent.
But we won’t wait for this cathartic moment within the souls of the creative cult, because a large part of being “creative” is “creating” an alternate reality/morality in which to dwell and that alternate reality sees government robbing citizens for less than stellar artistic expression as the “pulse” of the arts community. So guard your wallets when you go to one of these artistic/creative soirees, they will touch you up for fed funding faster than political activists pretending to be a charity.
As far as I can see you have two ravenous freeloading siblings snapping at the nanny state’s teats – one is the prehensile special interests who cloak their gluttony for taxpayer subsidy in a codex of victimolgy, – the other is a resident “arts/creative” community who haven’t the talent to compete for the available dollars on the open entertainment/arts market wrapping their inability/mediocrity in a banner of “Canadian art” which is somehow supposed to make it a patriotic duty to endure/pay for the sub-standard unappealing politically correct preachy drek or subtitled francophone nationalism the local “creative community” churns out –
I’ve often compared the pablum ground out by state-supplemented Canuk “arts” as being akin to the dreary politically correct pop art of cold war soviet Russia. Now we see the arts community forming direct alliance with the state through guaranteed funding and market share – the end product shows this unholy alliance. So IMHO the “creativity” of the “creative class” only extens far enough to adopting the correct politics which will gt them state funding – a tre sell out to the independence f true creativity.
Not much different than the Olympic athletes the media are currently fawning over. Why do I have to subsidize your hobby?
I remember hearing the story of how J.K. Rowling, authoress of the Harry Potter Books, wrote in coffee shops,while breast feeding. Yes she was on welfare, but she actually put pen to paper and had an “idea”. And now that she is fabulously wealthy, she is a very generous patron/donor of many charities.
This is old stuff from January 21/14. Mid last month. Why post this stuff now? Need attention or something?
We Canadians support the CBC.
I’ve know a few ‘artists’ in my time. Actors, musicians, sculptors, writers (I spent 12 year as pro musician, I met those types) … most, not all, considered life one big coffee break with a couple of hours of work liberally sprinkled here an there through the week. I was fortunate enough to figure out how to make my own rent, by playing music people were willing to pay for. That is part of the price of being an ‘artist’. And oh ya … those ‘artists’ that I am still aware of …. mostly like alcohol now and no one bought their stuff.
But the difference is that an athlete has to perform. If they finish 90th in a field of 100 they likely aren’t going to get much of a subsidy. In fact a number of Canadian Alpine Ski team members did have to raise their own money through work or endorsements to remain on the team. In a couple of instances all the cost came down to them. Also, at the end of the day our Olympic athletes move on (usually after about 8 years) to get jobs in the “real world”.
The author in question wants this to go on forever if she doesn’t make it big. That could be a lot longer than 8 years. Millions are already put into the arts across Canada at numerous different levels -galleries, showings etc.(just like they did on sport facilities). But the simple fact is most sports facilities make more money than most arts facilities.
Much of the money used to enhance out Olympic outcomes has been generated by what was made in profit at the Calgary and Vancouver Olympics. If artists put on such a similar multi-million dollar event and make millions from it they’re free to subsidize authors/artists however they want.
On that note, there could certainly be a reduction in spending on athlete support. Of course the gov’t should also reduce artist support at the same time. The gov’t should be reducing all unnecessary spending to get its books in order.
Back in the day, there was an Australian author named Arthur Upfield – created the white/aboriginal detective Napoleon Bonaparte. And one of his novels totally skewered the Australian literary establishment of the day. I gather that not much has changed in Oz – there are the successful novelists and the ‘creative’ types whose fate it is to be unappreciated.
Athletics also teaches two very valuable skills that are needed in life; tenacity and teamwork, both of which any business needs to thrive.
I have worked often with young athletes on construction sites, their Summer employment. Almost all were above average workers, with good self-discipline,and ability to take orders, not to mention their physical fitness made them quite tireless.
Artists that I have socialized and worked with, have a different mindset.Almost all felt they were “special” and deserved to have things given to them by the great unwashed,whether it be grants or “social assistance for artists” via the Canada Council for the Arts.
Whereas athletes are usually determined to succeed, artists are like baby birds, constantly squawking with their mouths open,”feed me momma,feed me”.
Most musicians I’ve known work at some other job to support their music. They have dreams of someday breaking out of the bar circuit, but they know that they need to provide for themselves.
I have nothing about contempt for “artists” who demand support so that they can be “creative”. If they can’t find a job to support themselves then they are parasites. Again, I’ve known budding artists who would work very hard during the summer in order to make enough money to spend the winter engaged in artistic endeavors. Given the demand for workers in N. Alberta, it’s rather easy now for a young person to make enough money in 6 months to live a good life for another 6 months.
No government funding for “artistic” purposes should be permitted. All it’s done is create rusting heaps of scrap metal in Vancouver and just funded con artists who consider themselves “artists”. If something is good and original enough, it will sell. That means that 99.9% of stuff produced by “artists” won’t be financially successful and that’s a risk the wannabe commercially successful artist takes.
It’s curious that this sense of entitlement among “artists” is the exact opposite to the mindset of the writers of open source software. Open source software is useful, can be modified and is given away for free. I’ve made my little contribution to this area as I like writing programs although I can no longer make a living at it. Perhaps those aspiring artists can take a lesson from writers of open source software, all of who have day jobs and write software because they enjoy the process. For me creating software is an artistic endeavor and perhaps I should write a program to parse applications to “arts councils” to generate transition states for a Markov chain based text generator to generate a grant application utilizing the type of text appealing to those doling out the grants.
Glad you differentiated ‘true creativity’ from its shoddy ‘prehensile’ relative. (GREAT WORD, thanks, Occam!) I was a member of a local arts group until the regular meetings became more about garnering gov’t grants than about selling our artwork. The members jockeying for gov’t funding weren’t artists; they were joiners and process junkies. Successful artists must learn how to market their work. True artists will subsidize their lifestyle by working at other jobs, if necessary, in order to keep creating. Artists such as Robert Genn, from Victoria, have been able to make their income from their artwork, partly because his work is exceptionally good, but also because he’s a brilliant marketer and writer. Likewise, Brian Scott, Carol Evans and Greta Guzek. As a painter, I collect other artists’ work, before the prices shoot up. I’ve kicked myself for not buying the work of certain artists while their paintings were affordable. The tech revolution has had a huge impact on art sales. Anyone with a digital camera can blow up his or her own shots. Voila’, originals for the living room. 🙂
The art world is snobbish if your mindset is to cater to that elitist element. I’ve never done that. I just know what I like.
During the Free Trade debate wasn’t it Robert Bates that said, “If I can’t sell my paintings maybe I shouldn’t be a painter!.”
Applicable to all ‘artistes’.
Charles Ives the insurance man? Yes indeed. Among our local arts types, an artist making money is regarded as
a whore. I have actually heard Handel described as a whore. And Mozart? One might think that as Mozart was
not an extremely good businessman that he might be acceptable, but oh no! So that mostly leaves Charles
Ives. True, he worked for a living, and was apparently successful, but he didn’t make any money from music.
So he is OK!
“Perhaps those aspiring artists can take a lesson from writers of open source software, all of who have day jobs and write software because they enjoy the process.”
My son was reading machine language textbooks at 10; he’s very plugged in within the open source world. He’s making a living as a software developer as well as, recently, co-author of a tech textbook and speaker. The connection between all those who make it in the tech world IS creativity. The members of that world never rest on their laurels. They’re always learning, trying new things, spotting trends and keeping up. They create and react to world events. They’re the movers and shakers now.
My son is a Canadian olympic athlete. When he competes he represents Canada. He wears an outfit that announces him as a member of Team Canada. He is recognised as being a Canadian and therefore how he comports himself matters for Canada. He has dedicated his young life to representing Canada at the Olympics and has worked very hard at it. In order to compete internationally at the high level required in today’s sporting world it has been his job and we have supported him financially. He lives frugally, below the poverty line, and would have been better off on welfare than the pittance given to him by the bureaucracy. Even though the bureaucracy is there “to support the athletes”, the bureaucracy is more to support the bureaucracy than the athletes.
The self discipline, attitude and quality habits he has learned are now invaluable as he makes his way in the business world. Fundamentally this was an investment in him as a business and I would rather have been able to deduct our expenses from our taxes than see a government bureaucracy say how much money he should get.
Let the criticisms begin.
Not by choice!!! The CBC doesn’t deserve a penny of taxpayer money other then what you choose to give to receive their programing. I haven’t watched anything on any CBC station for many years.
aND SPEAKING OF oLYMPIC ATHLETES, I remember many years ago approaching a business with a proposal for them to support our car racing team. One of the people with me doing the presentation said to me “we are asking for someone else to pay for our hobby”. Same with the arts and amateur sports.
Norman, you won’t read any criticism from me. The discipline, drive and guts it takes for your son to make it to compete in the Olympics bodes well for his future. I wish him the best!
11 Celebrated Artists Who Didn’t Quit Their Day Jobs:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/52293/11-celebrated-artists-who-didnt-quit-their-day-jobs
I’d much rather see my dollar(s) go towards our athletes who represent our country and usually with tremendous class. There are very few instances where our athletes have been an embarrassment.
On the other hand, artists who denigrate people’s religious beliefs in the name of ‘art’ (covering a crucifix with feces or urine) or plant trees upside down and call it art…or bend steel into odd shapes and call it art and get taxpayer dollars doesn’t pass muster for me.
I don’t regard such expositions as art because anybody can do such ‘art’. Not everyone can paint the Mona Lisa, or a detailed nature scene (Group of 7). Our idiotic government back in the day gave some ‘artist’ a huge chunk of money for a 30 or 40 foot cloth with three stripes on it two of them colours other than the white cloth. That is not art. That is a nice scam. Then there was the elephant which ‘painted’ with its trunk on a 60 minutes episode that had people who saw the art describing the “angst” and “passion” that the ‘artist’ used in creating this art.
I do not dislike art, but gluing three 12 inch pieces of 2 by 4’s together at odd angles isn’t art…..it’s bad woodworking.
Dan Simmons “The Two Deaths of Duane Hockenberry” gives a very good idea of what you get from subsidised writing of the type suggested, which is politically correct as to both content and author, or if possible even worse.
“These people aren’t artists. They’re your typical lazy 20 somethings who:
Have no talent
Have no work ethic
Want to avoid rigor and real work at all costs
Still want to become artists anyway”
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.ca/2014/01/politics-isnt-art.html
If I could make a living with my art I most certainly would. But I can’t so I drive a truck 12 – 15 hrs. per day and my artwork is restricted to weekends and days off. I belong to the local arts council but I’m rather inactive for the obvious reason that I just don’t have the time, plus I don’t care for the way they’re always pushing for more government funding. Some of their artwork is good, a lot of it isn’t.
Arts have always been subsidized/supported by benefactors – the nobility, the wealthy, the church etc., but back in those days if your art didn’t please the patron you were cut off. These days there’s no such quality control by the taxpayer. Too bad.
Quite a timely topic given that our City Council has just doled out over $209,000 for a variety of arts and culture groups – including bagpipers, dancers and barbershop quartets. The local symphony received $85,000 despite most of them considering themselves to be professional musicians.
I had someone defending these grants, saying that cities and municipalities everywhere do the same thing and where would we be without the arts.
She neglected to mention that her husband is a performer with one of these grant seeking organizations. Many of the grantors and grantees are politically or socially connected and it is just another iteration of the old boys network. All the arts and culture groups, as well as their friends and families work hard to support those who control the purse strings.
I feel strongly about this topic because for most of my adult life I made a very good living with my camera. No grants, no subsidies but like any small business, plenty of taxes and EI payments. EI particularly irked me because we were incorporated, meaning my wife and I were employees of our own company. So we paid EI twice – first as an employer and then again as employees. Yet we had no legal opportunity to avail ourselves of EI (though we were blessed to never need it).
Anyway, we recognized early on that art required marketing and sales skills so we applied ourselves there, taking courses and attending seminars on those topics. We used past successes to sell ourselves to potential clients, creating art that was specific to them.
We had plenty of accolades for our work, but I always maintained that the only true measure of flattery was when they wrote me a good sized cheque. How these rent seekers can feel any professional pride is beyond me.
Taxpayer funded entertainment is wrong, “sports” or “arts”. You are missing the point. Why does the government get to take my money to spend on entertainment for someone else? As soon as you say one type (Olympics) is OK you’ve agreed to the concept. Then anything is fair game,
Pardon the pun.
Also, I doubt that the “profits” of Calgary & Vancouver covered the true costs, once you include capital & security. And even if they did, why take the risk of underwriting in with tax dollars?
We should stop subsidizing the arts and athletics and give that money to the farmers.
Starving artists are a good thing. It encourages them to produce something somebody wants to buy.
An old fashioned notion, admittedly.