Or, how Canadians help rich people put on plays for their friends;
“The arts, entertainment and recreation industries combined for about 1% of the GDP produced by all service industries in 2012, so it’s a great exaggeration to say that the entertainment industry makes a major contribution to Canada’s economy.”
The original Fraser Institute report here.
Leftists like to keep the entertainment industry in the pocket of the state so they have the apparatus of propaganda production in place when they seize power.
If you can’t make a living in the arts,whether it be painting, acting,writing or playing an instrument,it is safe to say that it is a hobby.
We’re having an ongoing battle with our city council over ‘arts grants’ that total nearly $300,000 in a city of just 81,000. That doesn’t include a further $300,000 council spent doing repairs to a building that should really be condemned and is worth far, far less than the repair work being done.
We have an amateur theatre group that owns and funds it’s own building – seats about 200 – puts on it’s own productions and is hugely supported by the community at large. But then, they put on plays that people actually want to attend.
The city supported group are ‘professional actors’ who can’t make a living on their own and who produce works that are so ‘artsy’ no one except the progressive intelligentsia could be bothered putting on a coat to go see.
But hey, we’re trying to be a high brow city…. so everyone’s gotta pay.
“If I can’t sell my paintings maybe I shouldn’t be a painter!”
Robert Bateman I believe
The one and only reason to use public funds to subsidize “the arts” is PROPAGANDA.
“He who pays the piper calls the tune.”
How do you think the Left managed to completely take over the entire Arts arena? Payola, of course.
Something covered in Yes, Prime Minister including a scene akin to No Guff’s municipal problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Patron_of_the_Arts
At first reading I thought it said 1% of GDP and said to myself “1% of GDP is nothing to sneeze at”.
Then I noticed it said “1% of the GDP produced by all service industries”. Now that’s sneeze worthy.
1% of GDP? If they earned it from ticket sales, DVD sales or a product that put on the market, actually sold to a willing buyer and only if it wasn’t paid for in advance.
The rest of that “GDP” that the Arts claim is their contribution is in the form of a tax, or subsidy TO the Arts, right out of my back pocket. We all know how much taxpayers love auto manufacturing subsidies, it’s reflected in the price you paid for that automobile. They get you coming and going.
Subsidized “arts” should be free to the masses who already paid once for it.
Subsidized art is the taxing of Joe Six-pack who likely listens to and pays for C&W to subsidize the ticket cost of the tuxedo owning, limousine passengers attending the enlightened and artsy events. That frees-up more money from the wealthy, who would otherwise be arts-patrons, to pour money into green foundations involved in putting Joe Six-pack out of work. IOW, when you interrupt the old order of reliance on Patrons, Joe Six-pack gets screwed.
I’ve said this before but it bears repeating: I applied for a Canada Council grant and my application was rejected because I had “the prospect of commercial success”. I went ahead and, what do you know, I came out ahead. If grants are only open to people who have no hope of standing on their own two feet, then they shouldn’t even be getting consideration for taxpayers money.
I think the number one avenue to refresh arts funding is to push for community control over the funding. It’s the 21st century, it wouldn’t be hard to hold an online poll choosing between projects. There’s a sense as it is that the money is owed to the slice of people who control it and if it’s ever cut you’re taking something away from them that’s theirs. Changing to a poll would change that, not only would the oligarchical cultural dynamic be gone people would understand it’s their money and up to them to cut it or not. I remember a thoughtful blog post from way back by someone who was more or less a member of the ‘official arts scene’ who thought the funding as it is stultifies culture in the hands of the gatekeepers. As it is things are wasteful and un-cultural.
All you need to know about funding the arts, is that Saskatchewan hasn’t been visibly affected by cutting the Film Tax Credit 2 years ago.
If it’s viable, it will be done.
I would love to see referendums on all arts spending. It would make life so much more interesting. Every year you find out what the music budget is and then vote on how to spend it. Goodbye Bach and hello AC DC.
People are paying for the “pleasure” of hearing and seeing utter rot that they may otherwise not hear or see elsewhere. Now that it’s been established that what passes for entertainment is not being vapour in the bucket can we dispense with forking over tax dollars?
John Chittick @ 8:43PM, Nails it!
Spot on, sir!
It’s just like western resource money that gets used to ceebeecee-sneer at us in both official languages.
And speaking of that leftard agitprop budget-barnacle, are they double dipping with direct, and indirect subsidies?
If taxpayer funding supports one industry then it must hurt others. It’s a negative-sum game.
The sooner that the government stops spending money on “art” the better off we all will be. BC is a province which must have the greatest number of potters/capita in the country. A very few make a living at it but, those that do, do quite well. Some decades ago I remember talking to a Vancouver potter about what I viewed as horrendous pastel pieces he had made and his response was “that’s what sells”. Sure enough, he did very well that year and is probably still doing very well financially as he knows what people want.
Another local potter I know produces some beautiful work (and you know you’ve been buying too many pieces from one potter when he immediately makes a beeline towards you at the annual pottery sale to show you some select pieces he’s kept aside) but despite the high prices he charges for what I consider stunning work, it doesn’t pay the bills. He’s skilled enough that he can supply multiple restaurants with plates, and other ceramic items on almost an industrial scale and he also does very well financially.
Neither of the artists I mentioned above has ever had a government grant to fund their art. 99.9% of artists can’t make a living from their art. The vast majority of “artists” are self-labelled as “artists” and they’re the people one sees on Vancouver sidewalks trying to sell pathetic drawings that don’t measure up to the standards of a retarded 6 year old or “poetry” which is usually some inane incoherent rantings which they expect to be congratulated on. Many of them seem to think that insanity alone qualifies them as an “artist”.
Vancouver is also full of big chunks of rusting scrap metal which I initially thought served some function and were made so large so as to prevent the Vancouver scrap metal thieves from easily absconding with them. What I did find out eventually is that these “artworks” were actually paid for by the taxpayers of Vancouver; again a couple of drunken rednecks given access to a junkyard and welding tools would have no trouble creating a “sculpture” of equal “beauty”.
What is missing from the current education system is any course in economics of art. One doesn’t create a modern economy by having people sell their badly made baskets, pots and paintings to one another. What constitutes good art is partly individual but, when ones 6 year old child, or better yet, ones dog, can easily recreate a painting in the style of some “avant garde” artist, then that “artist” had better have a trade to fall back on. A hint to wannabe artists: skill is essential. I know that it’s not “creative” but people are impressed by things that they can’t do. I can scribble random shapes on a piece of paper and, when I’m on the phone I produce doodles that I’ve had people ask me for copies of. Draw or paint better than I can and, given the right subject matter, I might even consider buying a painting. Sadly, I doubt that 99.9% of the “artists” out there who believes that they’re owed a living will understand.
Funding or no Bach and ACDC aren’t going anywhere 😉 But as per Loki stupid hunks of metal would have seen their day. CBC Radio 2 is worth keeping from when I’ve heard it, a smart pol might save something like that and put the rest in voter’s hands.
If anyone is up in Muskoka (cottage country about two hours north of Toronto), head out to Little Lake Joe, where you can see, on a private island, the “cottage(s)” of one Robert Lantos.
Although I’ve paid enough tax money into his crappy movies, I’m apparently not welcome, even to cruise by and gawk a bit in my uncle’s 40-year old shit box of a boat.
BTW, don’t forget that David Cronenberg can make a movie in London, with a non-Canadian cast and mostly non-Canadian crew, and get credit for a “Canadian” production, replete with tax credits…
“Bloody ‘ell, Murdoch!”
Careful about asking for “community control”. Most of the time the term refers to public meetings packed with activists and “community organizers” who harangue and intimidate people who don’t agree with them.
I see a limited role for public subsidies for artistic endeavours that can demonstrate clearly an economic benefit to a community. If No Guff’s community theatre can attract tourists to his or her town or enhance the rest of the service sector by getting some help (say a low interest loan) to add another 100 seats, a case can be made for helping.
Support for artists who make art that few people want to see, much less pay for, should be left, as it was historically, to eccentric patrons (who may come to be remembered, in time, as brilliant visionaries).