Arts Funding........Interview with Margie Gillis


Colpy
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

You think that's all that is required? Art classes in school? Exhibitions, and touring theater groups need money before they make money, and support for artists turns into economic benefit.

I went looking for the answers to my own question. An economic analysis of The Kansas Art Commission found that the art activities it was involved with annually produced $20 million worth of economic activity, which generated $2.1 million in local and state tax revenue.

When the state funding disappears, then any federal funds and local funds which were tied to the state funds disappear. That's an economic loss.
www.ipsr.ku.edu/resrep/pdf/m257a.pdf (external - login to view)

I have no problem with the state funding museums and hosting shows that are of benefit to the community. In fact, I love museums.......I was thrilled to be able to go see the terracotta warriors of China at the ROM last summer.......

But interpretive dance is simply idiotic.

As is much of the "art" supported by gov't.

The woman in Manitoba that took pictures of rotting rabbit carcasses.

The painting......9 feet tall, it consisted of three stripes, and cost big money.

The guy with the inflatable banana in Texas.......that complained Canada did not fund him well enough!!!!

Ridiculous.

Especially when the state is awash in debt......to hand off cash to some sweet, polite, lovely ditz to jump around and look silly in front of large groups of other idiots so stupid as to believe there is some significance in the act...........well, it is simply not on..........
 
Tonington
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Especially when the state is awash in debt......to hand off cash to some sweet, polite, lovely ditz to jump around and look silly in front of large groups of other idiots so stupid as to believe there is some significance in the act...........well, it is simply not on..........

Yes, well the case I already linked to should give them pause. Being awash in debt doesn't mean you cut everything in sight, and certainly not because someone happens to think it's idiotic.

If the money going out is less than the money coming in, then why cut it? Yes, let's say no to revenue, because we're in debt... THAT would be idiotic.

I guess it's better to not gather evidence and continue to rant about something. Ignorance works as a defense for politicians 99 times out of 98.

I mean heck, let's get rid of government grants and guaranteed loans to businesses that aren't involved in art which produce economic activity too. We have debt!
 
petros
#33
Quote:


I have no problem with the state funding museums and hosting shows that are
of benefit to the community. In fact, I love museums.......I was thrilled to be
able to go see the terracotta warriors of China at the ROM last summer.......

I've seen that exhibit too. It was truly amazing but never came close to the Khan one.
 
Colpy
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Yes, well the case I already linked to should give them pause. Being awash in debt doesn't mean you cut everything in sight, and certainly not because someone happens to think it's idiotic.

If the money going out is less than the money coming in, then why cut it? Yes, let's say no to revenue, because we're in debt... THAT would be idiotic.

I guess it's better to not gather evidence and continue to rant about something. Ignorance works as a defense for politicians 99 times out of 98.

I mean heck, let's get rid of government grants and guaranteed loans to businesses that aren't involved in art which produce economic activity too. We have debt!

Now, I am FAR from an economist..........

But the idea that throwing money at artists with a very limited following generates revenue for government strikes me as exactly the same kind of VooDoo as "trickle down" economics, in which you make the rich richer and that somehow is to everyones' economic benefit....

In other words, I simply don't believe it.

As for Corporate Welfare Bums, yep, let's cut them off too.
 
weaselwords
#35
Krista should be careful lobbing verbal grenades. How many free air flights did she did she take on the coattails of her ex (Lee Richardson MP Con). Maybe an interview with LR would appropo she could ask why his company received a $ 185,000 grant while he's an MP.
Yeah...yeah we all know the blind trust, arms length bit.
 
Colpy
+1
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by weaselwordsView Post

Krista should be careful lobbing verbal grenades. How many free air flights did she did she take on the coattails of her ex (Lee Richardson MP Con). Maybe an interview with LR would appropo she could ask why his company received a $ 185,000 grant while he's an MP.
Yeah...yeah we all know the blind trust, arms length bit.

Oh absolutely! And didn't someone say she was a CBC employee??? Talk about stealing from the people........and how much federal cash has Quebecor gotten???

But that is the problem, isn't it?

The federal treasury is like a water bucket blasted with a load of birdshot......leaking cash everywhere.
 
taxslave
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Oh absolutely! And didn't someone say she was a CBC employee??? Talk about stealing from the people........and how much federal cash has Quebecor gotten???

But that is the problem, isn't it?

The federal treasury is like a water bucket blasted with a load of birdshot......leaking cash everywhere.

Buying votes is an alternative to producing good policy.
 
Tonington
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Now, I am FAR from an economist..........

But the idea that throwing money at artists with a very limited following generates revenue for government strikes me as exactly the same kind of VooDoo as "trickle down" economics, in which you make the rich richer and that somehow is to everyones' economic benefit....

In other words, I simply don't believe it.

It is more akin to stimulus sending than it is to trickle down. The company I work for gets credits from Ottawa for our R&D, every month I tally up the hours I've worked on various projects. PEI has also created a business environment which is very friendly to biotech, which has been hugely successful. The exports of our class of products has gone up 77% since PEI implemented their program.

Reality doesn't change because you don't believe it. I linked to a clear example. But like I said, people have to actually look at the numbers...the down side being that those who would call it voodoo would then have to accept the findings. If you can call evidence a downside...
 
taxslave
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

It is more akin to stimulus sending than it is to trickle down. The company I work for gets credits from Ottawa for our R&D, every month I tally up the hours I've worked on various projects. PEI has also created a business environment which is very friendly to biotech, which has been hugely successful. The exports of our class of products has gone up 77% since PEI implemented their program.

Reality doesn't change because you don't believe it. I linked to a clear example. But like I said, people have to actually look at the numbers...the down side being that those who would call it voodoo would then have to accept the findings. If you can call evidence a downside...

R&D should recieve some kind of government help whether it is tax credits or outright cash when they can prove there is a benefit or at least a potential one much like mining exploration gets credits. That is not the same as much of the money that is spent on "arts' where often money goes to individuals and groups that write the best proposals rather than what will provide the best economic benefit. There was an example of bad arts funding years ago in BC where a guy got a government grant to buy a sail boat and expense money to cruise the coast to write a book about his travels. I can't recall if he ever published the book or even if there was a requirement that he do so only that it made the news for a while on government waste.
 
Tonington
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

R&D should recieve some kind of government help whether it is tax credits or outright cash when they can prove there is a benefit or at least a potential one much like mining exploration gets credits. That is not the same as much of the money that is spent on "arts' where often money goes to individuals and groups that write the best proposals rather than what will provide the best economic benefit.

Much of the money? One example is a hard sell for "much of the money". I don't doubt that some proposals probably shouldn't be funded, I'm only saying that I think the numbers need to be looked at. In the absence of a full accounting of funds and tax receipts, the common sense conclusion that this costs tax payers money is not necessarily true. One of the many reasons I have a pet peeve with what people call common sense...
 
Machjo
+1
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

You think that's all that is required? Art classes in school? Exhibitions, and touring theater groups need money before they make money, and support for artists turns into economic benefit.

I went looking for the answers to my own question. An economic analysis of The Kansas Art Commission found that the art activities it was involved with annually produced $20 million worth of economic activity, which generated $2.1 million in local and state tax revenue.

When the state funding disappears, then any federal funds and local funds which were tied to the state funds disappear. That's an economic loss.
www.ipsr.ku.edu/resrep/pdf/m257a.pdf (external - login to view)

My issue with the argument is this:

Cooking has economic spinoff benefits too, so why not fund restaurants?
Building toys benefits the economy too, as do cars, houses, etc. etc. etc. So, should the government now fund everything under the sky?

Yes, art brings economic gain just as professional chefs do. So just as we allow chefs to work in the private sector to benefit the economy, let's let artists do the same.

Concentrated arts funding is bound to benefit big urban centres the most, whereas arts funding for schools will benefit elementary and secondary students equally in towns large and small, while giving them the necessary skills to contribute to arts in society.

Are you saying that if the government cut all arts funding, that no one would pay to buy a book or a painting, or buy music CDs or see a theatrical play?

I love the CBC and it does a great job, but again, I don't see why we need government funding for it. If it's good enough for me to pay for it or put up with more commercials, I'd gladly do so. Again, provide media studies in school, and that's enough.
 
YukonJack
#42
What the hell is the gov't doing funding "interpretive dance"?

What is 'interpretive dancing'?

Is it similar in concept to synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics? Exploiting, mocking and bastardizing the real thing?
 
CDNBear
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

What is 'interpretive dancing'?

YouTube - ‪Chalice / Margie Gillis‬‏ (external - login to view)

Worth 1.2 million?
 
Machjo
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Oh absolutely! And didn't someone say she was a CBC employee??? Talk about stealing from the people........and how much federal cash has Quebecor gotten???

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post


But that is the problem, isn't it?

The federal treasury is like a water bucket blasted with a load of birdshot......leaking cash everywhere.



BS! CBC employees don't steal from the people, any more than artists do. They provide a service in exchange for money, just like the private sector. What? Government employees or private contractors providing a service for the government should do so for free?

We can disagree with the funding, but we can't say that those who provide a service for cash are theaves.

Or to take another example, let's say the RCMP buys 50 police cars from GM. Now if we find later that 20 cars would have been enough, do we blame GM or the RCMP? Do we then ask GM to reimburse the RCMP 30 cars worth of cash because of the RCMPs mistake even if GM spent much money building those cars? A contract is a contract, and we are to hold the buyer responsible, not the seller.

Seriously now.

You don't blame the service provider or the seller of the product for the decision of the buyer.
 
Tonington
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

My issue with the argument is this:

Cooking has economic spinoff benefits too, so why not fund restaurants?

Indeed, why not? If it makes economic sense, why would anyone say no to creating economic activity?

Quote:

Building toys benefits the economy too, as do cars, houses, etc. etc. etc. So, should the government now fund everything under the sky?

Of course not. Are you purposefully leaving out the economic details in your objection?

Quote:

Are you saying that if the government cut all arts funding, that no one would pay to buy a book or a painting, or buy music CDs or see a theatrical play?

No...where in any of my posts is that implied or stated? What I did say was that some events wouldn't happen at all without upfront funding.

Most people can't buy houses without upfront funding, or start businesses without upfront funding....for the upteenth time, I say if there is economic benefit, then why not fund it? Jobs and tax revenue for the government is a good thing to promote.
 
Machjo
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Indeed, why not? If it makes economic sense, why would anyone say no to creating economic activity?



Of course not. Are you purposefully leaving out the economic details in your objection?



No...where in any of my posts is that implied or stated? What I did say was that some events wouldn't happen at all without upfront funding.

Most people can't buy houses without upfront funding, or start businesses without upfront funding....for the upteenth time, I say if there is economic benefit, then why not fund it? Jobs and tax revenue for the government is a good thing to promote.

Sure it is. So teach art in school. Is that not promotion of the arts? That way, companies would have more ready access to qualified artists in various fields of activity.

Teach cooking in schools, so that our restaurants could hire qualified chefs. Teach construction in schools, so construction companies can hire trained construction crews. Teach science in school so research comp[anies can hire qualified scientists.

I'd even be for making the first X number of years of post-secondary education free too.

Beyond education, I believe we should leave most economic activity to the private sector.

Thre reason I make an exception for education is to ensure even those who can't afford an education can learn a trade or profession to ensure all can make a contribution to the economy.
 
Tonington
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Sure it is. So teach art in school. Is that not promotion of the arts?

No...that would be education. Not the same as promotion...

Quote:

Beyond education, I believe we should leave most economic activity to the private sector.

If the government can leverage more growth than we would otherwise have without, why should it not be involved? I'm not saying government should control the means of production. Even with government grants and other support, most economic activity is produced by the private sector...
 
Machjo
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

No...that would be education. Not the same as promotion...

Are we not promoting the arts in an indirect manner by teaching art to children?



[quote/]If the government can leverage more growth than we would otherwise have without, why should it not be involved? I'm not saying government should control the means of production. Even with government grants and other support, most economic activity is produced by the private sector...[/QUOTE]

I can agree to that in principle. The problem though is the controversy surrounding how that money ought to be spent. For instance, Sweden introduced the school voucher programme in trying to balance out ensuring all have access to education while not being overly controlling in dictating what school to go to.

Education however can be viewed as essential to be a productive citizen, so there can be a strong argument for government being obligated to provide education for all. That case is much harder to argue in the case of art beyond education in the arts so as to ensure all students have a chance to learn a trade or profession so as to make a contribution to society.
 
Tonington
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Are we not promoting the arts in an indirect manner by teaching art to children?

How many kids who take art in school end up producing art later on? It enriches the education experience, and test scores in other subjects are higher for kids who do have art classes, but that's not at all the same as promoting art.

Quote:

I can agree to that in principle. The problem though is the controversy surrounding how that money ought to be spent.

Well, that's a discussion worth having, instead of the knee jerk reaction that many seem to have to funding things like art.
 
CDNBear
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Well, that's a discussion worth having, instead of the knee jerk reaction that many seem to have to funding things like art.

OK, I'll admit, I had a knee jerk reaction...

hell I'll even concede that you have shown a direct and indirect return on the initial investment.

But it's still hard to swallow, when the funding goes to arts that the average Joe, just doesn't have an appreciation for.
 
Tonington
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

But it's still hard to swallow, when the funding goes to arts that the average Joe, just doesn't have an appreciation for.

It happens all the time. The Calgary Stampede and the Toronto Gay pride parade, I imagine there's plenty of people who attend these events that probably don't appreciate the other. But if our government can help make the economy benefit with the investment, that's all that I think should really matter for non-essential activities that the government funds. I guess what is considered non-essential would be hotly debated by many as well, like the CBC, or Canada Post as a recent example.
 
CDNBear
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

It happens all the time. The Calgary Stampede and the Toronto Gay pride parade, I imagine there's plenty of people who attend these events that probably don't appreciate the other. But if our government can help make the economy with the investment, that's all that I think should really matter for non-essential activities that the government funds. I guess what is considered non-essential would be hotly debated by many as well, like the CBC, or Canada Post as a recent example.

I agree.

But I must ask, what do you actually think the return is on this interpretive dance?

I looked up some of the lady's work.

I'm not really impressed, to be honest.
 
Tonington
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I agree.

But I must ask, what do you actually think the return is on this interpretive dance?

I have no idea.
 
Machjo
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

How many kids who take art in school end up producing art later on? It enriches the education experience, and test scores in other subjects are higher for kids who do have art classes, but that's not at all the same as promoting art.

How many kids who learn maths in school become mathematicians later on? Whether they become mathematicians or not, maths still proves useful in their daily lives even outside of work. The same would apply to art. Who says you must earn money from your art for it to be of value to you?

And some of them well become professional artists and earn money from their art, just as some will become mathematicians.
 
Corduroy
#55
The issue of arts funding is easy for a socialist. In general, artists already control the means of their production, unless they require some kind of expensive machinery or studio to do their work. In which case, artists unions could pool resources and supply/control these needs.

What reason does the state have to intervene?
 
Tonington
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

How many kids who learn maths in school become mathematicians later on? Whether they become mathematicians or not, maths still proves useful in their daily lives even outside of work.

Of course, because they're educated, not because they're promoting math...
 
Machjo
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Of course, because they're educated, not because they're promoting math...

If you teach people maths, they end up using it in their daily lives, at shops, at the bank, etc. etc. etc. By having educated them in maths, you end up permeating society with maths. Even the kid buying candy at the candy shop ends up using maths as a result.

So if arts were taught to all, then we can reasonably assume that arts would likewise permeate the fabric of our society as a reult of people applying this knaowledge practically in various ways.
 
Dexter Sinister
#58
Why shouldn't we fund the arts? We fund a lot of other things. We're currently funding two combat missions, in Afghanistan and Libya, we subsidize oil companies, car manufacturers, agriculture, sporting venues, scientific research, bankers... Why not the arts?
 
CDNBear
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

Why shouldn't we fund the arts? We fund a lot of other things. We're currently funding two combat missions, in Afghanistan and Libya, we subsidize oil companies, car manufacturers, agriculture, sporting venues, scientific research, bankers... Why not the arts?

A series of wrongs, doesn't make it right Dex.
 
Tonington
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

So if arts were taught to all, then we can reasonably assume that arts would likewise permeate the fabric of our society as a reult of people applying this knaowledge practically in various ways.

Your analogy is flawed. How many people use calculus or geometry at the grocery store? Being educated is not the same thing at all as promoting. One is active, the other is permissive.
 

Similar Threads

12
0
Year in Arts and Entertainment
by CBC News | Dec 17th, 2007
0
Visual and Media Arts Awards
by FiveParadox | Mar 16th, 2006
no new posts