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


Machjo
#61
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

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.

And those who do need calculus will use it in their respective professions, while the rest will use basic maths. Those who need more advanced art skills will use them and develop them, those who don't will satisfy themselves with the recorder and sheet music or basic calligraphy, etc.
 
Tonington
#62
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

And those who do need calculus will use it in their respective professions, while the rest will use basic maths. Those who need more advanced art skills will use them and develop them, those who don't will satisfy themselves with the recorder and sheet music or basic calligraphy, etc.

Yes, precisely. Being educated means you use it when you need it, if at all. Taking art doesn't mean you have the tools needed to administer an arts show, or theater productions. It's not promotion. Education is education.
 
Dexter Sinister
+1
#63
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

A series of wrongs, doesn't make it right Dex.

Agreed, but there's a wide divergence of opinion on taxpayer funding of assorted activities and generally no objective way to decide what's right and what's wrong, or if indeed the terms even apply. Politics is about how we make those decisions, there'll never be 100% agreement, there'll always be somebody who thinks some particular activity is wrong, immoral, unnecessary, or stupid, just as there'll always be people who think the opposite. Some people here, for instance, clearly think interpretive dance is pretty stupid, but I've no doubt there are also people who think it's great stuff, though none of them seem to have shown up here. The arts at worst at least are likely to be relatively harmless compared to a lot of other things we subsidize, and at best they're ennobling and uplifting. I see no legitimate a priori reason not to support them, nor is there any justification, having decided to give a grant to some artistic endeavor, to pre-censor it in terms of what it's allowed to produce.
 
FiveParadox
+2
#64
I really do strongly believe in a pay-for-preference tax system, blended with compulsory taxes. I wish that people wouldn't think that this idea is so radical, because I think it could be the best way to balance "big government" (ah, conservative catchphrases!) with the individual "right" to decide how taxpayer money is dispersed.

For example, everyone would be required to contribute a compulsory amount to certain services (i.e., Health Care, Public Works and Government Services, and et cetera). However, the remainder of one's tax contribution (while still mandatory) would be directed to particular services or features of government at the discretion of the individual taxpayer. This would require government departments to make their case to the people on why their hard-earned dollars are needed. So, I (as an individual) could choose to contribute the remainder of my taxes to the Canada Space Agency, and the Department of Canadian Heritage (because those are programs I strongly believe in), and someone else could decide that they'd prefer to contribute to something else.

I think that departments would then be required to really figure out what services their citizens want and need. Not only would this make democracy much more interesting and engaging ("democracy-by-dollars", heh), but it would ensure that the direction of the federal government (as an institution and a bureaucracy) would be much more in line with what the people of this country are actually looking for.
 
taxslave
#65
Interesting concept 5P but it could make budgeting a nightmare that would require more bureaucrats.
Here is my take on arts funding for what it is worth: To the best of my knowledge no rock or C&W band has ever got a government grant to perform. They have enough of a following to make billions. Therefore if anyone else requires taxpayers money to exist they clearly do not have enough of a following to survive and should be allowed to die a natural death. I feel the same about CBC. I listen to CBC news fairly regular but have no use for the rest of their programing so I should not have to subsidize it. Let them try to find advertisers or take donations or whatever to survive.
 
captain morgan
#66
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

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.


You're making Machjo's case for him. Suggesting that calculus is not being actively used at a grocery store is one hell of an argument for supporting the promotional funding for it's use in everyday activities... Does that mean the feds should pour millions into promoting calculus?

As it stands, and was identified by another poster in this thread, there is not enough demand by the public at large to justify funding the arts in such an aggressive manner- especially those obscure forms.

Further to the implication that because the Toronto Gay Pride Parade and Calgary Stampede are funded; therefore all of the arts should be included, I will suggest that the economic benefits to the Calgary and Toronto events reap significant and measurable benefits in a very small period of time.

Consider that the Stampede brings 9 figures of business into the city over 10 days and all of that money 'transacts', thereby generating tax dollars (let alone employment benefits) not only justifies the funding, but generates and handsome return on those dollars almost immediately... The same for 'traditional' and obscure art funding can not make the same claim by any stretch.

Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadoxView Post

I really do strongly believe in a pay-for-preference tax system, blended with compulsory taxes. I wish that people wouldn't think that this idea is so radical, because I think it could be the best way to balance "big government" (ah, conservative catchphrases!) with the individual "right" to decide how taxpayer money is dispersed.
For example, everyone would be required to contribute a compulsory amount to certain services (i.e., Health Care, Public Works and Government Services, and et cetera). However, the remainder of one's tax contribution (while still mandatory) would be directed to particular services or features of government at the discretion of the individual taxpayer. This would require government departments to make their case to the people on why their hard-earned dollars are needed. So, I (as an individual) could choose to contribute the remainder of my taxes to the Canada Space Agency, and the Department of Canadian Heritage (because those are programs I strongly believe in), and someone else could decide that they'd prefer to contribute to something else.
I think that departments would then be required to really figure out what services their citizens want and need. Not only would this make democracy much more interesting and engaging ("democracy-by-dollars", heh), but it would ensure that the direction of the federal government (as an institution and a bureaucracy) would be much more in line with what the people of...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Really interesting points, however, there is one important caveat... Your model would require that the tax payer take an active and informed interest in all of the options. Personally, I believe that the average-Joe would still swallow the bilge that is offered up via the existing marketing chanels that work to tell them what they need as opposed to making an informed decision.
 
petros
+1
#67
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

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...

Canada seriously lacks R&D funding but it shouldn`t come from the taxpayer in the form of funding but in the form of tax credits ffor companies who do risk some of their own assets to advance their product or technology.
 
Tonington
#68
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

You're making Machjo's case for him.

No I'm not.

Quote:

Suggesting that calculus is not being actively used at a grocery store is one hell of an argument for supporting the promotional funding for it's use in everyday activities...

No it isn't. All anyone needs at most in the grocery store is algebra.

Quote:

Does that mean the feds should pour millions into promoting calculus?

You appear to have missed entirely the conversation and jumped in without knowing what has been said. I said if it makes economic sense, then I don't really care if they fund cowboy poetry or dances with she wolves.

And math education is already part of education spending by the provinces.

If we take your out of context example even further, then we don't need to fund police anymore, we just have to have law enforcement as a curriculum in all schools. Promoting law and order and training cops, fresh out of high school.

Ridiculous.

Quote:

Further to the implication that because the Toronto Gay Pride Parade and Calgary Stampede are funded; therefore all of the arts should be included,

I never implied that, and I certainly never said all arts should be funded. Go back and read carefully, and make note of the many number of times I said the numbers should be looked at. I said if there is a benefit to tax payers, and I kept it in the realm of revenues for the government and economic activity. That's explicitly saying that not all art should be funded.

Quote:

I will suggest that the economic benefits to the Calgary and Toronto events reap significant and measurable benefits in a very small period of time.

Obviously.

Quote:

Consider that the Stampede brings 9 figures of business into the city over 10 days and all of that money 'transacts', thereby generating tax dollars (let alone employment benefits) not only justifies the funding, but generates and handsome return on those dollars almost immediately... The same for 'traditional' and obscure art funding can not make the same claim by any stretch.

Yes, so it fits into my funding model...hence why I brought it up.
 
YukonJack
+1
#69
I love classical music. I adore Tchaikovsky, the king of all ballet.

But, I am sure he would throw up seeing the dry heaves and jerkulations of this so-called artist claiming, as her right, to sponge off the government for thousands of taxpayers dollars.
 
Machjo
#70
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadoxView Post

I really do strongly believe in a pay-for-preference tax system, blended with compulsory taxes. I wish that people wouldn't think that this idea is so radical, because I think it could be the best way to balance "big government" (ah, conservative catchphrases!) with the individual "right" to decide how taxpayer money is dispersed.
For example, everyone would be required to contribute a compulsory amount to certain services (i.e., Health Care, Public Works and Government Services, and et cetera). However, the remainder of one's tax contribution (while still mandatory) would be directed to particular services or features of government at the discretion of the individual taxpayer. This would require government departments to make their case to the people on why their hard-earned dollars are needed. So, I (as an individual) could choose to contribute the remainder of my taxes to the Canada Space Agency, and the Department of Canadian Heritage (because those are programs I strongly believe in), and someone else could decide that they'd prefer to contribute to something else.
I think that departments would then be required to really figure out what services their citizens want and need. Not only would this make democracy much more interesting and engaging ("democracy-by-dollars", heh), but it would ensure that the direction of the federal government (as an institution and a bureaucracy) would be much more in line with what the people...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
I'd been proposing something like that in these forums for a long time. The proposal I'd presented here a few years ago was to make all income taxes 100% charity deductible on a 1:1 ratio. Taxes other than on income (such as GST/HST or gas tax and other non-income taxes) would of course be spent at the government's discretion.

Another proposal I'd made was earmarked funding, whereby a percentage of ones income would have to be given to a school of his choice for example, otherwise it goes to the ministry of education by default.
 
taxslave
#71
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Canada seriously lacks R&D funding but it shouldn`t come from the taxpayer in the form of funding but in the form of tax credits ffor companies who do risk some of their own assets to advance their product or technology.

Most lefties can't understand the difference between tax credits and government giveaways.
 
captain morgan
#72
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

No I'm not.

So I must have misinterpreted your argument to infer the opposite of what you really meant... Gotcha

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

No it isn't. All anyone needs at most in the grocery store is algebra.

Not if the feds promote calculus more.. We could incorporate it into the grocery model along with the requirement for a customer to use interpretative dance when asking an employee where the Corn Flakes are.


Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

I said if it makes economic sense, then I don't really care if they fund cowboy poetry or dances with she wolves.

Too bad that the groups which are demanding funding are pushing agendas that don't make economic sense.... Here's a wee hint for ya: That's why they need the funding.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

And math education is already part of education spending by the provinces.

Are you saying that the arts are not represented in any schools?

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

If we take your out of context example even further, then we don't need to fund police anymore, we just have to have law enforcement as a curriculum in all schools. Promoting law and order and training cops, fresh out of high school.

Nope... Police, Firefighters, etc. represent a service that is deemed necessary in the community. So unless you somehow believe that a troupe of mimes can extinguish a fire, then your extrapolation is doomed.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Ridiculous.

Go re-read your input and you'll have no option but to agree.


Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

I never implied that, and I certainly never said all arts should be funded. Go back and read carefully, and make note of the many number of times I said the numbers should be looked at. I said if there is a benefit to tax payers, and I kept it in the realm of revenues for the government and economic activity. That's explicitly saying that not all art should be funded.

I guess that we're clear then. The only arts funding that will qualify relates to things like the Toronto Gay Pride Parade or the various exhibitions that generate more economic benefit than the amount of funding that they receive.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Yes, so it fits into my funding model...hence why I brought it up.

Your funding model appeared to cover everything possible... That really isn't a model now, is it?
 
Tonington
#73
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

So I must have misinterpreted your argument to infer the opposite of what you really meant... Gotcha

You definitely misinterpretted. Here's a sample of the things I said:

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

I wonder if anyone has looked at what kind of economic activity is generated by the investment by government?

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

But like I said, people have to actually look at the numbers...

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

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

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

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.

To which you then say:
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Further to the implication that because the Toronto Gay Pride Parade and Calgary Stampede are funded; therefore all of the arts should be included

I never implied or stated explicitly any such thing.
 
Balthasar
#74
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

I love classical music. I adore Tchaikovsky, the king of all ballet.

But, I am sure he would throw up seeing the dry heaves and jerkulations of this so-called artist claiming, as her right, to sponge off the government for thousands of taxpayers dollars.

Or he would find your comments/culture very poorly articulated since he was like few other lucky classical composers awarded a lifetime pension from the Tsar Alexander III... Yeah, a few months old topic but geez, this topic is full of no-sense...
 
mentalfloss
#75
As far as I understand, that nasty human rights board found that the interview was kosher.

Ezra must be pleased.
 
Colpy
+2
#76
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

As far as I understand, that nasty human rights board found that the interview was kosher.

Ezra must be pleased.

It wasn't the Human Rights board, it was the silly Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.

You know, the guys that stepped in it BIG TIME with their attempt to censor Dire Straits' Money for Nothing.

The Sun reporter was rude.......aren't they all? She ambushed Gillis, and Gillis was gracefully polite.

Unfortunately, Gillis has also been a complete waste of at least 1.2 million of our dollars.

And her grace under fire disappeared the second she left the studio.......sand the artists' campaign for censorship began.
 
mentalfloss
#77
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Unfortunately, Gillis has also been a complete waste of at least 1.2 million of our dollars.

In your opinion.
 
Colpy
+2
#78
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

In your opinion.

Voyages Into the Inner Landscapes - Margie Gillis - YouTube



A Stone39s Poem - Margie Gillis - YouTube



To steal a phrase from the aforementioned Rex....in the opinion "of anyone with a functioning intellect".
 
Angstrom
-1
#79
After watching those video you posted I have to say. She is rather good at her trade

But your right lets just go back to living in Caves and call it a day.
Last edited by Angstrom; Feb 17th, 2012 at 04:43 PM..
 
Just the Facts
+2
#80
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

To steal a phrase from the aforementioned Rex....in the opinion "of anyone with a functioning intellect".

You really should have included a graphic content warning in that post.

Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

After watching those video you posted I have to say. She is rather good at her trade

People with trades earn livings.
 
DaSleeper
+2
#81
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the FactsView Post

You really should have included a graphic content warning in that post.



People with trades earn livings.

Art is supposed to be pleasing to the eyes or pleasing to the ears....nuf said
 
CDNBear
+5
#82  Top Rated Post
Some people find Margie and her dancing entertaining.

I'm all for them paying her to do it.
 
Angstrom
-2
#83
Ok so since 1998 we have been giving a little under 100 000$ to her organization every year.

Lets Cut it and save every Canadian 0.002797203 penny's every year.

Way to go Asss holes!!!
 
CDNBear
#84
Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

Ok so since 1998 we have been giving a little under 100 000$ to her organization every year.

Lets Cut it and save every Canadian 0.002797203 penny's every year.

Way to go Asss holes!!!

That $100,000, would have obviously been better spent on the public education system.
 
Angstrom
-1
#85
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

That $100,000, would have obviously been better spent on the public education system.



Oh! Yes. Cause her organization only helps young troubled kids find and outlet to express themselves and maybe even give them a chance to make it big one day with the Cirque du Soleil.

Your right. Complete waste of money.
 
CDNBear
#86
Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

Oh! Yes. Cause her organization only helps young troubled kids find and outlet to express themselves and maybe even give them a chance to make it big one day with the Cirque du Soleil.

Can you expand on that claim?
 
Angstrom
-1
#87
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Can you expand on that claim?

Its a Dancer's foundation. She help's young artists with workshops and grant money.
To help them on there way to making it big. Like with the Cirque du Soleil.
Last edited by Angstrom; Feb 17th, 2012 at 06:44 PM..
 
CDNBear
+1
#88
Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

Its a Dancer's foundation.

Ya I've been to her foundations website.

Quote:

She help's young artist with workshops and grant money.

That's not what you claimed.

Here, I'll refresh your memory...

Quote: Originally Posted by AngstromView Post

Cause her organization only helps young troubled kids find and outlet to express themselves and maybe even give them a chance to make it big one day with the Cirque du Soleil.

I can't find any references to her foundation only helping troubled kids find an outlet in dance.
 
Angstrom
-1
#89
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Ya I've been to her foundations website.


I can't find any references to her foundation only helping troubled kids find an outlet in dance.

You do know she Choreographs many Cirque du Soleil shows don't you?
If you know anything about the Cirque du Soleil then you would know many of the artists
Where troubled in there youth.

It says nothing about it in her web site. But its still happening even if its not her only goal.
You must really feel at home in Harper land lol
Last edited by Angstrom; Feb 17th, 2012 at 06:57 PM..
 
L Gilbert
+1
#90
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Some people find Margie and her dancing entertaining.

I'm all for them paying her to do it.

Ditto.
 

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