Art is supposed to be pleasing to the eyes or pleasing to the ears....nuf said;-)
Arts Funding........Interview with Margie Gillis
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Art is supposed to be pleasing to the eyes or pleasing to the ears....nuf said;-)
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.
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:
Ya I've been to her foundations website.
That's not what you claimed.
Here, I'll refresh your memory...
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:
I love your broad brush.
She was commissioned (Read, paid to) to choreograph two solo's for Cirque du Soliel in Vegas.
LOL, ya, I must be loving it in Harper land, because you can't back up your claims.
Like I said, that $100,000, actually, the whole $1,2 million, would have been better spent on the public education system.
carry on.
That's fine if Gillis does that, bu IMO, she should let them dance while she sticks to the desk work.lol
It is in the education system. Her organization gives grants to student's that want to study dance at a international level. Lol WTF don't you understand lol!
Was the word "public" and inference to standard education to hard for you to grasp?
That was rhetorical btw, since you didn't get the insinuation in the first place.
Who meet the stringent criteria of Juilliard? That's not "public" education.
But I digress, can you provide something to back up that claim?
Apparently I understand a lot more than you.
Hence why I think we should have spent that $1.2 million on the public education system.
First of all I agree with funding the arts and I think they should continue to do so.
There are many things the arts and sciences actually touch on from assisting in
the development of writers, and people in support roles in films and so on that
might not other wise be advanced as quickly. I don't go to that many performances
in fact I can't remember the last time I did but hell we support olympic athletes and
those of that area of endeavour why not the arts.
I think the interviewer was rude and attempted to represent the financial figures as
something other than they might be and Ms Gillis acquitted herself quite well in getting
the situation representative to the facts. Of course we are dealing with Fox North
here so facts don't always enter the picture, and that has to be taken into account
as well.
I for one have not trouble funding projects that enrich the lives of many be they youth,
senior citizens, sport enthusiasts and others who are into other forms of entertainment.
It is part of enriching a civilized society. We help corporations and we give others
much bigger tax breaks. Why is it that we have no problem propping up millionaires
and corporate interests but when it comes to ordinary people we call that an expense.
I think the interview has a serious problem, it was about the interviewer and not about
the guest or the subject at hand. It left me with the feeling of being offended by the
lack of civility, and depth of knowledge of the interviewer, and it suggested to me the
reason no one from the arts community wanted to talk to them is because they are
not worth the effort. This interviewer was about sensationalism and not about informing
he audience.
What is the old saying? It is better to be silent and have people think you are ignorant
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. That is the fate of the interviewer in this
case.
There are many things the arts and sciences actually touch on from assisting in
the development of writers, and people in support roles in films and so on that
might not other wise be advanced as quickly. I don't go to that many performances
in fact I can't remember the last time I did but hell we support olympic athletes and
those of that area of endeavour why not the arts.
I think the interviewer was rude and attempted to represent the financial figures as
something other than they might be and Ms Gillis acquitted herself quite well in getting
the situation representative to the facts. Of course we are dealing with Fox North
here so facts don't always enter the picture, and that has to be taken into account
as well.
I for one have not trouble funding projects that enrich the lives of many be they youth,
senior citizens, sport enthusiasts and others who are into other forms of entertainment.
It is part of enriching a civilized society. We help corporations and we give others
much bigger tax breaks. Why is it that we have no problem propping up millionaires
and corporate interests but when it comes to ordinary people we call that an expense.
I think the interview has a serious problem, it was about the interviewer and not about
the guest or the subject at hand. It left me with the feeling of being offended by the
lack of civility, and depth of knowledge of the interviewer, and it suggested to me the
reason no one from the arts community wanted to talk to them is because they are
not worth the effort. This interviewer was about sensationalism and not about informing
he audience.
What is the old saying? It is better to be silent and have people think you are ignorant
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. That is the fate of the interviewer in this
case.
That's 1.2 million over 13 years. That's under 100 000 a year. Big whoopsy do!
Education is a provincial department. She got money from the Federal. Heritage Canada I bet.
We need a new national holiday for your kind. Harper land day. lol
I say we use that 100 000$ a year on that. Lol
Then maybe I wont have to read about you guys whining that Canadian tax payers are
Paying 0.00279 of a penny a year to a dance foundation that supports arts.
Last edited:
I am for all intent and purpose retired except I still operate my small farm. Those who are in
the arts should pay their own way. OK. In that case I think people who are trying to find any
kind of employment should not get any kind of help from government. No training, no UI and
not incentives to companies to create jobs. No research funding for any sector of the economy
and certainly no help for the poor or those with disabilities.
Of course the above is ridiculous. Every sector needs to have input money and this is no
exception. This woman over the past thirty five years has not only performed well but she has
by the sound of it provided all kinds of opportunities for those who are in the field of entertainment,
and personal growth and achievement.
We dismantled things before that could have been of future benefit to Canadians, as sore point
with me is the Conservatives who bitched until they shut down the Avro Arrow and cost this nation
an aircraft industry of its own.
This country should be about how we treat each other and support endeavour even though it is not
part of our personal cup of tea. The problem is we don't treat each other very well when it comes
to things that matter. Look at how the native schools turned out. We also made the veterans
fight for decades for compensation because they were merchant marines in the second world war.
There is a long list of things we have done wrong granted. There is also a long list of things we
have done right. We corrected some of the ills of the past, we have supported athletes in the
field of international competition and we are funding the arts as well not everyone can play goal
or kick a ball. Our personal bias should not be a part of this, we should understand that others
in the Canadian family have other interests and roads to achievement that can enrich the lives
of millions. I think this is just silly and the interview spoke for itself
the arts should pay their own way. OK. In that case I think people who are trying to find any
kind of employment should not get any kind of help from government. No training, no UI and
not incentives to companies to create jobs. No research funding for any sector of the economy
and certainly no help for the poor or those with disabilities.
Of course the above is ridiculous. Every sector needs to have input money and this is no
exception. This woman over the past thirty five years has not only performed well but she has
by the sound of it provided all kinds of opportunities for those who are in the field of entertainment,
and personal growth and achievement.
We dismantled things before that could have been of future benefit to Canadians, as sore point
with me is the Conservatives who bitched until they shut down the Avro Arrow and cost this nation
an aircraft industry of its own.
This country should be about how we treat each other and support endeavour even though it is not
part of our personal cup of tea. The problem is we don't treat each other very well when it comes
to things that matter. Look at how the native schools turned out. We also made the veterans
fight for decades for compensation because they were merchant marines in the second world war.
There is a long list of things we have done wrong granted. There is also a long list of things we
have done right. We corrected some of the ills of the past, we have supported athletes in the
field of international competition and we are funding the arts as well not everyone can play goal
or kick a ball. Our personal bias should not be a part of this, we should understand that others
in the Canadian family have other interests and roads to achievement that can enrich the lives
of millions. I think this is just silly and the interview spoke for itself
Ya ya ya, instead of backing up your claims, keep up the "Harper land" babble.
Carry on.