Survival

Excellent comment, VivianLea Doubt...you make some very insightful observations about government, artists, the arts...and our values.

Great piece by Alberto Manguel....much agree with his view about the significance of funding the arts.

Most of all, thanks for the memories. Waaaay back in the sixties even in our very small town elementary school Glenn Gould was regularly piped through the intercom and into our classrooms via a much more alive and vibrant CBC radio. We listened to Canadian stories and poetry as well... and being young restless children there is no doubt we viewed it as a reprieve from our usual studies and fidgeted our way through it. However, years later... and I'm sure I'm not alone in this, the imprint of those first stirrings of what it meant to be Canadian had only grown stronger. Our cultural identity as Canadians was just beginning to awaken to itself... as Manguel discovered on his arrival here in the late 1970's.

In those same times of promise, at SFU, one could still find a few remaining vestiges of the arts-centered university it was originally created to be....before it nose-dived into SFU Inc.

Quote: "Canada was becoming visible through its complexities, not merely through its clichés. Then it all stopped."

Other business 'priorities' took hold....and funding was 'diverted' towards this more 'crucial' cause.

No doubt the emerging strong Canadian identity became a hindrance and threat to the forces of business and privatization intent on dismantling this country....

And it's so much easier to dismantle a country if you dismantle its cultural identity first.

No worry though....I'm sure we can expect a big increase in arts funding in the New Year....

Rumour has it that King Stephen has cancelled his annual Christmas party.

A Rejoinder

Why is it that often when people speak of equality, they really mean special treatment? The myth that art occupies some rareified sphere that will collapse when it ceases to be on the government dole is a long standing one, unfortunately. Borges never received a dollar from his government for his writing, neither did he need one. Nor did Hemingway, nor did Nabokov or Shakespeare. If writers cannot survive on their own merit, I don't think it is the obligation of the government to keep them afloat. The comment that Mr. Manguel makes regarding the fact that he could get money from the government without having written anything of note is precisely why I object to the fallacy that writers and art in general needs to be invested in using public funds. History has shown us that art does not go extinct when it fails to be recognized by governments, on the countrary, it fluourishes most where it is impoverished. Imagine if Joyce was paid to stay in Dublin.

not a level playing field

...when we live in a country awash in American movies, music, books, TV, etc. Much distribution infrastructure has been in foreign hands and legislation has favoured the US, with threats of retaliation if we were to ever assert our cultural sovereignty. To me it's practically a matter of self-defense to invest in Canadian culture.

Why is it when people attack investment in culture that they conveniently leave out the massive subsidies to industry, both direct and indirect, through things like tax credits? Most of this happens behind the scenes, whereas arts funding is out in the open and an easy target.

"History has shown us that art ... fluourishes most where it is impoverished." Should I be checking the slums of Rio de Janeiro for some snappy sonnnets? Hmm, seems like people there are a little busy just surviving.

The Arts and Government

Not much of a rejoinder, cheeseman, whatever gave you the idea that Borges didn't get a hell of a lot more than a dollar from the Argentine government?

In fact, in 1955, after the Peronistas lost power Borges did very well by Aramburu's military dictatorship - perhaps you didn't know the general appointed Borges as the Director of the National Library. He was also, for that matter, a professor of literature at the University of Buenos Aires - a fairly lofty achievement for a blind man with no formal education...In other words, I think Borges got quite a lot of help from various Argentine governments AND, furthermore, his strident opposition to the Peronistas hardly makes your case - the government was far from 'incidental' to the poet's career.

As for your final rhetorical flourish, it's tough to prove a negative but, given the current state of the CBC and the arts in general in this country, the present government seems hell-bent upon proving that 'art' does indeed go extinct when it is not recognized (and supported) by government.

We even have culture and heritage minister James Moore and Ultimate Fighting as an exhibit of how far things have fallen:
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStoriesV2/20100505/moore-ufc-100505/

You might also care to do a little more research into Shakespeare and the Royal Patent when you have a moment...as for your other avatars - Hemmingway and Nabokov - I'm curious, why those two?

Starving the arts

History has shown us that art does not go extinct when it fails to be recognized by governments, on the countrary, it fluourishes most where it is impoverished.

What nonsense. Starving artists don't create better, or more, art. They simply burn out sooner and create less art. Certainly art does not go extinct without public support, but it does not flourish. If Canada wants to cut off all public support for the arts, we should simply apply for our American passports now (America does spend a lot of public money on the arts) because there will be very few people who will be able to afford to create art that is Canadian. Premier Campbell is in the free-enterprise for the arts camp. It's not working. Spending on the arts needs to be done sensibly -- no one is arguing against being prudent -- but in a small country especially, we need to have a support structure available.

For those with a mercantile frame of mind, it should also be noted that spending on the arts provides one of the best returns on the money of any kind of public spending. Arts funding generates a lot of economic activity -- far more than tax cuts for the rich.

cheesman cheeseman quite countrary

and how does your country grow?

with siver bells, and cockle shells

and pretty maids all in a row

Who are we? Why are we here? Where are we going?
(Paul Gauguin)

Government expenditures on the arts

In this country - are as follows - reported on a Provincial per capita basis, 2007 - 2008 figures:

P.E.I = $44.16
Newfoundland and Labrador = $43.40
Quebec = $41.65
Saslatchewan = $39.16
Manitoba = $36.90
New Brunswick = #32.36
Nova Scotia = $27.90
Ontario = $20.91
Alberta = 20.81
British Columbia = $9.67.....

But wait, that's what it was in 2007/08...for 2010, wait for it,
BC's arts funding amounts to $4.50 per person.

This is from a government that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing....

Correction

The figure for BC (2010) is actually $6.54 per capita; it was $4.50 until $7 million in funding which had been cut was restored - thank heaven for small mercies I guess.

Not that it makes a lot of difference - but, as always, we aim for accuracy.

Just like the minimum wage in BC, the CEO aims for the bottom and almost always gets there!

Cheers

In Canada

we don't have people like the medieval Medici princes to sponsor and support artists in profligate ways. We have some ordinary individuals who sacrifice personally to assist the arts, like the McMichaels. Or those like Rogers TV cable who "invest" in venues like the Skydome on condition it is re-named after themselves.

Public support through the government's contributions is continuously cut back by imposing particular specifications instead of assisting the exposure of all the various kinds of art and culture. As Canadians we shouldn't expect the country itself to be the easel upon which art is displayed, but to be the reflection of ourselves in many different ways.

Hmmmm!

Not while we have a faceless, characterless PM.....

hmmmm...the numbers...

Thanks for those numbers, G West. According to the logic of Cheeseman45, then, the arts should be flourishing, indeed, in British Columbia - impoverished as they are.

For me, it is not so much that governments should fund the arts - although I think they should - as that they should allow imagination to take hold instead of the dollar, as Manguel insists. Imagination has brought us all of the wonders of world: in art, in science, in every discovery and every step forward for humankind. If we, as a society, wanted to reduce funding for the arts in order to, say, reduce homelessness - that is a practical response to reduced dolars. But to pretend that those dollars can arbitrate value! What idiocy! What shame! What sheer vulgarity!

What we value is what flourishes in a given society, regardless of the money attached to it. Let us take a good look at what is flourishing in this society, and perhaps we would opt to reinvigorate the arts.

thanks..

Lynn, thanks for that lovely compliment. It is always a pleasure to read your thoughts - even when we disagree! That, my friend, is the highest compliment I can give :)

an unfortunate myth

perhaps a contrarian, but apparently misunderstood. If you want to play a game of numbers, G West, do you suggest that the more money the government spends the better art we will get? If ticket sales don't keep a play on the stage, how is it unfair to let it fail? My point is that the arts are not an industry in the same manner that agriculture is an industry, and pouring money into it is bound to result in diminishing returns. If you wouldn't pay for a product you don't like, why would you pay for a book you will never read or a painting you will never see? The myth that American culture will somehow drown the arts is only valid if you think magazines and television shows are important forms of art. If Canadian art is so easy to overlook in favor of our flashy neighbours to the south, then perhaps there isn't much worth salvaging. The Darwinian principle applies to art just as much as it applies to any other sphere where there is competition for public attention. If the BC public at large is ignorant of local art, how does the government have any right to tax them to make up for the difference?

As an Economic Investment.....

http://www.canadacouncil.ca/aboutus/Promotion/wg127300575982031250.htm

http://www.statcan.ca/english/IPS/Data/87C0033.htm

However, that fact doesn't wash with the likes of S. Harper. He's rather spend $16 billion on fighter aircraft that will have NO RETURN on the investment.........

cheeseman, absolutely you're wrong.

Absolutely, the more public money and encouragement that goes into the arts the more healthy the culture of the country will be...The arts ARE an industry and the payback, in terms of jobs and infrastructure, is highly significant..

In fact, no less an authority than NPA mayoral candidate Peter Ladner addressed the payback for spending on the arts this way:

As for the suggestion that social Darwinism has anything what ever to teach us about what’s worthwhile in terms of artistic endeavors, you clearly DON’T know much about the history of art. One generation’s garbage will, not infrequently, turn out to be the next generation’s gold…You may ‘know’ what you like – but that doesn’t mean you know what you’re talking about.

As for the influence of the U.S. – irrelevant and, since you’re the one bringing it up, maybe a sign of desperation.

Every British Columbian should be ashamed of the level of public spending on the arts in this province - every bit as ashamed as we ought to be about the minimum wage here. We are the laughing stock of Canada.

We maintain the utterly deceptive notion that this is 'the best place on earth' and emblazon it on virtually every scrap of paper the government publishes at the same time that we starve the arts, ignore the poor, pretend the mentally ill belong on the streets AND throw away hundreds of billions on sports venues.

Even if massive investment

Even if massive investment in the arts could yield positive results, I would still disagree with the basic principle, which is that public money should be used to fund this or that pet project. If you agree with that premise, then it will be difficult to have a discussion about first principles. Public money is to be used for things that the public will measurably benefit from as a whole, i.e. roads or public schools, and it is not, even at the whim of politicians or a vocal interest group, to be handed out to private citizens. I beleive this principle applies not only to the art community, but any person or business who seeks to feed at the public trough.

Cheeseman45, I take It Then

that you are very happy Harper got his knuckles rapped for suggesting that the feds could fund his "pet project" and build sports stadiums in Quebec (clearly a political maneuver) and later across Canada (clearly an attempt to justify the first gaffe). And this is to be done by way of public funds for millionaire owners.

I would rather my taxes fund guitar players traveling overseas, authors living in attics, carvers working on the street, or artists painting pictures out in the boondocks. They won't all turn out to be Beatles or members of the Group of Seven, but they would have that opportunity. And that nourishes my soul.

Agreed!

G West ~ We maintain the utterly deceptive notion that this is 'the best place on earth' and emblazon it on virtually every scrap of paper the government publishes at the same time that we starve the arts, ignore the poor, pretend the mentally ill belong on the streets AND throw away hundreds of billions on sports venues ...

and we deceive ourselves by thinking that huge portions of our tax dollars that go into the military, its armaments and illegal foreign adventures of murder and plunder; and our subsidizing of corporate fiscal gains at the decay of our ecology has nothing to do with our confirming the ethically challenged government of our 'choice' come election time.

Do you think there is public support, cheeseman45 ...

cheeseman45 ~ Even if massive investment in the arts could yield positive results, I would still disagree with the basic principle, which is that public money should be used to fund this or that pet project.

...for the corporate pillaging of resources, huge corporate profits on the back of the taxpayer, or the genocide of millions to feed our oil habit because neither the government nor corporatists are willing to lead in another direction lest they lose a buck or drop the reigns of power?

The government takes the public money and, routinely and habitually, spends it on itself and friends in ways contrary to public support -- if such support was ever openly canvassed. Power thrives by operating in the dark, out of the way of public scrutiny; power withers when a light is shined in. Thus, what is going on behind closed doors is best marketed as something else: in Afghanistan we are liberating the women.
.

Just because I am against

Just because I am against arts funding on the part of the government, I am not some conservative apologist. I am against all forms of government involvement in the private sphere. If you don't mind your money being spent on artists, then spend it yourself. We don't need the government to spend it for us. I am not contesting that art has intangible benefits outside of purely economic considerations, I am saying that if the government is spending PUBLIC money, the public should see a material result. It is precisely because the benefits of art are intangible, as you say, that I am against government interference, (and yes, I beleive that even funding can be a form of interference and even a detrimental kind to the creative process)in the arts. The nature of government is such that it must pick and choose what is to be funded and what is not to be. Some artists will win, and some artists will lose merely by the whim of a bureaucratic council. This is an uneven playing field, and because it is done so under the guise of helping the arts, it is all the more suspect. For these same reasons I am also against intereference with business and industry, and I am against public/private partnerships and business government collusion. If the common sentiment is that government is inherently corrupt, why would you want them involved in something so important to our society as art?

As an afterthought...

Although I speak a lot about money, which is important, this is merely incidental to the greater issue at hand.
I want art to be free from councils, bureaucracy, collectivism and politics. When government funds art, don't be surprised when what it picks is the bland platitudes and stereotypes for consumption by tourists. I think we can all agree on that at least.

Cheeseman45, You redeemed

your pov somewhat by coming out against public/private partnerships. But I don't think that "artists" are the usual recipients of government largesse within 3P arrangements. Starving artists apply for aid from the government, an entirely different thing than government approaching a well-established private company with cash-in-hand to persuade the company to "invest" in a project, like the new fighter jets on order now. Art assistance is never going to elevate the artist into stratospheric heights like that and if the art is bland and stereotypical it will wither and die on its own.

the arts will be free...

As will the artists. All over this country and indeed, the world, artists are singing, dancing, writing, performing, playing, painting and engaging in a myriad of other sorts of artistic endeavours, and the great majority of them are not being paid, nor being funded in any way. Artists will continue to make art with or without anyone's permission, and indeed, even in prison and concentration camps and like places of horror, because to make art is to ensure the survival of the human soul. Money, on the other hand, is a medium of exchange - nothing more, nothing less and the value of art resides not in its economic impact...

Consider this: some people who pled guilty in the Basi/Virk trial will have their rather large defense fees paid by government, while at the same time arts councils and other not-for-profit arts entities are trying to figure out how they will survive. We must fund the arts because it is a way of demonstrating what we value, and teaching others to value it as well. The alternative would appear to be teaching people to value bribery and corruption, which we seem to be doing quite well.But the more compelling argument is still the one I made some days ago: that arts and the imagination are responsible for almost everything of real and enduring value that humankind has produced. If governments were composed of more artists - writer, painters, performers, etc. - instead of those with business or law backgrounds... Why, the thought is staggering what kind of societal issues might actually get addresed, as opposed to the endless pontificating on the 'economy' and 'money'...

Because these are only one small part of our humaness.