State Arts Funding
#61
Banned
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: In Limbo
Posts: 15,706
Re: State Arts Funding
You have no idea what the members were doing or what the risks were. I've tried policing with 2 of us for the whole of north burnaby. You should try it some time. Fact is more cops can neutralize things quickly. Plus if not much is going on, then more members can respond. For the most part there are simply not enough members on the streets - believe me I know. Many times we had to drop calls like someone on view breaking into a vehicle to respond to priority calls.
#62
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,319
Re: State Arts Funding
I haven't found one single party that closely mirrors my own views on a range of subjects yet. Each party has things I agree with and things I disagree with, and I haven't decided right yet which is the least evil of the three wise monkeys.
#63
Re: State Arts Funding
To repeat: it doesn't. It simply (ultimately reflecting the people's democratically expressed opinion) provides what funding it (the government, again reflecting the people's opinion) thinks is appropriate. The administration (i.e. who gets what, for what) is carried out by a huge range of other people, mostly volunteers.
#64
Re: State Arts Funding
When was the last time a political party in Canada had more than 50% of the vote in a federal election? But that doesn't matter, why is it that the government should provide funding to "arts" based on what it "thinks is appropriate"? You are dodging this question sir.
Of course the administration of government funding is imperfect and, in Canada, deeply corrupt, but occassionally it hits the mark. Given the small amounts involved compared with other wasteful government projects (invading Afghanistan, good grief, what a waste of money) it seems churlish to me to fuss about it.
#65
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,054
Re: State Arts Funding
Yes. If they wish to have stetsons they should have joined the RCMP.
#66
Account Closed
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,284
Re: State Arts Funding
What do you understand art to be? What is its function? Where do you think the world would be without art? Art also has more than a decorative function.
Each age has used art for different purposes. What was the purpose behind the images painted by Paleolithic peoples at Lascaux? Several hundred images painted on cave walls, it's not unreasable to think that the artist was supported by others, perhaps they went out hunting while he/she painted. That would be a small example of state supported art. More recent examples would be the Court painters such as, Holbein, Durer, Van Eyck, Goya, Mantegna, Rubens, Velasquez. Picasso's greatest work, Guernica, was commissioned by the Spanish Republican Government.
Artists have always had to have support of patrons to work, whether this was the Pope, a Monarch, a government, a brother. Some art dealers were quite altruistic in their purchases. Sometimes the influence of the patron stultifies and/or censors the work, in a better society the artist is allowed to comment through his or her work. The modern system where the government supplies funding but does not decide who gets the money is a way of solving this problem.
Without support the artist has to produce stuff that sells. Kitch, trite stuff with no depth, no influence.
Each age has used art for different purposes. What was the purpose behind the images painted by Paleolithic peoples at Lascaux? Several hundred images painted on cave walls, it's not unreasable to think that the artist was supported by others, perhaps they went out hunting while he/she painted. That would be a small example of state supported art. More recent examples would be the Court painters such as, Holbein, Durer, Van Eyck, Goya, Mantegna, Rubens, Velasquez. Picasso's greatest work, Guernica, was commissioned by the Spanish Republican Government.
Artists have always had to have support of patrons to work, whether this was the Pope, a Monarch, a government, a brother. Some art dealers were quite altruistic in their purchases. Sometimes the influence of the patron stultifies and/or censors the work, in a better society the artist is allowed to comment through his or her work. The modern system where the government supplies funding but does not decide who gets the money is a way of solving this problem.
Without support the artist has to produce stuff that sells. Kitch, trite stuff with no depth, no influence.
#67
Re: State Arts Funding
The Beatles and The Rolling Stones had far more influence on me then Beethoven or Brahms, did they have "no depth", how about Peter, Paul & Mary, Dillon etc. etc. they influenced a generation (or 3)
Disco more than Waltzes?
Hip-Hop or Ballet, both can move you?
Were "the classics" the "Pop" of their time, I think so for them to have lasted. Will "Imagine" still be played in 100 years, I think so.
There's an whole lot of crap out there mascarading as Art, but I really believe that being popular does not mean its not an art form.
"If the masses enjoy it then its not art", I don't agree with that I think "popular" is the highest art, and if it needs subsidising its inferior.
#68
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 14,227
Re: State Arts Funding
What do you understand art to be? What is its function? Where do you think the world would be without art? Art also has more than a decorative function.
Each age has used art for different purposes. What was the purpose behind the images painted by Paleolithic peoples at Lascaux? Several hundred images painted on cave walls, it's not unreasable to think that the artist was supported by others, perhaps they went out hunting while he/she painted. That would be a small example of state supported art. More recent examples would be the Court painters such as, Holbein, Durer, Van Eyck, Goya, Mantegna, Rubens, Velasquez. Picasso's greatest work, Guernica, was commissioned by the Spanish Republican Government.
Artists have always had to have support of patrons to work, whether this was the Pope, a Monarch, a government, a brother. Some art dealers were quite altruistic in their purchases. Sometimes the influence of the patron stultifies and/or censors the work, in a better society the artist is allowed to comment through his or her work. The modern system where the government supplies funding but does not decide who gets the money is a way of solving this problem.
Without support the artist has to produce stuff that sells. Kitch, trite stuff with no depth, no influence.
Each age has used art for different purposes. What was the purpose behind the images painted by Paleolithic peoples at Lascaux? Several hundred images painted on cave walls, it's not unreasable to think that the artist was supported by others, perhaps they went out hunting while he/she painted. That would be a small example of state supported art. More recent examples would be the Court painters such as, Holbein, Durer, Van Eyck, Goya, Mantegna, Rubens, Velasquez. Picasso's greatest work, Guernica, was commissioned by the Spanish Republican Government.
Artists have always had to have support of patrons to work, whether this was the Pope, a Monarch, a government, a brother. Some art dealers were quite altruistic in their purchases. Sometimes the influence of the patron stultifies and/or censors the work, in a better society the artist is allowed to comment through his or her work. The modern system where the government supplies funding but does not decide who gets the money is a way of solving this problem.
Without support the artist has to produce stuff that sells. Kitch, trite stuff with no depth, no influence.
#69
Account Closed
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,284
Re: State Arts Funding
I sort of disagree with you, if you are saying stuff that sells (is popular) is crap.
The Beatles and The Rolling Stones had far more influence on me then Beethoven or Brahms, did they have "no depth", how about Peter, Paul & Mary, Dillon etc. etc. they influenced a generation (or 3)
Disco more than Waltzes?
Hip-Hop or Ballet, both can move you?
Were "the classics" the "Pop" of their time, I think so for them to have lasted. Will "Imagine" still be played in 100 years, I think so.
There's an whole lot of crap out there mascarading as Art, but I really believe that being popular does not mean its not an art form.
"If the masses enjoy it then its not art", I don't agree with that I think "popular" is the highest art, and if it needs subsidising its inferior.
The Beatles and The Rolling Stones had far more influence on me then Beethoven or Brahms, did they have "no depth", how about Peter, Paul & Mary, Dillon etc. etc. they influenced a generation (or 3)
Disco more than Waltzes?
Hip-Hop or Ballet, both can move you?
Were "the classics" the "Pop" of their time, I think so for them to have lasted. Will "Imagine" still be played in 100 years, I think so.
There's an whole lot of crap out there mascarading as Art, but I really believe that being popular does not mean its not an art form.
"If the masses enjoy it then its not art", I don't agree with that I think "popular" is the highest art, and if it needs subsidising its inferior.
Let me give you a real example of what I meant. If I want to sell some "art" I could put brush to paper and churn out some "stuff"- maybe flowers, sunsets, kittens. They would sell. I could paint some wine glasses with flowers. If I wanted to paint a piece that was intense, emotionally draining, perhaps having an impact on society in the way that Guernica did, perhaps I couldn't do that because I needed to paint a few kittens in order to pay the bills. On the other hand perhaps I couldn't do it because I don't have the talent or skill.
#70
Account Closed
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,284
Re: State Arts Funding
So art that is popular isn't worthy in your eyes eh? If you want art that is 'worthy' and has 'depth' or 'influence' then YOU pay for it. You think society will be better because of it then put your hand in your own pocket. Don't put your hand in my pocket and take my money to pay for art that you like. That is stealing.
#71
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 14,227
Re: State Arts Funding
So? Art is created by and appreciated by individual people. The costs of production should be met by those people who want to see it. I agree, that this means that the middle classes probably wouldn't get to appreciate the sort of art they like - but only cos they are collectively too selfish to fund it themselves. They'd rather get other people to pay.
#72
Re: State Arts Funding
Of course the administration of government funding is imperfect and, in Canada, deeply corrupt, but occassionally it hits the mark. Given the small amounts involved compared with other wasteful government projects (invading Afghanistan, good grief, what a waste of money) it seems churlish to me to fuss about it.
#73
Banned
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: In Limbo
Posts: 15,706
Re: State Arts Funding
BMO.
Need I say more?