NationStates Jolt Archive

IIRC from the Canadian Leaders' Debate back in October, all of the other candidates for Prime Minister were criticizing Stephen Harper's decision to cut off funding for the arts.

I don't know much about this issue, but while I don't like Harper, I'm not so sure I agree with this criticism; as I don't know much about it I don't particularily disagree with it either, but then again, there are criticisms of Harper that I don't like, such as people not liking that he is cold and calculating; I'd prefer that to a leader who'd let their emotions distort their thinking. I think rationality is something to LIKE in a federal leader. Jack Layton's blatant appeals to emotion during the debate, on the other hand, actually made me hesitant to vote NDP. (I decided to anyway though)

But when people say that we should use government funds to promote the arts, one question that should be asked is, who gets to say what is art and what is not? The distinction sounds somewhat subjective; according to dictionary.com it is "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance." There are some video games I find rather "appealing"; does this make them art, then? Does this mean government should promote them? So wouldn't they be selective, in promoting some things to consider art over others?

Some say it's not so much about promoting the arts in and of itself, but about protecting the jobs involved in them. But in a day and age in which more and more entertainment is being offered for free by the Internet, wouldn't those jobs become increasingly difficult to protect? Wouldn't it be more logical for the government to use the funding removed from the arts budget to help those who lost jobs in arts find jobs elsewhere, such as through education and training? I believe there's a saying that goes "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime."

To me, a more convincing argument against Harper's arts cuts was one brought up by Jack Layton, that Harper was cutting arts funding selectively, primarily cutting off money to arts projects that would create controversy that would promote criticism of his government. In and of itself, that sounds more like a perspective I would agree with more so, but even then, this wouldn't be as much of a problem if not for dependency on funding in the first place. The internet is a more ideal place to look for criticism of a government anyway, since there is so much more of a variety of different perspectives expressed here.

I'm no laissez-faire purist; far from it. If anything, perceiving others as being such is what makes me unsure what I think of this criticism. It's a habit of mine to think "it was not my own opinion, I thought it was yours" and that might be what's going on here. But I noticed that during that debate, for how much arts funding was brought up, I don't think I heard a single mention of embryonic stem cell research. One of the main reasons for people's opposition to government funding for ESCR is that it uses tax dollars for something that the market could do. But if it's left to the market, what's to stop companies that just so happen to be the first to reach a cure from patenting them, and getting to charge whatever they want for them, giving them a chokehold over people with diseases and cashing in on those diseases in the process? Wouldn't that be worse than former artists having to seek jobs elsewhere?

Government funding for the arts is fundamentally illegitimate. People should not, through their tax dollars, be compelled to fund the expression of ideas of which they disapprove.

It greatly improved morale during the depression though.

At any rate, art is a natural extension of culture and civilization. Though as an aspiring actor, I'm loathe to support anything that would damage the arts, I am fully confident that humanity will always find a way to support art.

It greatly improved morale during the depression though.
What did? o.o

At any rate, art is a natural extension of culture and civilization.
Does this mean that government is obliged to use tax dollars to support it, though, given how many things popular opinion is opposed to using tax dollars for?

Government funding for the arts is fundamentally illegitimate. People should not, through their tax dollars, be compelled to fund the expression of ideas of which they disapprove.

Hence, the general principle typically employed is to fund all art, controversial or not. We're obligated to pay taxes. I object to my taxes going to the city of Ottawa to fund the politicians who arrogantly pollute the house of commons. You'll probably say that I'm unreasonable for what I wrote above, but I despise the city of Ottawa, a squalid, morally bankrupt city; a festering cesspool of unbridled corruption.

The funding of arts aids the artist in developing new art. Take for example the film industry, it's an upfront investment business. You have to front the money or you can't do business. The funding is vital in aiding for the production of film, and thus the creation of jobs.

The arts have always been funded by the Government, in one way or another.

The arts have always been funded by the Government, in one way or another.

When the king ordered you to commission a piece of art, you damn well did. No one said no to the king, and what a better endorsement of your art than money from the king himself! (Or as the case may be, the queen!)

artist are but leeches on society cut their funding. if they cant produce art to sell then put them to work at MacDonald's which is what their degree(if they have one) deserves.

Throw the artist some bones is what I reckon. At worst you'll get some shitty art. At least they don't spend their days shitting the world up for everyone else.

Yah, I kno. It encourages the poseurs as well. But that's hardly the worst thing.

Some great art came out of the WPA.

When the king ordered you to commission a piece of art, you damn well did. No one said no to the king, and what a better endorsement of your art than money from the king himself! (Or as the case may be, the queen!)

The Medici family comes to mind, they funded some of the great artists we know today, like Leonardo, not to mention Patronaging Galileo.

Hence, the general principle typically employed is to fund all art, controversial or not.
Funding all art without distinctions is still forcing me to fund the expression of ideas I object to, which is illegitimate.


We're obligated to pay taxes.
Actually not, but the inherent illegitimacy of taxation is a different subject.

I object to my taxes going to the city of Ottawa to fund the politicians who arrogantly pollute the house of commons.
Exactly.

The funding of arts aids the artist in developing new art.
That's his responsibility, not the public's.

The funding is vital in aiding for the production of film, and thus the creation of jobs.
Neither of which is a relevant concern here.

Hence, the general principle typically employed is to fund all art, controversial or not. We're obligated to pay taxes. I object to my taxes going to the city of Ottawa to fund the politicians who arrogantly pollute the house of commons. You'll probably say that I'm unreasonable for what I wrote above, but I despise the city of Ottawa, a squalid, morally bankrupt city; a festering cesspool of unbridled corruption.
Thing is, that's a more necessary evil, seeing as how Ottawa is where the federal government is. The ideal solution is to fight corruption itself and make something better out of it.

As for arts funding being an investment, true enough you have to spend money to make money, but what about education funding? Wouldn't lowering tuition fees at public universities be a good investment in that regard, seeing as how it would be spending money so that people can make money?

...But when people say that we should use government funds to promote the arts, one question that should be asked is, who gets to say what is art and what is not?...So wouldn't they be selective, in promoting some things to consider art over others?

The government should not be, and is not, allowed to decide which projects get funding. That is decided by a rotating panel of judges who are funded by the government. The judges are chosen from the artist communities of Canada, as well as the people who choose the judges. Video games, by the way, would be funded if the applicant fits the criteria. Since most video games are made for selling to the public, that would automatically disqualify them from public funding even if everyone agreed that they are indeed art.

Obviously there is selection, but it should not be subject to the whim or ideology of the ruling party. So the current system judges it based on other things.

Some say it's not so much about promoting the arts in and of itself, but about protecting the jobs involved in them...I believe there's a saying that goes "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime."

This makes the unfounded assumption that the arts industry in Canada is not a net money maker. The truth is that the arts industries in Canada bring in cash. For example, the Japanese just love our Anne of Grenn Gables stuff. By supporting and investing in the industry, we actually help Canada's economy.

To me, a more convincing argument against Harper's arts cuts was one brought up by Jack Layton, that Harper was cutting arts funding selectively, primarily cutting off money to arts projects that would create controversy that would promote criticism of his government. In and of itself, that sounds more like a perspective I would agree with more so, but even then, this wouldn't be as much of a problem if not for dependency on funding in the first place. The internet is a more ideal place to look for criticism of a government anyway, since there is so much more of a variety of different perspectives expressed here.

Economic justifications for censorship do not excuse censorship.

I think this is a waste of £2 million during a severe economic depression
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7881698.stm
but generally I like art to be funded as it can make for a much better quality of life when we live in a more beautiful world.

I think this is a waste of £2 million during a severe economic depression
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7881698.stm
but generally I like art to be funded as it can make for a much better quality of life when we live in a more beautiful world.

Don't get me started on the feckin horse:mad:

It looks like Rick Moranis has been up to his experiements again "Honey I blew up the kids farmyard set

In this case I think £2m would be better spent on a public library than public art

Government funding for the arts is fundamentally illegitimate. People should not, through their tax dollars, be compelled to fund the expression of ideas of which they disapprove.

I tend to agree, but I simply do not believe that the "arts" are not useful, and artists should not be paid tax payer dollars. Art Museums are even a stretch, though I'm more willing to support those, even if ever so slightly.

I tend to agree, but I simply do not believe that the "arts" are not useful, and artists should not be paid tax payer dollars. Art Museums are even a stretch, though I'm more willing to support those, even if ever so slightly.

Your sentence has too many negatives.

Do you believe arts are useful?

Should artists receive public funding?

Don't get me started on the feckin horse:mad:

It looks like Rick Moranis has been up to his experiements again "Honey I blew up the kids farmyard set

In this case I think £2m would be better spent on a public library than public art

It is not even good art, reminds of some kind of Barbie doll accessory.

It is not even good art, reminds of some kind of Barbie doll accessory.

Once we come out of the recession we may get the 400ft Barbie to ride it, and her 50ft high pooping dog as well - I won't mind paying taxes for that:D

Don't get me started on the feckin horse:mad:

It looks like Rick Moranis has been up to his experiements again "Honey I blew up the kids farmyard set

In this case I think £2m would be better spent on a public library than public art


Private, not public, money will build the horse...

So, not a taxpayer-funded project. Different issue.

People should not, through their tax dollars, be compelled to fund the expression of ideas of which they disapprove.

Bit silly to just pick on the arts, then. Any public spending is an expression of the idea that what is bought with that spending is desirable. For any given project you can find some taxpayer who disapproves of it. If you're going to argue that government has no right to compel people to pay taxes, that's an interesting proposition but probably deserves its own thread.

So, not a taxpayer-funded project. Different issue.

It was commissioned by Eurostar, London & Continental Railways and Land Securities, the developers of Ebbsfleet Valley. - again from the BBC

I stand corrected. Next time I use Eurostar I will not complain at the cost of the ticket, knowing the money has gone on such a worthy piece of 'art'.

As for arts funding being an investment, true enough you have to spend money to make money, but what about education funding? Wouldn't lowering tuition fees at public universities be a good investment in that regard, seeing as how it would be spending money so that people can make money?

We're talking about federal taxes. Not provincial. The federal government does not have jurisdiction over education. According to section 92 of our constitution, it is a provincial jurisdiction, hence, why the province is responsible for the funding of it; the funding of the arts in this case is a federal matter. To suggest that the money be used there would be in error because the federal government can't do so. It would have to allocate more money to the province, which would then be the entity responsible for it.

As for objecting on the grounds that one doesn't support art; if we don't, we risk losing our heritage and culture to unCanadian entities that will not honour our culture and heritage. Our artists are important for that reason. They are the embodiment of our culture. Without them, how will we identify ourselves in a unique manner? In a world where globalisation is a reality, we need to support our artists in order to preserve our culture. If not, what will be left for future generations? They will look back and not be able to positively identify our culture.

I have nothing against the importation of other art, but when one's national culture and heritage is at stake, we have to ask questions and do what is necessary to preserve it. To keep our best here in order to show the world just who we are. People can easily attribute certain cultural icons to different parts of the world.

America has Hollywood, Vegas.

England has the best known monarchs; the nation that defined the 60s with its rock bands.

The Netherlands is known for various artists (Van Gogh, Rembrandt) and its architecture.

China has its Great Wall (and what a cultural icon it is!). Never mind the fact that it has thousands and thousands of years of cultural history.

Japan has its meiji shrines, tea houses and anime (I know, narrow view, but still). Its cultural clothing is very unique; an art form.

What is Canada? We have maple syrup, igloos and moose. Oh and hockey. Yeah, I think we can do better. We need to fund the arts to make a name for ourselves; to make our culture stand out and be more than just that frozen northern country that people often assume is American. America is American and is a fine country, but I am not American. Frankly, I am tired of being associated with America. I'm a Canadian and I want to see the arts define our culture as being unique and different from that of America.

Bit silly to just pick on the arts, then. Any public spending is an expression of the idea that what is bought with that spending is desirable. For any given project you can find some taxpayer who disapproves of it.
Certainly.

But this thread refers specifically to arts funding.

Funding art is like funding religion. Since you have finite funds, you're obviously going to favor one type of art (or religion) over another.

Not exactly fair. And if your art is so bad that you can't get anyone to pay for it except the government, you must really suck at it - maybe you should think of another career.

Funding art is like funding religion. Since you have finite funds, you're obviously going to favor one type of art (or religion) over another.

Not exactly fair. And if your art is so bad that you can't get anyone to pay for it except the government, you must really suck at it - maybe you should think of another career.

The same argument applies to funding transportation infrastructure. You're obviously going to fund some roads, bridges and harbors and not others, so you're going to favor some people's transportation needs over others. Public roads often don't pay for themselves, or at least not in any measurable way, so perhaps we should leave it to the private sector to build roads instead.

The same argument applies to funding transportation infrastructure. You're obviously going to fund some roads, bridges and harbors and not others, so you're going to favor some people's transportation needs over others. Public roads often don't pay for themselves, or at least not in any measurable way, so perhaps we should leave it to the private sector to build roads instead.

The Dulles Toll Road seems to be much better built and maintained than the public roads in the area. Go figure.

Funding art is like funding religion. Since you have finite funds, you're obviously going to favor one type of art (or religion) over another.

Not exactly fair. And if your art is so bad that you can't get anyone to pay for it except the government, you must really suck at it - maybe you should think of another career.
In the same way that distributing science funding unequally between biologists, chemists and physists might not be 'fair', but most people would not expect government funding to be equally distributed between each branch of each discipline.

And it's not a question of 'sucking' at it either. British Opera doesn't suck, so I'm told, but isn't commercially viable, which is why it is heavily subsidised by the Arts Council, the government body that subsidises British Art. Cutting that funding may save a (relatively small) amount of money, but we would lose a cultural and historical instuition. The same goes with our free museums and art galleries, the works commissioned to put in our city squares or the poetry to reat at public events. Sure, they cost money, but without them our country would be a dull cultural wasteland, with vacant theatres and cheap imports on our TVs.

And if we didn't have these, I doubt we would have any kind of a revenue generating industry to begin with.

In the same way that distributing science funding unequally between biologists, chemists and physists might not be 'fair', but most people would not expect government funding to be equally distributed between each branch of each discipline.

Government shouldn't be funding scientific research either.

Government shouldn't be funding scientific research either.

A = A motherfucker! A EQUALS A!!!!

Government shouldn't be funding scientific research either.

Well we're talking about what the government should not fund, let's add in the military.

Well we're talking about what the government should not fund, let's add in the military.

No, military is fine, because that's within the proper role of government.

But neither scientific research nor cultural advancement are.

The Dulles Toll Road seems to be much better built and maintained than the public roads in the area. Go figure.

I'm not claiming that private roads are a bad idea. I'm saying that your argument against the piddly amount of public spending on the arts applies even more to the large amount of public spending on infrastructure, education, and so on. I think private roads are a good idea provided that the road owners don't externalize the costs of the road, which they tend to do.

No, military is fine, because that's within the proper role of government.

But neither scientific research nor cultural advancement are.

Why is the military the proper role of government and how is this not off topic?

No, military is fine, because that's within the proper role of government.

But neither scientific research nor cultural advancement are.

Huh? Why?

Huh? Why?

The writings of the emminent Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand; familiarize yourself with them.

The writings of the emminent Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand; familiarize yourself with them.

Ahhh I should have known. Really I thought her ideas had already been debunked as unrealistic?

Ahhh I should have known. Really I thought her ideas had already been debunked as unrealistic?

Her novels are certainly devoid of artistic merit.

Her novels are certainly devoid of artistic merit.

Art is subjective. Her novels may very well have artistic merit. Even if not inherently artistic.

It was commissioned by Eurostar, London & Continental Railways and Land Securities, the developers of Ebbsfleet Valley. - again from the BBC

I stand corrected. Next time I use Eurostar I will not complain at the cost of the ticket, knowing the money has gone on such a worthy piece of 'art'.

Maybe I am wrong but I seem to recall a fair amount of public funding going into Eurostar.

No, military is fine, because that's within the proper role of government.

But neither scientific research nor cultural advancement are.
So, having a military is fine, while scientific research is not. Tell me, will your Perfect State be defended by bows and arrows? Or will you stick with spears?

So, not a taxpayer-funded project. Different issue.

it is still private money that could have gone to me. :mad:

So, having a military is fine, while scientific research is not. Tell me, will your Perfect State be defended by bows and arrows? Or will you stick with spears?

Please don't pretend I said something I didn't; thanks!

Please don't pretend I said something I didn't; thanks!

Without funding scientific research and development, how would your military advance? It's not a stretch to believe your weaponry might be slightly primitive when there is no investment in a vehicle that would advance the type of weapons available.

Government funding for the arts is fundamentally illegitimate. People should not, through their tax dollars, be compelled to fund the expression of ideas of which they disapprove.

National monuments are works of art. Therefore government funding of the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial and the likes are fundamentally illegitimate. People should not, through their tax dollars, be compelled to fund Mount Rushmore or the Statue of Liberty.

I think Harper's cuts to arts are ideologically motivated based on a simple fact: those who work in the arts industry, and therefore have their job threatened by his cuts, aren't going to be voting for Stephen Harper anyways.

Let's face it, the Montreal film scene is a huge employer, and is one of the big engines in the urban economy. I highly doubt all those café au lait sipping Plateau denizens are going to vote blue in the next election anyways.

He's going to support smaller industries like agriculture and forestry. Rural industries, to put it bluntly.

The government should not be, and is not, allowed to decide which projects get funding. That is decided by a rotating panel of judges who are funded by the government. The judges are chosen from the artist communities of Canada, as well as the people who choose the judges.
Hmm? What do you mean by "as well as the people who choose the judges"?

Obviously there is selection, but it should not be subject to the whim or ideology of the ruling party. So the current system judges it based on other things.
Again, I agree that the selectiveness of the budget cuts is a concern I'm more inclined to agree with.

This makes the unfounded assumption that the arts industry in Canada is not a net money maker.
I don't think the argument relies on that assumption. The idea that tax dollars shouldn't be used for industries that could be left to the market, while not an argument I necessarily agree with, doesn't have to revolve around the profitability of those industries; if government were to patent ESCR cures the same way businesses would, that could be a net money maker too, yet ESCR seems to be talked about less.

Economic justifications for censorship do not excuse censorship.
Again, it depends on what you consider censorship. The abscence of support for something isn't quite the same as the prescence of suppression of something. When it comes to ESCR, people talk about how they shouldn't use government funds for it yet if people want to privately fund it that's their right. In my initial post, I went over how the consequences of leaving ESCR to the market would probably be more dire than those of leaving the arts to the market. You do realize that the comparison between the two was part of the point of this topic, right?

Without funding scientific research and development, how would your military advance?

Who said anything about there being no scientific research and development?

National monuments are works of art. Therefore government funding of the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial and the likes are fundamentally illegitimate. People should not, through their tax dollars, be compelled to fund Mount Rushmore or the Statue of Liberty.

Precisely.

Who said anything about there being no scientific research and development?

A lot of that requires funding, whether public or private because it's something that you need to pay forward in, in order to see the outcome. A lot of scientific research would get hindered because of limited funds, or it would be tightly controlled by those who have made the discovery and would be able to tell the government it doesn't want to share that knowledge, since the government won't pay for it.

Hmm? What do you mean by "as well as the people who choose the judges"?

They also come from the artistic community as opposed to being appointed by government.

I don't think the argument relies on that assumption. The idea that tax dollars shouldn't be used for industries that could be left to the market, while not an argument I necessarily agree with, doesn't have to revolve around the profitability of those industries;

I don't think I got what you were trying to say, then. It seemed like you were saying that the jobs in the art industry will disappear, so the money should be spent on retraining workers. Why would those jobs disappear?

if government were to patent ESCR cures the same way businesses would, that could be a net money maker too, yet ESCR seems to be talked about less.

Would it be a net money maker for the government or for the Canadian economy? Because the arts funding is good for the Canadian economy, not the government.

Again, it depends on what you consider censorship. The abscence of support for something isn't quite the same as the prescence of suppression of something.

Often, the absence of something is the presence of something. The absence of oxygen is the presence of asphyxiation. The absence of debate is the presence of censorship. In exact terms, to cut off funding to a segment of the Canadaian population whose role in society is to provide a cultural voice can be considered censorship, if it limits the ability of that voice to engage in debate.

When it comes to ESCR, people talk about how they shouldn't use government funds for it yet if people want to privately fund it that's their right. In my initial post, I went over how the consequences of leaving ESCR to the market would probably be more dire than those of leaving the arts to the market. You do realize that the comparison between the two was part of the point of this topic, right?

You vaguely mentioned it. You also seemed to frame it as a dichotomy: either we fund artists, or we keep the precious research out of the hands of the private sector. To me, this seems like a false dichotomy. We can do both, or as Harper would probably like it, neither.

, or it would be tightly controlled by those who have made the discovery and would be able to tell the government it doesn't want to share that knowledge, since the government won't pay for it.

Those are called patents.

We're talking about federal taxes. Not provincial. The federal government does not have jurisdiction over education.
Then what's with the notion of federal candidates' platforms with respect to education? (ie. Jack Layton)

As for objecting on the grounds that one doesn't support art; if we don't, we risk losing our heritage and culture to unCanadian entities that will not honour our culture and heritage.
Un-Canadian? So we should think differently of culture for which side of our arbitrary borders it happens to be on? I don't find such an idea very appealing, and I especially don't like the idea that "culture" is a collective thing instead of an individual thing; even if one is to be nationalistic about it, isn't Canada supposed to be a multicultural society? Why should we promote having culture be specifically associated with whatever happens to be within the boundaries we (except for immigrants) just so happen to have been born into?

Without them, how will we identify ourselves in a unique manner?
On an individual level?

In a world where globalisation is a reality, we need to support our artists in order to preserve our culture.
Our culture can be "preserved" by recording enough about it that future generations can have a reasonably accurate impression of what it was. But why should people be expected to continue to adhere to it? If people decide that they prefer the culture associated with another country (or that which is emerging too internationally to be tied to a particular country) then who are you to say they're wrong?

America has Hollywood, Vegas.

England has the best known monarchs; the nation that defined the 60s with its rock bands.

The Netherlands is known for various artists (Van Gogh, Rembrandt) and its architecture.

China has its Great Wall (and what a cultural icon it is!). Never mind the fact that it has thousands and thousands of years of cultural history.

Japan has its meiji shrines, tea houses and anime (I know, narrow view, but still). Its cultural clothing is very unique; an art form.
And this is why I think culture is something that should be looked at on an international to individual level, rather than on a national to regional level, so that those who are inclined to like certain aspects of one culture and other aspects of another will do so, and who knows what kind of brilliant new mixtures of old cultures could emerge from such thinking? Why should we be promoting a favoritism towards whatever happens to be associated with a nation or region just because other nations or regions are doing the same? Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Dr. Hibbert offers to "cut off the other thumb for a sense of symmetry"

America is American and is a fine country, but I am not American.
That happens to be the case now. But who knows, perhaps down the road Canada and the US may be part of the same country. (ie. NAU) If it turns out that way, what will you think of the distinction then?

Your sentence has too many negatives.

Do you believe arts are useful?

Should artists receive public funding?

I'm not completely sure what I was trying to say there...lol...but more or less I believe that while the arts and culture do have a place in any society, I do not believe that public money should be diverted for their support.

There we go! That better?

Then what's with the notion of federal candidates' platforms with respect to education? (ie. Jack Layton)

There are no rules against having a policy on that area.

Un-Canadian? So we should think differently of culture for which side of our arbitrary borders it happens to be on? I don't find such an idea very appealing, and I especially don't like the idea that "culture" is a collective thing instead of an individual thing; even if one is to be nationalistic about it, isn't Canada supposed to be a multicultural society? Why should we promote having culture be specifically associated with whatever happens to be within the boundaries we (except for immigrants) just so happen to have been born into?

Understanding and appreciating all cultures is important. Accepting the culture that immigrants bring is important as well. However, the people born in Canada need a culture of their own. We're a young nation (though not as young as others). Something that says "we're Canadian".

I grew up never really feeling like I had a culture. I was just a Canadian, and I had no culture.

As I said earlier... hockey is one of the few things associated with Canada. Yet we have talented writers, actors, and the like who leave Canada because we don't support them. They find work in other parts of the world. And we still have hockey. (Nothing against hockey.)

On an individual level?

Our culture can be "preserved" by recording enough about it that future generations can have a reasonably accurate impression of what it was. But why should people be expected to continue to adhere to it? If people decide that they prefer the culture associated with another country (or that which is emerging too internationally to be tied to a particular country) then who are you to say they're wrong?

How can you preserve that which does not exist?

They are not wrong of course. They are entitled to their opinion, which is all fine.

Give people something local they can feel connected to; give them the freedom to pick. But give them choice.

And this is why I think culture is something that should be looked at on an international to individual level, rather than on a national to regional level, so that those who are inclined to like certain aspects of one culture and other aspects of another will do so, and who knows what kind of brilliant new mixtures of old cultures could emerge from such thinking? Why should we be promoting a favoritism towards whatever happens to be associated with a nation or region just because other nations or regions are doing the same? Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Dr. Hibbert offers to "cut off the other thumb for a sense of symmetry"

You make a good point.

A mix would create something new and exciting.

That happens to be the case now. But who knows, perhaps down the road Canada and the US may be part of the same country. (ie. NAU) If it turns out that way, what will you think of the distinction then?

If they ever did, I'd pack up my degree and take it across the pond.

They also come from the artistic community as opposed to being appointed by government.
So on what criteria are those people from the artistic community selected?

I don't think I got what you were trying to say, then.
Fair enough. I find it refreshing to see people who misunderstand something say so. Anyway, I was more so trying to say that IF the idea is of protecting jobs, then wouldn't post-secondary education, which could help equip people with the knowledge that would improve their job options, be a better use of that money?

Would it be a net money maker for the government or for the Canadian economy?
Both, if the government were to use the money made for public services like post-secondary education. Though personally, I'd much rather those cures be seen as belonging to public healthcare, so that who gets them is based on who needs them, rather than on who can pay for them.

Often, the absence of something is the presence of something.
But in the legal context, the lines become blurred. Failing to save someone's life isn't considered murder.

You vaguely mentioned it.
Perhaps I didn't emphasize it enough then.

You also seemed to frame it as a dichotomy: either we fund artists, or we keep the precious research out of the hands of the private sector.
I didn't mean to frame it as a dichotomy. I was saying that I regarded it as a double standard that something regarded as being one of the main reasons for opposition to ESCR funding doesn't seem to be as popular in the context of arts funding. During the leaders' debate, I don't think anyone mentioned ESCR funding, not even Jack Layton. (Who IIRC had a bit of an emphasis on public healthcare)

There are no rules against having a policy on that area.
Yeah, but if a federal government is able to influence education policy, wouldn't they be able to transfer some of the arts funding to education funding?

However, the people born in Canada need a culture of their own.
So why couldn't it be an amalgam of the different cultures they either by choice or circumstance end up coming across?

Something that says "we're Canadian".
I believe it's our national boundaries that say that. If that's not enough, then perhaps that says something about national identity itself. As Carl Sagan pointed out, national boundaries aren't evident when we view the Earth from space.

I grew up never really feeling like I had a culture. I was just a Canadian, and I had no culture.
Then perhaps "Canadian culture" was a placebo to some extent.

As I said earlier... hockey is one of the few things associated with Canada. Yet we have talented writers, actors, and the like who leave Canada because we don't support them. They find work in other parts of the world. And we still have hockey. (Nothing against hockey.)
Meh, I'm not particularily interested in hockey anyway. o.o

But still, if "talented writers, actors, and the like" are leaving Canada, how do you know it's because we don't support them? While I'll admit I don't know much about the specifics of their reasons, I think that even if supporting them more will make them more inclined to stay, the fact that they choose to leave suggests that something about where they choose to go is more appealing than Canada. We shouldn't just be blindly patriotic; we should think critically about just WHAT people find unappealing about Canada, even if we wouldn't necessarily agree with that perspective.

And how exactly is artists and writers moving outside our borders a more dire concern than private companies gaining a chokehold on medical cures because we never beat them to it through ESCR funding? The comparison was part of the point of my initial post, seeing as how a lot of people prefer to let the market deal with ESCR, and the same doesn't seem to be said of arts funding as much.

How can you preserve that which does not exist?
It has existed before. Preserving the record of it is something I'm less hesitant to get behind, if only for how that could be considered a component of history, and in turn, of education. But do we really need to be actively funding whatever is associated with a national identity? In any case, who gets to say what is associated with that national identity in the first place?

Give people something local they can feel connected to
Kryozerkia, let me tell you something. Back in elementary school, a few people took stuff out of the substitute teacher's purse, and put it on my desk to make it look like I did it. When the teacher came in, I don't recall ANYONE telling her that I didn't do it. Now luckily I had a good enough reputation among teachers not to get in much trouble, and in hindsight, this particular incident could probably be attributed to the bystander effect, but incidents like it created a kind of bitterness towards the school community that made me afraid of them, and I even forced myself to think the worst about whatever the intentions of the rest of the school community was. Towards the end of high school, I felt overwhelmed to wonder just what I missed out on.

Surely, if we should be providing people with local things to be connected to, shouldn't we try to address things that make people not even want to be connected to local things in the first place?

In case you'd be asking how, one thing that has since occured to me was that if there were surveillance cameras in those elementary schools, they'd have recorded proof that it wasn't me, AND recorded proof of the people who tried to get me in trouble in the first place. I'm not sure quite was the results of that would have been, but no matter what the rest of the class would have done, I probably wouldn't have felt as overwhelmingly afraid of them...

This isn't good news. With recent cut backs in Crafts funding, the entire Canadian glue stick and colored macaroni industries are already on the verge of collapse. This may be enough to push them over, and when that happens the UNAPSM (Union of North American Popsicle Stick Makers) won't be far behind.

Precisely.

So would you agree with auctioning them off to the highest bidders to both save money and generate revenue for the government?

I'm not completely sure what I was trying to say there...lol...but more or less I believe that while the arts and culture do have a place in any society, I do not believe that public money should be diverted for their support.

There we go! That better?

So, you support Harper's position then.

What about the net loss to the Canadian economy? Why do you want to make things worse right now, during a period of financial uncertainty?

So on what criteria are those people from the artistic community selected?

Usually, experience with handling arts funding projects at the community level.

Fair enough. I find it refreshing to see people who misunderstand something say so.

Perhpas if you were to explain your argument in a sentence ot two. It seems to have something to do with Harper, arts funding, ESCR, and post-secondary education.

Now, you did not answer my question. Why do you think the jobs in the arts industry will disappear?

Anyway, I was more so trying to say that IF the idea is of protecting jobs, then wouldn't post-secondary education, which could help equip people with the knowledge that would improve their job options, be a better use of that money?

They already have jobs. In the arts industry. An industry that is good for our economy.

Why would we cut funding to this industry, force lay-offs, then use the money we save to put these people in school (and effectively out of the economy for a while) so that they can then work in industries which may not have a net benefit to the Canadian economy?

Both, if the government were to use the money made for public services like post-secondary education. Though personally, I'd much rather those cures be seen as belonging to public healthcare, so that who gets them is based on who needs them, rather than on who can pay for them.

Considering that the governments buy healthcare and give it to us for free, I don't think they'll be making a profit on ESCR anytime soon. ESCR and arts funding are apples and oranges in this context due to the public healthcare system.

But in the legal context, the lines become blurred. Failing to save someone's life isn't considered murder.

In certain circumstances, yes, it is murder. If I failed to actively provide for an infant in my care, the child would die, and I would be held liable for the death. Now, this analogy is only useful if the same relationship works in terms of the arts industry and the government. Do we know how dependent arts are on funding?

Perhaps I didn't emphasize it enough then.

I didn't mean to frame it as a dichotomy. I was saying that I regarded it as a double standard that something regarded as being one of the main reasons for opposition to ESCR funding doesn't seem to be as popular in the context of arts funding. During the leaders' debate, I don't think anyone mentioned ESCR funding, not even Jack Layton. (Who IIRC had a bit of an emphasis on public healthcare)

ESCR can be researched by the private market, because the private corporations know that any treatments that they comeup, they can then sell to the government. The government, as the biggest healthcare provider in the country, will order a metric assload of these treatments. This will more or less guarantee financial security for whatever company came up with it.

Arts doesn't work that way.

Yeah, but if a federal government is able to influence education policy, wouldn't they be able to transfer some of the arts funding to education funding?

Even if they did, they don't have the capacity to dictate how the province uses the money for 'education'. They can tell the province "here's more money for education", but the province having jurisdiction over it would have the final say in how it's spent.

Of course, with Harper in charge, the odds of any province getting more money for anything, even education is laughable. The man is an inept PM who doesn't care about the average Canadian; just about protecting his job.

But still, if "talented writers, actors, and the like" are leaving Canada, how do you know it's because we don't support them? While I'll admit I don't know much about the specifics of their reasons, I think that even if supporting them more will make them more inclined to stay, the fact that they choose to leave suggests that something about where they choose to go is more appealing than Canada. We shouldn't just be blindly patriotic; we should think critically about just WHAT people find unappealing about Canada, even if we wouldn't necessarily agree with that perspective.

And how exactly is artists and writers moving outside our borders a more dire concern than private companies gaining a chokehold on medical cures because we never beat them to it through ESCR funding? The comparison was part of the point of my initial post, seeing as how a lot of people prefer to let the market deal with ESCR, and the same doesn't seem to be said of arts funding as much.

Having plenty of chances to speak with members of ACTRA, and hearing other writers speak, I have to say that without a supporting and nurturing environment for art, the artists find themselves leaving for places like Hollywood because they are paid and supported for their talents. There is work available in their fields. The money is there, therefore it's possible for these people to further themselves in the field of choice.

With an economy in recession, anything to keep jobs here and allow for Canadians to excel in the field of their choice is prudent.

Your concerns about ESCR are legitimate. But why do we need to cut art funding for it? Wouldn't it be more sound to cut military funding? Do we really need to blow up that big dirt pile in the middle of Asia because of Bush's asinine War on Terror? A war that is obviously not going to be won. A war that is removing one source of evil and replacing it with a corrupt source that is really no better?

Please don't pretend I said something I didn't; thanks!
It's not my faut your black and white world view doesn't work in reality, although that's no surprise from an objectivist.

So would you agree with auctioning them off to the highest bidders to both save money and generate revenue for the government?

I don't see why not.

It's not my faut your black and white world view doesn't work in reality, although that's no surprise from an objectivist.

Please show me where I said there would be no scientific research.

Go on, I dare you.

I have mixed feelings on funding for the arts. However, there is no doubt that Harper's cuts to arts funding is ideologically based. Conservative, particularly neo-conservative philosophy is about reducing government intervention in the economy, and if a government believes in cutting spending, you know damn well they'll attack the arts first.

Having said that, I don't know the specifics on what exactly was cut. I'm a bit of an economic nationalist, so in my mind tax payer dollars that can create a net benefit for the economy is a good thing. So, it really depends on a case by case basis.

However, funding the arts for the concept of 'protecting Canadian culture' to me is a little disingenuous. It's simply government manipulation of the essential knee-jerk anti-americanism that goes way back in our national psyche to protect industries like Rogers communications. Government shouldn't dictate culture. Culture can certainly play a role in government, but why on earth should Ottawa decide that my culture includes the beachcombers?

If we're seriously interested in protecting Canadian culture, it's in our history. Promoting historical sites, working in tandem with First Nations' peoples, making sure that Canadians regard our historical roots with something at least a modicum of the insane frenzy that Americans have for theirs would go a lot further to enshrining out Canadian identity than episodes of Heartland ever will.

Oh you did not just shit-talk the Beachcombers.

Don't get me wrong, I like Relic as much as the next guy, but ifvthat's the landmark for what Identifies us as Canuks, I think we're in trouble.

By the curly hairs poking out of Bruno Gerussi's shirt, I believe he did.

EDIT: I am not going to get into the 'what constitutes Canadain culture' debate. I swear to god, that debate itself makes up about 43% of canadian culture.