Arts funding agreements rescinded -- Outrage? Acquiescence? Meh?
#21
Posted 04 September 2009 - 09:15 AM
One spin that you might agree with though is that the government has no right to any revenue from gambling. No doubt if the government got out of the gambling business altogether and left it for non-profits entirely, then every arts, sports, and service provider could be fully funded by the proceeds.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891
#22
Posted 04 September 2009 - 03:43 PM
"It's time for the arts community in B.C. to stop blithely mouthing arts platitudes and make its points with focused artwork and incisive humour. Make people laugh at a government that makes claims of greatness for British Columbia and yet treats the arts as though this is an Arkansas backwater. With the Olympics looming, artists can do this on a stage that will give the government pause. Mock the bloviating architects of these arts funding cuts in a way that's seen by patrons of every Cultural Olympiad event. What does "$1 = $1.38" mean? Make sure everyone understands."
From here.
Davek...you don't believe in education being funded? woohoo...ohkay clearly we are waaaaayyyy to far apart here - and to the wise VV'er thanks for THAT heads up.
cha cha cha Davek! *muwha*
#23
Posted 04 September 2009 - 08:40 PM
Davek...you don't believe in education being funded? woohoo...ohkay clearly we are waaaaayyyy to far apart here - and to the wise VV'er thanks for THAT heads up.
cha cha cha Davek! *muwha*
I agree with Davek a lot except with education and how governments can pollute lakes among a few other things. Just a heads up Susan, Davek is a libertarian.
#24
Posted 04 September 2009 - 09:21 PM
Considering Davek that you also believe education is something that should be wholly paid for by the family of every child, with the resulting decline of our national cultural capital as an acceptable side effect, it is hardly surprising that you also doesn't agree about funding the arts.
Indeed. Even if I agreed with you that our national cultural capital would decline as a result of a complete separation of education and state, I still wouldn't consider that justification for killing, jailing, or seizing the property of anyone who resists being forced to support an education system against their will.
One spin that you might agree with though is that the government has no right to any revenue from gambling. No doubt if the government got out of the gambling business altogether and left it for non-profits entirely, then every arts, sports, and service provider could be fully funded by the proceeds.
I agree that government isn't entitled to any gambling revenue. If arts, sports, and service providers can convince gambling entrepreneurs to fund them, more power to them.
Davek...you don't believe in education being funded? woohoo...ohkay clearly we are waaaaayyyy to far apart here...
Maybe not. I disapprove of using force to take other people's money and spending it on things they don't approve of. How about you?
cha cha cha Davek! *muwha*
cha cha cha SusanJones! *muwha*
#25
Posted 04 September 2009 - 10:31 PM
Victoria Rally against Campbell's contempt for the arts at Blanchard & Johnson at noon on Wednesday, September 9. Wear Grey, make a grey triangle or poster , wear it in front of your face because the Government has taken your face away fro...m ...you.
#26
Posted 09 September 2009 - 08:37 AM
#27
Posted 09 September 2009 - 09:12 AM
This years Fringe was "the most successful ever" the organizers say.
Their net take? $19,000, besting last year's $14,000. Wow, 3800 people bought buttons (@ $5 per button). Should that justify a $35,000 grant? 3800 or more go to each of 36 Salmon Kings games, more than half that went to every Seals game. Should we give the Salmon Kings $35,000 per game, the Seals $17,000 per game in grants?
#28
Posted 09 September 2009 - 04:08 PM
There were about 200 people, traffic was slowed right down to a crawl - the rain certainly added to the 'mood', it was perfect...perfectly gray.
For those who feel that people should pay to enjoy the arts - etc., there are many who cannot afford 'art', and without it, lives are bleak or 'gray'.
Ripping 'ART' out of our culture is what these funding policies do.
(great sign a fellow artist was carrying).
#29
Posted 09 September 2009 - 04:15 PM
#30
Posted 09 September 2009 - 04:26 PM
have a look at the 'free' activities - all arts! all kids! and....just the tip of the iceberg baby.
#31
Posted 09 September 2009 - 04:31 PM
The government puts ZERO money into the Victoria Clipper, and it brings in millions of dollars of spending, and that generates hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax revenue. Shouldn't they get a grant, they bring in lots of money.
#32
Posted 09 September 2009 - 04:47 PM
Arts, health & well-being
Mental Health and Wellbeing through Community Arts
Place of disability in arts, health and wellbeing
arts, rural communities, social wellbeing, culture, capacity, community development
Renegotiating community life: Arts, agency, inclusion and wellbeing
Community psychology and participatory arts
women and children in prisons through arts, self-esteem and human rights training
#33
Posted 09 September 2009 - 10:30 PM
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#34
Posted 10 September 2009 - 06:00 AM
I also take issue with the common refrain "for every dollar the government puts into arts, $1.38 comes back."
The government puts ZERO money into the Victoria Clipper, and it brings in millions of dollars of spending, and that generates hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax revenue. Shouldn't they get a grant, they bring in lots of money.
.......do docking fees, and other 'fees' cover the entire cost of public facilities that the Clipper might use? or how about the facilities the Clipper might use that are public and free? (not so ZERO supported by our tax dollars / government).
#35
Posted 12 September 2009 - 06:32 AM
Today's Times Colonist
A little of what's called culture is a wonderful thing. Like its biological form it can leaven the loaf of life, inoculate us against the humdrummery, the drabness of everyday existence.
But not everyone needs music, drama or works of art to survive. A lot of people who have never been to the opera or an art gallery can get by quite happily.
Those who are content to plod and blog through life are unlikely to be moved by the cries of culture vultures complaining that governments are using the current economic situation to cut funding for organizations dedicated to the arts that have come to believe that they're indispensable.
Ultimately, "ordinary" people as taxpayers, consumers of things and services that commercial sponsors produce and as ticket-buyers are the providers of arts funding.
And "ordinary" people have a right to be interested in how much of it's provided to entertain the extraordinary people who patronize the arts.
Many citizens are more concerned that the state provide health care when they need it, guard their security and see that their children have schools to go to. They have less concern for what goes on or is displayed in temples of the arts.
Even patrons of those temples, surely, have to agree that when the crunch comes, more universal priorities should be respected by governments.
Knowing this, it's disingenuous of governments to make commitments in good times that they might have to break; it's pathetic that any arts organizations would believe that such commitments will be honoured when times are tough.
That same expectation of entitlement is being displayed these days by organizations dedicated to school-age sports and by school trustees who believe that what they demand should be delivered by those holding the strings of suddenly meagre purses.
I can't quite see the connection between arts, sports and community programs and bingo, casinos and lotteries that have been designated to fund them.
Surely the organizations that run community-based programs realize that gambling involves risk.
Arts bodies must also recognize that the folks who gamble, often with money that could be better spent on surer things, aren't likely to turn out to concerts and festivals. The Archie Bunkers among us have been subsidizing what used to be the white-tie and tiara set.
I'm trying -- I really am -- not to be patronizing. I get great pleasure from a Bach cantata on CD before the fire after dinner, but don't think that makes me any better than someone who listens to Tommy Dorsey in the kitchen or Ray Griff in the garage.
I've gazed up at the Last Supper in holy awe and am sure that a lot of parents are uplifted as much by a child's first drawing.
Maybe people in small communities without orchestras or theatres are missing something but I've heard chamber music superbly performed in a Gulf Island hall full of metal folding chairs.
When public budgets are cut, those who want art and music and all that have to take up the slack, somehow.
In 1988 citizens in Denver, Colo., voted to increase taxes to support cultural facilities, despite the recession and to extend that support to outlying regions where facilities were lacking. We tend, though, not to like tax increases for anything.
American arts organizations in cities like New York are pooling their efforts to provide cultural benefits for specific social groups -- blacks, Hispanics, Asian Americans and native American -- that don't have them.
In Europe they're looking at ways to increase fiscal incentives, matching grants and private partnerships to increase arts funding without reducing direct government support.
Private corporations can be persuaded to sponsor festivals or arts programs because they know it's good for business -- it amounts to a business transaction.
There's philanthropy, too. How cramped and dull our lives, as patrons of the arts would be, without those who give to the community something that makes it rich in a way that not everyone appreciates.
And when we've found ways to keep the fiddles fiddling and dancers dancing we need ways to encourage people to come and listen and watch.
Who knows the ripple effect of Victoria's Symphony Splash?
cruachan@shaw.ca
#36
Posted 12 September 2009 - 07:40 PM
I will pay to see any cultural event I want to see. I don't want to pay for every cultural event you want to see.
#37
Posted 12 September 2009 - 08:34 PM
#38
Posted 13 September 2009 - 10:57 AM
Nobody cares Mr. Hunter - keep howling at the moon.
Today's Times Colonist
A little of what's called culture is a wonderful thing. Like its biological form it can leaven the loaf of life, inoculate us against the humdrummery, the drabness of everyday existence.
But not everyone needs music, drama or works of art to survive. A lot of people who have never been to the opera or an art gallery can get by quite happily.
Those who are content to plod and blog through life are unlikely to be moved by the cries of culture vultures complaining that governments are using the current economic situation to cut funding for organizations dedicated to the arts that have come to believe that they're indispensable.
Ultimately, "ordinary" people as taxpayers, consumers of things and services that commercial sponsors produce and as ticket-buyers are the providers of arts funding.
And "ordinary" people have a right to be interested in how much of it's provided to entertain the extraordinary people who patronize the arts.
Many citizens are more concerned that the state provide health care when they need it, guard their security and see that their children have schools to go to. They have less concern for what goes on or is displayed in temples of the arts.
Even patrons of those temples, surely, have to agree that when the crunch comes, more universal priorities should be respected by governments.
Knowing this, it's disingenuous of governments to make commitments in good times that they might have to break; it's pathetic that any arts organizations would believe that such commitments will be honoured when times are tough.
That same expectation of entitlement is being displayed these days by organizations dedicated to school-age sports and by school trustees who believe that what they demand should be delivered by those holding the strings of suddenly meagre purses.
I can't quite see the connection between arts, sports and community programs and bingo, casinos and lotteries that have been designated to fund them.
Surely the organizations that run community-based programs realize that gambling involves risk.
Arts bodies must also recognize that the folks who gamble, often with money that could be better spent on surer things, aren't likely to turn out to concerts and festivals. The Archie Bunkers among us have been subsidizing what used to be the white-tie and tiara set.
I'm trying -- I really am -- not to be patronizing. I get great pleasure from a Bach cantata on CD before the fire after dinner, but don't think that makes me any better than someone who listens to Tommy Dorsey in the kitchen or Ray Griff in the garage.
I've gazed up at the Last Supper in holy awe and am sure that a lot of parents are uplifted as much by a child's first drawing.
Maybe people in small communities without orchestras or theatres are missing something but I've heard chamber music superbly performed in a Gulf Island hall full of metal folding chairs.
When public budgets are cut, those who want art and music and all that have to take up the slack, somehow.
In 1988 citizens in Denver, Colo., voted to increase taxes to support cultural facilities, despite the recession and to extend that support to outlying regions where facilities were lacking. We tend, though, not to like tax increases for anything.
American arts organizations in cities like New York are pooling their efforts to provide cultural benefits for specific social groups -- blacks, Hispanics, Asian Americans and native American -- that don't have them.
In Europe they're looking at ways to increase fiscal incentives, matching grants and private partnerships to increase arts funding without reducing direct government support.
Private corporations can be persuaded to sponsor festivals or arts programs because they know it's good for business -- it amounts to a business transaction.
There's philanthropy, too. How cramped and dull our lives, as patrons of the arts would be, without those who give to the community something that makes it rich in a way that not everyone appreciates.
And when we've found ways to keep the fiddles fiddling and dancers dancing we need ways to encourage people to come and listen and watch.
Who knows the ripple effect of Victoria's Symphony Splash?
cruachan@shaw.ca
Nobody cares? So you can speak for everyone? I don't think so because I care and I completely agree with him. The thing I don't get is, if you disagree with him where is your rebuttal? I don't care how robust the economy is, if something can't stand on it's own two feet without the crutch of government, then die it should. I'm getting really tired of tyranny of the minority in this country. Arts are a business-just like medicare is. I noticed you highlighted things he said yet had no rebuttal but then people in the arts community never summon much of a rebuttal to the unfairness of taxpayer's subsidizing their artistic interests. I find the hubris disturbing.
I actually just got into a long debate with one of the writers in the T-C about this very issue. He started out debating really well with me but after a while his side of the debate began to dry up because he had nothing further to say and made it clear he wasn't interested in anything I said. After awhile I gave up because there's just no way to open up some people's minds, sadly. The only point he made that I felt was worth anything was a quote from Winston Churchill defending the arts.
#39
Posted 13 September 2009 - 02:18 PM
^The difference between us capitalists and (them dirty sleazy ) socialists is that we don't try to force what's important to us, on others. We believe in the freedom of the individual, socialists don't.
Nobody cares? So you can speak for everyone? I don't think so because I care and I completely agree with him. The thing I don't get is, if you disagree with him where is your rebuttal? I don't care how robust the economy is, if something can't stand on it's own two feet without the crutch of government, then die it should. I'm getting really tired of tyranny of the minority in this country. Arts are a business-just like medicare is. I noticed you highlighted things he said yet had no rebuttal but then people in the arts community never summon much of a rebuttal to the unfairness of taxpayer's subsidizing their artistic interests. I find the hubris disturbing.
I actually just got into a long debate with one of the writers in the T-C about this very issue. He started out debating really well with me but after a while his side of the debate began to dry up because he had nothing further to say and made it clear he wasn't interested in anything I said. After awhile I gave up because there's just no way to open up some people's minds, sadly. The only point he made that I felt was worth anything was a quote from Winston Churchill defending the arts.
You state - "if something can't stand on its own two feet without the crutch of government then die it should". THAT is what I was talking about NOBODY cares - NOBODY cares enough EITHER WAY to do MUCH about it. A debate? Please.
Where is the public protest that represents your position?
Where is the level of 'care' that you are talking about? Here on this board? one off editorial? a few letters to the editor? a debate? pffffttttt
What about all the other "somethings" that can't stand on its own two feet?
health care to education to Seniors? What about Churches? other "non-profits"?
How about your protest on those?
Nobody cares enough to do something about it.
You sound like you are on a pretty high horse there.
I don't know any art organization that feels its their 'right' etc., to government funding.
I do see organizations who have been told that gaming funds would be used to assist - and the public has been told that as well - clearly the gov't needs funding and for what? Sports? Olympics? is that self-sustaining? did you debate, write a letter, post on this board about that?
Lets see 200 or more of you show up on a rainy day to state your position - then go beyond that, take it further then I'll take back my statement that nobody cares. Not until.
#40
Posted 13 September 2009 - 08:05 PM
Lets see 200 or more of you show up on a rainy day to state your position - then go beyond that, take it further then I'll take back my statement that nobody cares. Not until.
I believe the election results speak for the contrary position.
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users