92 replies to this topic

[IanMc]

First of all, I only recently found this forum although I have lived here for the past twelve years plus five in the seventies. I spent a long time in the fantastic aerial photos thread and I still have a lot to explore here. But this seems like a good place to ask a question that has been burning in my brain since this whole gaming grant cuts issue started.

I am fed up with listening to those incredibly annoying Lotto 649 tv commercials over and over and over again asking me to 'imagine'! I think it is played at least once in every commercial break on our local stations and a few minutes ago they played that one plus one for another lottery immediately after a piece about the gaming grant cuts! Why can't anybody see the connection?

My question is - there has got to be millions of dollars being spent by the lottery corporation to bombard us with these intelligence-insulting ads. Doesn't the gaming grant money come from profits from organizations such as LottoBC? And if so, can't they just cut the frequency in half and give a ton of much-needed money to groups that really need it?

Sheesh...as I've been writing this I've seen three lotto ads during two commercial breaks on the GlobalBc newscast! This solution seems so simple to me, am I looking at this the wrong way or are there others as pissed off as me?

[mat]

Welcome to the forum IanMc

This issue you refer to has been discussed, but time to review, so well done.

I take this from the view point of what we determine to be provided by tax dollars, like health care, then out sourced to charities.

You saw commercials for 649 - our household print mail last week had 5 brochures to support local hospitals, the arthritis centre, and the hospice. 3 of those were for a charity lottery event of some sort.

It seems we are now funding all our primary services through some sort of legalized gambling.

[Holden West]

^Yes, this trend worries me too. Supposedly there's a rule in advertising that you actually increase your ad spending in a recession in order to maintain brand loyalty. But yes, I watch these big budget lottery commercials and wonder if they too couldn't cut back. In general, I find it bizarre that funding is tied to revenue--oops, natural gas is down therefore your knee replacement is going to take another year...or to get back on topic, people are gambling less so your art program is now redundant.

At least the libertarians are satisfied.

[davek]

At least the libertarians are satisfied.

Like fun we are. On this issue, the libertarians will only be satisfied when the state is entirely separated from arts funding. And of course we are entirely dissatisfied with state involvement in gambling.

[IanMc]

Thanks, I didn't want to hijack this thread but a search didn't show a relevant discussion so if you could point me towards one it would be appreciated, I'm still finding my way around here.

I am still confused about how the money chain works though. I spent a little time selling direct mail so I know that the money spent by the arthritis centre for example on that is peanuts compared to what LottoBC spends. And that money comes from some part of the provincial government, then the centre pays for the direct mail and hopefully gets a good return on their investment in a charity lottery which they can use themselves and that's where the bucks stop.

I was under the impression that the same part of the government gives LottoBC the money to pay for their commercials, LottoBC gets a huge return on their investment and the excess of their profit goes back to the government who in turn give it to arts groups, school groups and maybe even the arthritis society.

I admit that I may be looking at this in too simple a manner. I have never been able to get very involved in the convoluted processes of government partly because I need to see results, plus fairness and honesty. And my blood pressure can't take it anymore anyway! But I'll just keep the mute button close by until I can figure out why LottoBC is allowed to assault us to such a degree while much-needed arts and school funding is taken away. It just doesn't seem fair, or honest. See what I mean?

[Halo_Override]

For the record, as the OP, I fully support the drifting/widening of the topic that's been happening on the past couple of pages. It's all orbiting around the core question of the social role of government anyway. Plus, I'm delighted my thread has grown some legs.

[liberty]

Have you considered selling your art privately? I can understand how injust it must feel that other people receive subsidies while you do not. At the same time, you can take pride that the money you are receiving is because other people legitimately value your services - not because it is involuntarily taken from them. Best of luck - Victoria is still a great city for arts and culture!

[Phil McAvity]

If Gordon Campbell was leader in 1501.

I love the irony of that cartoon-irony seemingly lost on both Adrian Raeside and Holden West. Michelangelo never got any government grants. Neither did Rembrandt, Da Vinci, Titian, or Van Gogh, yet their art work stands head and shoulders above myriad artists who have.

[Ms. B. Havin]

I love the irony of that cartoon-irony seemingly lost on both Adrian Raeside and Holden West. Michelangelo never got any government grants. Neither did Rembrandt, Da Vinci, Titian, or Van Gogh, yet their art work stands head and shoulders above myriad artists who have.

You know, I've stayed out of this thread because, frankly, some of the ideological drivel here is too astonishing to keep the old neurons firing.

But listen: Michelangelo and the rest depended for their lives on PATRONAGE. Patronage.

I'll say it again: PATRONAGE.

Look the g-d word up, for pete's sake.

Rich rulers (church, royalty) used to exercise PATRONAGE. Since church and royals don't rule us anymore, we have transferred PATRONAGE to government - to patrons we implicitly pay (with our taxes) so that they can exercise the patronage that autocrats used to. If you don't like that, fine. But don't say that if art can't stand on its own two feet it should suck it up and go die somewhere - because that has NEVER been the model.

Yes, artists also became entrepreneurs and independent agents in the market place - but this is a very very recent development (a mere ~160 or so years, give or take a decade). And even within that era (of artists as free agents in a market place), there has always been PATRONAGE, whether from private individuals who built up collections, or patrons who donated to museums for the public good, or mini-Maecenas types.

Seriously: to suggest that Michelangelo or others from that era (and of that caliber) did it without support from official sources (monetary support) is either ignorant or a willful skewing of the facts.

The arts have always been supported by government - you're just confused about what government is. It used to be the tribal elders/leaders, or the church (voodoo men), or the royals/ feudal lords, or ...say, Napoleon commissioning yet another portrait (political rulers acting as patrons).

Government arts programs are simply the rationalization of what was here-to-fore a more irrational process. If you don't like that rationalization, fine. Just don't be so ignorant as to claim that "government" support of the arts isn't a long-standing tradition.

[Ms. B. Havin]

PS: my two cents on cuts to the arts: for the provincial government to do this shows a level of desperation and short-sightedness that's really quite frightening. If things are indeed so bad that the arts have to be cut to this extent, then we are in way deeper **** than anyone guessed.

[Halo_Override]

A) You win the thread.

B) It's been occurring to me lately -- there are few areas of Canada with more existing advantages than BC. Yet I don't know of any region that is cutting so voraciously. It begs the question -- which nobody is asking out loud at a national news level, unfortunately -- what exactly has the government been doing all this time, during the easy years, if everything falls down so badly the moment things get difficult?

The answer, which nobody of significance will ever speak, is probably that they've been doing exactly the same thing they learned to do in the private sector to which they will hopefully soon return: warming chairs and collecting expenses.

[Phil McAvity]

^Yeah, nobody in the private sector actually works like those incredibly disciplined bureaucrats do in the government! The sad thing is that your comment should be ironic, but it isn't. Also, "cutting voraciously"? I'd like to see how "voracious" these cuts are because VHF showed one group got a $35,000 cut out of an annual budget of $800,000. Not exactly my idea of voracious.

Ms. B Haven, I do not, nor have I ever "willfully skewed the facts". With the insulting insinuation aside, thank you for explaining all that but one of the definitions of "patronage" is, "a condescending manner or attitude in dealing with people, etc.; condescension: an air of patronage toward his business subordinates." I couldn't help but chuckle at how apropos that is after you said, "....frankly, some of the ideological drivel here is too astonishing to keep the old neurons firing." Rather than being condescending perhaps you could address some of that "ideological drivel" that you clearly find infradig.

That is of course assuming you can successfully dismount your clydesdale.

The only problem with libertarianism is that they trust in the goodness of people to much.

That's absolutely untrue. Every libertarian i've ever spoken with has said they are all for a strong police presence and court system. I think you have libertarians confused with anarchists because the latter doesn't believe in police or the courts.

[davek]

This article (dated February) says Canadians don't appear to be much interested in donating to arts and cultural organizations.

And why, I ask, would they be? Artists may have been dependent on elite patronage in the past, but Canadians have been wealthy enough for long enough that even poor people are able to support the arts they personally value. There is plenty of money spent on movies, concerts, literature, and musical recordings.

So no matter what the model may have been in the past, these days no artist should be able to collect money snatched by government from the very people that have already rejected their art. Anyone who can't persuade people to voluntarily support his/her efforts in the performing or visual arts simply needs to find some other line of work.