the long hangover: a found poem

exhibit a: So what exactly are the arts good for?


exhibit b:


Ms Wicked Monton wrote:Posted 2008/08/20
at 8:33 PM ET


Public money should NOT be used to fund works of art, that in and of itself provide a monetary return - now or in the future - regardless of how small that return may seem, back to the artist.

Artists have made a conscious decision to dedicate their career to that of being an artist, instead of say being a plumber or lawyer. As a result they should be prepared to accept the monetary risks, both costs and return, of their artistic endeavor. There are countless struggling artists trying to make ends meet, but there are likely just as many, if not more, non-artist Canadians also struggling to make ends meet.

If corporations feel a need to enrich the productivity of their employees through the obvious mental benefits of art, those corporations should be prepared to fund that art through their own budgets. If artists feel a need to enrich the lives of others, they too should be prepared to fund their work. Public money should not be used to enhance the profitability of corporations nor professional artists.

Yes, Mr. Handler, "support must have a purpose". Public money is for OUR needs, not your wants. Good opening question, tho'.



Freedom35 wrote:Posted 2008/08/21
at 1:21 AM ET


Contending that there is a link between arts funding and innovation is absurd. The arts in Canada are responsible for marketing, at best. That's it. Insert Bill Hicks quote here.

Nigeria's cellphone network outpaces ours by nearly every measurable standard, Japan has completely eliminated dial-up internet, and if you want code written, you turn to India first. Those countries invest in actual innovation.

If you want to increase innovation, train more engineers. Increase funding for the sciences. And throw as much money as possible at investment in what is produced, to keep it Canadian.

Scientists and engineers make things. Artists decide what colour they should be, and prose on about how we should relate to them. The former create jobs. The latter....




St.John wrote:Posted 2008/08/21
at 10:03 AM ET


Greek art is art. Raphael's Sanzio is something for my higher intellectual center. Beethoven's classics are art for my higher emotional centers.

Canadians blathering on about their so called art, which is really mostly repugnant abominations of their sexless, fornicating uncreative minds, should be axed. They do not have any respect for the creative energy, so how can they be creative?

Not only that, but it's a poor alternative to the American garbage.

They axed the classical channel on CBC for more "favorable" music. Is this art? FALSE. This is garbage.

They go to art school to learn how to draw, etc etc and end up producing repugnancies. If they studied the old arts and tried to imitate that, which is ART WITH RELIGIOUS MEANING, that hides the truths and the clues, that would be worth viewing.

Instead the spew out whatever their insane minds concoct, which is just as crap as anything else coming out of everyones orifices, mouth ears nose ect. Good riddance.





Shifty Calhoun wrote:Posted 2008/08/21
at 10:07 AM ET


C_Gene:

This is a nation of money obsessed capitalists who wouldn't know how to spell their way out of a paper bag.

You can hear the elitism dripping out of every syllable. Far better to be a starving artist and know the difference between past and past pluperfect tenses than to be a successful employee or employer who provides for his family (and starving artists through his tax dollars) but can't tell when to use "your" and when to use "you're", eh? Obviously you're morally superior through such knowledge.

Live Out Loud:

We fund sports and athletes and are happy to do so, especially in an Olympic year.

You may be happy to do so, but I'm not. I feel the same way about athletes as I do about artists...if you're good enough you'll find corporate sponsorship or market profit. If you're not good enough stop wasting your time and our money.


Shifty Calhoun wrote:Posted 2008/08/21
at 11:10 AM ET

alfred thompson:

For every percentage point that grants are reduced represents 50% more corporate money an organization or artist must try to find to continue their craft or art.

Let's do some basic math here...the government grants my transgendered ballet $100K a year. They then reduce that by $1K. That means I need to find $1K in corporate sponsorship, so corporate donations were about $665 compared to that $100K.

If I was the government I'd be tempted to see a business case, and have explained to me why the transgendered ballet should exist, if private participation and support is at such a low level.


Shifty Calhoun wrote:Posted 2008/08/21
at 1:06 PM ET

alfred thompson:

Where would you propose the ballet company begin their search for that funding in time for it to do any good, and who would you recommend for that task in a lean organization already working overtime?

Well, that cuts to the bone, doesn't it?

Arts organizations love public money because there's very little work involved in getting it, aside from the voluminous filling out of forms.

Trying to run an organization like a business, now that's real work. Having a business plan with realistic goals and fiscal responsibility, why that's tough stuff. Every small business that is created and run needs just that, and the failure rate is still high. Yet we continue to use tax dollars (otherwise known as our money) to bail out losing propositions because art is supposedly a nobler cause, and exempt from reality.

Again, if you can't run it without handouts, stop wasting your time and our money.



No, you infer that (not all of us capitalist types have a problem with paper bags), and I most certainly didn't imply it. If a transgendered ballet is talented and wanted within the community, then of course corporate sponsors will jump on the band wagon. If it's not, then why do we need to prop it up with government funds?


RatFree wrote:Posted 2008/08/21
at 2:09 PM ET

I chose my career with a great deal of thought as to what would most likely make me useful and make me employable. I chose one where I had a pretty good idea that I'd be employable and that I'd be paid fairly well. Having chosen as such, how is it now my responsibility to cover for those that chose differently?

As a taxpayer where I see huge chunks of my funding going to ridiculous places, I find it appalling to have people be able say "I'm an artist, pay me money" and I have no choice but to do so because the feds force me to pay them and then they turn around and hand it out in a vast number of stupid ways. This is an outrageous transfer of money that I've earned into the hands of artists that haven't.

If they can't make it on their own, like any other person, then let them find something more marketable to do with their time.



Shifty Calhoun wrote:Posted 2008/08/21
at 2:17 PM ET


cait50:

OK, you obviously have a bitterness towards much of the arts. Perhaps you hung around one-to-many pretentious has-been in your time close to an arts organization.

Caitlin, most arts organizations are pretentious...if you've ever had to wrangle actors/actresses or set up a painting exhibition you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. It certainly doesn't endear me to them, but it's not the problem...well, at least not in part.

Most arts organizations (read: the unsuccessful ones) live in a bubble similar to academia. They produce work incomprehensible to many, and unwanted by most. But they carry with themselves a sense and an air of entitlement, and this does not go down well with the general public, especially when we're called money obsessed capitalists who wouldn't know how to spell their way out of a paper bag or told that we'd prefer our tax dollars fund someone else's willfull [sic] ignorance.

Let's say that art organizations did a good job of promoting arts in communities. Would you then support the funding, given the arguments outlined below?

My bottom line is the bottom line. I'd be all for a system of grants, (interest free loans), used as seed money to create art which will pay for itself. We (taxpayers) would lose money on the interest free aspect, but would receive the principal back. I'm tired of shoveling millions of dollars into a black hole, never to be seen again.


Vince M wrote:Posted 2008/08/22
at 10:31 AM ET


I do not want to see a single cent spent on the "Arts" by government. All art should be supported by private groups and endowments.

The foolishness of seeing "elites" going to an opera or play subsidized by a taxpayer who barely makes ends meet and has trouble feeding the kids has just got to stop.


Mossad wrote:Posted 2008/08/22
at 12:02 AM ET




What are the arts good for?.....NOTHING!

Just another alternative to working for a living.