Last year Gordon Campbell used the economic “meltdown” to cut funding to all sorts of programs, the least of which is the arts.
I say “least” because they also cancelled a $300,000 Infant Development Program (which went largely unreported) and more well-known cuts to just about everything else the government funds.
As a philosophy student quite taken by the study of esthetics — roughly, “the philosophy of art” — maybe I should be outraged by cuts to arts funding. But I’m not.
The B.C. Assembly of Arts traditionally funds a diverse assortment of art through grants to professional artists as well as theatres and galleries. Lots of this is waste, like giving an artist a grant to travel. Nevertheless, it might do us some good to take a historical look at this.
It was the Medici family of Firenze (Florence) who is largely credited with helping bring about the Renaissance. Not through their own art, or course, but through funding the artisans of the region. Some historians say that because the Medicis never realized power (as Machiavelli may have liked them to) they were able to fund with extreme discretion, and even prejudice, only the artists they deemed capable of creating awe-inspiring works.
Could the Renaissance have been even greater if there was more government funding to a wider range of artists? I don’t think so.
Now, some will point out that for every $1 of arts funding in B.C. there is about $1.36 in socio-economic “impact.” So, I concede the fact that the funding is, at the very least, being spread through the economy efficiently.
Still, anyone who knows anything about business knows that just because something isn’t costing you doesn’t mean it is worth keeping. Regardless, this isn’t an economic debate; it is an esthetic one. While esthetic value is almost incalculable and, I would argue, unquantifiable, presumably there is some sort of intrinsic value in art.
The problem with arts funding is that a lot of it goes to stuff that is either not art at all (which is a hard proposition to defend as an esthetic philosopher) or is not “good” art. And media arts, dance and the like receive about as much funding as painters and writers; the former of which I would hesitate to call artists at all, for reasons I will not get into here.
For the government to occasionally splurge on an artist or exhibit they wish to promote is not so bad (and when I say government I mean an arts expert the government appoints to dole out the funding). After all, to put this into perspective, even before the cuts in 2006 to 2007, government funding for all arts and culture in Canada was an estimated $758 million, which was around one per cent of our more than $1 trillion GDP.
Dennis Miller, a liberal American comedian turned conservative political pundit, said during one of his classic television rants: “Picking on arts funding is easy; art won’t ever find a cure for disease; we can’t cut art down to build our homes; art doesn’t patrol our streets and protect us from crime — but, then again, art doesn’t hit our head with a fucking baton 67 times. What art does is educate us, enrich our lives and reacquaint us with the beauty of human potential.”
It’s funny that I disagree with Miller on all the conservative policies he rants about, but when he finally tries a liberal position on for size, I go to the other side. Art can do all the things Miller mentions and more. When in the position to appreciate masterful works of art, the experience is as close to a religious experience as our godless world will allow.
I don’t want the art I appreciate to die. But I don’t want government handouts to help produce it either. Oscar Wilde famously wrote “all art is quite useless.” This may be true, but I’m still going to support the art I love. You should do the same for the art you love.
The government, on the other hand, should keep our money out of it entirely. Instead, they should focus on funding things that truly provide use to our society, like education and health care. But, for the sake of the God I don’t believe in, don’t fund art.
Members of the Medici family went into public office but they were never rulers of Firenze (i.e. not in a position to circumvent public funds to arts. Lorenzo De Medici did however secure funding for artists from sources outside his family, but these were also private patrons. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzode%27Medici)
Renaissance art was not publicly funded. Look here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/gill-hornby/5872239/Its-not-state-subsidy-that-creates-art.html
More information which contradicts your history:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Howwererenaissanceartistsfunded
http://arthistory.about.com/cs/arthistory10one/a/earlyren2.htm
Shall I go on?
I guess the original commenter retracted. I guess everyone can disregard the two above comments. There was at a time a first comment to which they were directed.
I'm sorry to the readers of this paper. This article is riddled with errors the original I sent to the editors did not contain.
This paper is ridiculous. How can "editors" make an article seem less polished and less readable?
E.g.
"It was the Medici family of Firenze (Florence) who is largely credited with helping bring about the Renaissance."
"Who is"!!! Even if that was my error - though it was not - how the fuck do you not catch that?
Not to mention the missing "to" in between the words "helping" and "bring."
I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a reference for anything!
Nevertheless, I don't think anyone is buying the passive aggressive rants, most art funding goes to help support arts groups that in turn help support the many artists to finish, facilitate and continue to produce art. Any businessman who ignores a profit out of an investment is probably not a very good businessman, and finally having government commit to certain artistic mediums can help provide a massive market for Canadian artists and public. All one has to look at is the CRTC regulations that force Canadian radio broadcasters to have 1/3 content. Notice all the successful world wide Canadian musical acts. Without that government support our musicians would resemble are filmmakers.
Arts cuts NO, anyone who can't see that should take a look at their own article "What art does is educate us, enrich our lives and reacquaint us with the beauty of human potential."
Guess that means one could relabel arts funding as part of funding the education of our citizens.
The CRTC is ridiculous. Playing Nickleback on the radio all day is a good thing?
I hope these musicians don't/had not make/made it if they can't on the merit of their music and not because they get gov't regulated support.
Business people who find ways to make money supporting art will and do support it. When they can't, that's when gov't steps in.
Wikipedia is usually accurate.
The CRTC mandates that Canadian music get exposure and if you compare the musicians to filmmakers who get absolutely little to zero support it is clear to see the difference. There are far more bands in Canada getting air time than Nickelback, they are played so often merely to appease the advertisers who are targeted tweens. Because of this there is a strong industry, but if there was never any mandate the industry would not even exist. Studios, event companies, touring managers, a whole world of jobs created over a long period of time by a far sighted vision which supported the music industry. Now it probably doesn't need to be mandated because the industry has a foundation.
However, if you care to look at the government supported film industries of other countries you will see they fare far better than ours. Germany, France, Italy, the Dutch, Australia, yet how many films are in Canadian box offices. Having a bit of government support would have made that happen and many more artists/filmmakers just as many successful musicians would have resulted. Plus all the spin off from the many Canadian productions that would have been made, produced and screened in Canada.
Business people bring their Hollywood product up to Canada because its cheaper, yet it is NOT Canadian. Once the BC government doesn't give those business interests reasons to be there, just as most business will always do, they go away. Until the government changes the attitude towards art in B.C. get ready for more Nickelback, they just cut all adult funding for art, so now we will soon enjoy the wonderful tween and kindergarden society I'm sure you will enjoy.
Wikipedia would not be suitable source for any of your papers, and usually is not all the time.
Might I add that the US dollar is now at par with the Canadian dollar, more people in BC than any other Canadian province rely on the arts/film industry but you call this a sound business position.
Business won't be supporting it because most business comes from the US and a strong dollar scares them away and this era of conservatism in our governments won't be supporting anything other than corporate tax cuts.
"Because of this there is a strong industry, but if there was never any mandate the industry would not even exist."
Exactly.
It's not a matter of conservative vs. liberal. I'm a liberal. If the NDP (my party of choice) were in power, I'd be for them cutting arts funding for health care and education too.
Are you a film student?
Wikipedia is right in this case. That's all that matters.
"if you care to look at the government supported film industries of other countries you will see they fare far better than ours. Germany, France, Italy, the Dutch, Australia, yet how many films are in Canadian box offices. Having a bit of government support would have made that happen and many more artists/filmmakers just as many successful musicians would have resulted."
First, these people aren't artists. They're in Hollywood. Also, why should the gov't try and breed successful artists?
The Martlet also reserves the right to use comments in the newspaper.