dowlingm
Senior Member
Spend a lot of time looking that up did you? Canada population est. @ 1.Apr.08 (StatsCan) 33,223,800
Australia population est @ 31.Dec.08 (Aust. Bur. Stats) 21,180,600
|
|
|
- Thread starter unimaginative2
- Start date
Spend a lot of time looking that up did you? Canada population est. @ 1.Apr.08 (StatsCan) 33,223,800
Australia population est @ 31.Dec.08 (Aust. Bur. Stats) 21,180,600
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I'm not protesting against anything. If Canadians want to provide tax dollars for fringe artists or whatever they consider art, go ahead. I may not like it, or agree with it, but that's not the same as protesting against it.
Mustapha
Senior Member
I wouldn't mind seeing the numbers for any particular arts project: their revenues and the government's contribution. I wonder if this is online somewhere.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
A statement of disapproval can be easily be viewed as a form of protest.
What is your definition of fringe? Is it just things you don't like?
As for being fringe, is a fund for foreign travel that helps in the promoting of Canadian art and artists exclusively supporting what you would consider fringe artists?
Is the Canadian Memory Fund fringe? Is the digitizing of collections for the purpose of making them available to Canadians across the country an act that supports fringe activities exclusively?
Is the Culture.ca site fringe? Have you ever visited it?
Is the Canadian Culture Observatory too fringe for you? Is the funding of the Canadian Culture online initiative too fringe for you as well?
How about the Northern Distribution Program that distributes television programming to ninety-six northern communities? Is that fringe?
How about blanket cuts to the Book Publishing Industry Development Fund and the Canadian Magazine Fund? I was not aware that these were fringe organizations supporting fringe artists.
Of course you are entitled to your own tastes with respect to art (all you have to do is not look), but the noted cuts are hardly going to make you happy in your effort to expunge any support from those you consider as fringe. What you have here is the baby being thrown out with the bath water in a very big way.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
if canada doesn't want to support its own culture, we can always adopt the culture from our friends down south. actually, street gangs have been doing this for a while now. blood splatter and chalk outlines is a form of art, right? and it's great because it's a joint effort between the criminals and the police.
Mot
Active Member
LMAO Promethues. You never cease to have me rolling off my chair.
Hydrogen, excellent points. Thank you for sharing your knowledge on this subject.
MisterF
Senior Member
Culture adds 3.8% to Canada's GDP
STEVE LADURANTAYE
Globe and Mail Update
August 26, 2008 at 9:53 AM EDT
Canada's cultural sector contributed $46-billion, or 3.8 per cent, to Canada's gross domestic product in 2007, according to a report from the Conference Board of Canada.
“Taking into account direct, indirect, and induced contributions to employment, the Conference Board of Canada estimates that the culture sector accounted for 1.1 million jobs in 2007,†said the report, titled Valuing Culture – Measuring and Understanding Canada's Creative Economy. “Moreover, the arts and culture industries also help to attract people and spur creativity across all sectors of the economy.â€
Canada's culture sector is being driven by growth in digital technology and expanding Internet use, the report states.
“Canada's culture industries are increasingly focused on harnessing the energies of ‘prosumers' – well-educated, demanding consumers who often participate directly in the experience of producing creative value,†the report states. “On a mass scale, individuals are creating their own digital content, co-creating with others and contributing to the development of commercial applications.â€
The report was written in collaboration with Canada's Department of Federal Heritage.
Link to story
STEVE LADURANTAYE
Globe and Mail Update
August 26, 2008 at 9:53 AM EDT
Canada's cultural sector contributed $46-billion, or 3.8 per cent, to Canada's gross domestic product in 2007, according to a report from the Conference Board of Canada.
“Taking into account direct, indirect, and induced contributions to employment, the Conference Board of Canada estimates that the culture sector accounted for 1.1 million jobs in 2007,†said the report, titled Valuing Culture – Measuring and Understanding Canada's Creative Economy. “Moreover, the arts and culture industries also help to attract people and spur creativity across all sectors of the economy.â€
Canada's culture sector is being driven by growth in digital technology and expanding Internet use, the report states.
“Canada's culture industries are increasingly focused on harnessing the energies of ‘prosumers' – well-educated, demanding consumers who often participate directly in the experience of producing creative value,†the report states. “On a mass scale, individuals are creating their own digital content, co-creating with others and contributing to the development of commercial applications.â€
The report was written in collaboration with Canada's Department of Federal Heritage.
Link to story
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I suspect that the vast majority of Canadians will never notice that these art programs being cut have been cut.
For example, if the Winnipeg Symphony, Calgary Philharmonic, Théâtre du Rideau Vert and the Orchestre Métropolitain du Grand Montréal need taxpayer assistance to survive, then they shouldn't be in business. That's right, it's a business, you play to entertain people, they pay for the experience, and you cover your costs through a business model.
Most people who play music receive no taxpayer funding. My wife for example, belongs to a classical orchestra here in Toronto, and they play as a club every week, and hold events several times a year, usually for free, or charging only enough to cover the venue rental. They're amazing to listen to and watch, and are a highly talented group of people. If we threw $100,000 at them from taxpayers they wouldn't be any better.
For example, if the Winnipeg Symphony, Calgary Philharmonic, Théâtre du Rideau Vert and the Orchestre Métropolitain du Grand Montréal need taxpayer assistance to survive, then they shouldn't be in business. That's right, it's a business, you play to entertain people, they pay for the experience, and you cover your costs through a business model.
Most people who play music receive no taxpayer funding. My wife for example, belongs to a classical orchestra here in Toronto, and they play as a club every week, and hold events several times a year, usually for free, or charging only enough to cover the venue rental. They're amazing to listen to and watch, and are a highly talented group of people. If we threw $100,000 at them from taxpayers they wouldn't be any better.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Well gee! Your anecdote has just gotta be the basis for national policy.
Of course, if one were to apply the business model to every aspect of life, there would be little doubt that you would find yourself unsatisfied with it. But let's push it to the extreme.
If you demand a business model for all of the arts, then you are suggesting either the shutting down of virtually all major arts institutions in the country, or making them the exclusive venue to only those who could afford the greatly increased price of admission. Many arts organizations receive some sort of funding if they are to employ people and to maintain access as a public good. The National Gallery of Canada and the AGO are just two examples.
With respect to your anecdote, in no way does it relate to the cuts being made that are indicated in the opening article. As noted in the article above, culture and the arts account for about seven percent of the GDP, and what governments invest represents a very tine fraction of that total. But that is just way too much for you.
Of course, if one were to apply the business model to every aspect of life, there would be little doubt that you would find yourself unsatisfied with it. But let's push it to the extreme.
If you demand a business model for all of the arts, then you are suggesting either the shutting down of virtually all major arts institutions in the country, or making them the exclusive venue to only those who could afford the greatly increased price of admission. Many arts organizations receive some sort of funding if they are to employ people and to maintain access as a public good. The National Gallery of Canada and the AGO are just two examples.
With respect to your anecdote, in no way does it relate to the cuts being made that are indicated in the opening article. As noted in the article above, culture and the arts account for about seven percent of the GDP, and what governments invest represents a very tine fraction of that total. But that is just way too much for you.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Why?
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Note the eye rolling (sarcasm).
ganjavih
Senior Member
The simplistic idea that the sink or swim "business model" can be applied to everything is just silly. Do you want your chemotherapy stopped because the chances of your survival are slim and it's just not cost effective?
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I know someone is going to pick apart this post, quote and flame each point, etc...but here goes anyway....
The Federal and Provincial governments, IMO, should fund cultural activities such as libraries, museums, heritage sites....things that one could argue are important to the culture and that would die without taxpayer funding. For example, if governments did not fund libraries or the larger museums, then they'd be gone, since no business model can be applied to libraries or large museums like the ROM, British Museum or Smithsonian.
What I do not agree with is taxpayer dollars going to support real businesses that would otherwise be financially not viable. If you want to make a movie or TV show in Canada, you should do it on your own coin. If you want to have a professional symphony or opera house, then do what Mirvish does, and charge sufficient entrance fees to cover your costs. if you dream of being an artist, do it on your own coin.
The Federal and Provincial governments, IMO, should fund cultural activities such as libraries, museums, heritage sites....things that one could argue are important to the culture and that would die without taxpayer funding. For example, if governments did not fund libraries or the larger museums, then they'd be gone, since no business model can be applied to libraries or large museums like the ROM, British Museum or Smithsonian.
What I do not agree with is taxpayer dollars going to support real businesses that would otherwise be financially not viable. If you want to make a movie or TV show in Canada, you should do it on your own coin. If you want to have a professional symphony or opera house, then do what Mirvish does, and charge sufficient entrance fees to cover your costs. if you dream of being an artist, do it on your own coin.
urbanboom
Active Member
^
So why would athletics be any different? Shouldn't they have to be good enough to find private sponsors, rather than relying on public money?
If your philosophy is true (and it's not) we should slash funding for a hell of a lot of other things too...
I doubt you're involved in the arts community, because if you were, you would know that there are only so many fundraisers an arts group can do before it cuts into productivity and the ability to give high-quality Canadian content.
So why would athletics be any different? Shouldn't they have to be good enough to find private sponsors, rather than relying on public money?
If your philosophy is true (and it's not) we should slash funding for a hell of a lot of other things too...
I doubt you're involved in the arts community, because if you were, you would know that there are only so many fundraisers an arts group can do before it cuts into productivity and the ability to give high-quality Canadian content.
CDL.TO
Moderator
Doesn't the government spend money to help entrepreneurs start up a small business?