From today's Star............






Harper rise a teardown for arts
He'd be bad news for T.O. reno plans

MARTIN KNELMAN

Election fever in Ottawa could spell panic in the streets of downtown Toronto, not to mention wake-up-screaming nightmares for the city's arts fundraisers. No matter how corrupt or dithering the current federal regime may be, it is viewed as infinitely friendlier to the cultural scene in Canada's largest city than Stephen Harper's team.

Take it as a given that if the Liberal government falls and loses power to the Conservatives, it won't be good news for those trying to play the Cultural Renaissance card around this town. Alberta's well-known resentment of Toronto's presumed cultural superiority could find expression in a big chill for local arts funding.

It is a badly kept secret that the institutions with current capital projects — including the Canadian Opera Company, the Royal Ontario Museum, the Art Gallery of Ontario, the Royal Conservatory of Music and the National Ballet School — are pinning their hopes on top-up funding from both the federal and provincial governments that showered money on them three years ago in the SuperBuild bonanza. Their chances would be slim under Prime Minister Harper.

At the moment, the most precarious situation is the one facing the Toronto International Film Festival, whose hopes for a glittering new home at King and John may well depend on whether Ottawa comes through with $25 million of funding. Complicating factor: A decision was made weeks ago to advance the money — but it has not yet been announced.

If Parliament is dissolved before there is any official documentation, then the next government will not be bound to give the festival anything. Watch for some fancy footwork to get that funding announced and in the books ASAP.

Rarely has there been such an impressive turnout of Toronto's most prosperous culture lovers of a certain age than on Sunday evening for a sort-of roast, sort-of tribute to veteran arts booster Bluma Appel. It was a two-part event, beginning with dinner for 300 at the King Edward Hotel and moving on to a show called Hats Off to Bluma at the most appropriate of all venues, the Bluma Appel Theatre at the St. Lawrence Centre.

Among those included in the $350-a-head package: Isadore and Rosalie Sharp, William Thorsell, Valerie Pringle, Peter Herrndorf and Eva Czigler, Charles Pachter, Nina Kaiden Wright, Murray Frum and Nancy Lockhart, Ann Medina, Sonja Bata, John Honderich, Michael Burgess, Sarmite Bulte, Madeleine Meilleur and Kyle Rae. David Mirvish brought his mother, Anne.

Unlike other high-society arts supporters, Bluma Appel has never been one to make her requests in a whisper, especially when crusading for AIDS research money. She moved here from Montreal three decades ago, bringing along an aggressive enthusiasm that came as a bit of a shock to low-key Toronto. And if her husband, Bram, had the knack of accumulating a fortune, Bluma mastered the fine art of giving it away.

As former Ontario lieutenant governor Hal Jackman made hilariously clear, people often got themselves into commitments they were hardly aware they had made.

The event raised $150,000, which was topped up by an additional $50,000 from the Appels — adding up to a total of $200,000 to be evenly divided by CanStage and Opera Atelier.

The usual excuse for music programming that keeps offering the same old fare is that it reflects the tastes and demands of the audience. Record attendance at the Toronto Symphony Orchestra's recent New Creations Festival at Roy Thomson Hall suggests otherwise. More than 9,000 people hungry for something different bought tickets to the three-program, five-concert festival. The unforgettable highlight: soprano Barbara Hannigan performing Correspondances by 89-year-old French composer Henri Dutilleux.

Hot tip for Hot Docs: Beethoven's Hair, an entry in the retrospective for Rhombus Media director Larry Weinstein, is almost certain to rank as the most original and unusual arts documentary of the year.

It's the fascinating story of what happened to a lock of the composer's hair, removed from his corpse and passed on over the years to many owners. This feature-length saga takes us through 19th century Vienna, Denmark in World War II and modern-day Texas. You can catch it next week at the world's largest documentary film festival.

mknelman@thestar.ca

Additional articles by Martin Knelman

Seems like a bunch of pre election fear mongering to me. "Alberta's well-known resentment of Toronto's presumed cultural superiority" If that is not a fear mongering line than I don't know what is.

Reason is most people I know here in Edmonton think this is the case for Montreal not Toronto. Many people have this image of Montreal is fun and culture, Toronto is just business.

No clue if this is true, the article is just speculating... but why should taxpayers fund a profession like this? If enough people like what they do, the different organizations will be able to raise enough money to build their own concert halls, etc. Why should the government have to pay for something that interests mostly a privelged few? (though I feel that the ROM doesn't fit this category)

Same thing for sports stadiums...

edit: perhaps it is better to say, "Why should the government have to pay for something that interests relatively few people when things like healthcare, cities, and infrastructure need more funding."

No clue if this is true, the article is just speculating... but why should taxpayers fund a profession like this? If enough people like what they do, the different organizations will be able to raise enough money to build their own concert halls, etc. Why should the government have to pay for something that interests mostly a privelged few? (though I feel that the ROM doesn't fit this category)

Same thing for sports stadiums...

You could say the same thing about education. Why should I fund it, it's not like I have kids. Only people with kids should pay for education. Also, I haven't been to the doctor in a year or two, why should I pay for healthcare? Those who use it should pay for it. I don't use the 400-series highways, why should I pay for those priveledged enough to own a car? Screw 'em, let them pay, they got money for a car and insurance!

^ :applause:

Yeah, I love how arts are supposed to be 'different,' or the domain of a privileged few (no idea where this comes from). And there's no doubt that Harper is bad news for the art scene. It's not fear mongering, it's reality.

The very reason scum like Harper even exist, is to exploit for his own political carreerism, the type of people who feel that the arts are not part of things we should support, as they educate and enrich our lives.

These people only are interested in themselves, or think giving all our money to Big Business is somehow going to fill this void. They would just like to see lower taxes and more subsidizing of highways and gas....maybe lower the price of beer. LOL

Of course it's dis-heartening...but this is reality.






KGB

Alberta's well-known resentment of Toronto's presumed cultural superiority could find expression in a big chill for local arts funding.

I love the Toronto Star.

I hate to say it, but anybody can support the arts individually if they feel like it. Why is it that individuals are compelled to pay for the arts through taxation even if they don't want to?

^ Exactly.

Go Harper!

You could say the same thing about education. Why should I fund it, it's not like I have kids. Only people with kids should pay for education. Also, I haven't been to the doctor in a year or two, why should I pay for healthcare? Those who use it should pay for it. I don't use the 400-series highways, why should I pay for those priveledged enough to own a car? Screw 'em, let them pay, they got money for a car and insurance!

sorry, I edited my post because I stated things incorrectly, but you had probably started writing your post before that. IMO there are much better uses for money such as improving neighbourhoods (for example, adding a community centre to a small town), health care, highways, public transport, etc across the country that benefit way more people than spending millions for Toronto's high society crowd (nothing against them) to have a new place to watch ballets, plays, films or operas. I have gone to plays and operas myself in Toronto, and enjoyed them a lot, but I feel that the organizations that run them and the gate receipts should fund these projects, rather than the government.

edit again: Millions use highways and public transport, an entire community can have wedding receptions, fairs, auctions, and other events in a hall, and almost all must go to the doctor at some point in their life... but relatively few people are patrons of these organizations. There are better ways to spend money that will better help the Canadian people.

sorry, I edited my post because I stated things incorrectly, but you had probably started writing your post before that. IMO there are much better uses for money such as improving neighbourhoods (for example, adding a community centre to a small town), health care, highways, public transport, etc across the country that benefit way more people than spending millions for Toronto's high society crowd (nothing against them) to have a new place to watch ballets, plays, films or operas.

I take it you don't live in Toronto? Ordinary people go to plays (it wouldn't be a theatre city if a handful of people went; plenty of us students pool their money for group subscription or split rates), films, and art galleries, nothing high society about them... But, of course, if we cut off all the funding and bleed these instutions dry, they:

a) won't be an accessible instrument of education (and that's what these are; it doesn't end in school or university...)
b) really will be the exclusive domain of high society

Well that fills up my quota of fear-mongering for the whole week I think. Oh and all the bullshit just keeps me laughing as well. Yeah, everybody who doesn't like the arts is a selfish bastard that wants to give his money to big business...lol :clown:

I can't see any reason why these organizations should get federal funding when there are so many more important places we could put that money. If the Art Gallery of Ontario wants more money, they can either raise it themselves or get it from the provincial government...

Harper should die, go to hell and rot there... :)

As anyone can plainly see, there's a reason why politicians like Harper are around.

People are free to express how and where tax dollars get spent...what's worthy and what's unworthy.

I'm only glad there are a few more decent, slightly informed people than there are not.

At least for the moment anyway.


Hey...I have an interesting idea...why don't we just have the money spent where it's collected...that way every person in Toronto can have everything it wants...and more....and everybody else can just go screw their hat.

Howd'ya like that idea...it's yours after all.






KGB

I take it you don't live in Toronto? Ordinary people go to plays (it wouldn't be a theatre city if a handful of people went; plenty of us students pool their money for group subscription or split rates), films, and art galleries, nothing high society about them... But, of course, if we cut off all the funding and bleed these instutions dry, they:

a) won't be an accessible instrument of education (and that's what these are; it doesn't end in school or university...)
b) really will be the exclusive domain of high society

I stand corrected then. In Ottawa, at least in my experience, going to the theatre is more of a 1-2 times a year thing for most people, and of course not the theatre scene that Toronto has (though there are many community plays, funded by local businesses).

I agree that the ROM and the Art Gallery and such are educational tools and should be supported by the government. I guess the main issue for me is that I don't think the film festival and the operas and ballets should be given special funding treatment for new buildings by the government, as they are just entertainment. Why not give Famous Players millions of dollars to build a cinema? These places already have buildings, and if the market demands it they will be able to raise the funds to get more, but I don't think government funds should be used to fund such a project, especially when poorer locations and other areas of governmental jurisdiction need the funding. just my opinion, nothing against plays or operas.

Who needs Harper to starve the arts when we already have Liberals to guide and protect culture?

OTTAWA (CP) - Behind the soaring glass facade of the National Gallery of Canada lies an institution so short of cash it is resigned to living with leaks every time it rains.



A newly disclosed document describes a "crisis" at one of Ottawa's main tourist attractions, a facility running out of storage space, staff and money.

The art gallery "is facing a crisis within the next 18 months as fixed costs increase faster than increases in government funding and revenue generation," says an internal report, obtained under the Access to Information Act.

"The gallery has started to limit programming and exhibitions to address budget pressures . . . (but) does not have a co-ordinated revenue generation approach and strategy."

The May 2004 report by management consultants Deloitte and Touche was based on consultations with the gallery's nine-member senior management committee.

The document largely focuses on the gallery's deteriorating facilities, which require more than $4 million each year in repairs and renovations but are getting only $1.2 million this year.

"Without increased funding . . . the gallery will run out of space for storing art and non-art, and the (main) building will suffer damage due to lack of maintenance," says the report.

A long-standing problem with a leaky roof at its dramatic Sussex Drive location remains unresolved. Patches have been made to prevent leaks from damaging art in display and storage areas, but the dramatic entrance pavilion and ramp walkway still drip in a downpour.

"We've had to postpone roof repairs," says Fran Cameron, deputy-director of administration and finance. A recent engineering study called for a program to fix the facade's leaky windows as well, but that has also been deferred to future years.

Last year, the gallery had to permanently give up $400,000 in its annual base funding as a contribution to a government-wide savings program.

Revenue from admission fees remains flat, though an additional $1 million is expected this year from increased corporate donations and fundraising. In the meantime, staff salary and benefit costs keep rising.

Earlier this month, the gallery announced it was cutting 15 full-time positions from its 247 staff, or about six per cent.

It is gradually winding down its five-year commitment to a controversial gallery in Shawinigan, Que., established in the riding of former prime minister Jean Chretien for what many saw as purely political reasons.

Last year's $1 million in support to La Cite de l'energie - owned and operated by a local non-profit group - is dropping to $750,000 this year, the third year of the deal, and will be even lower next year, says Cameron.

There will be fewer art exhibitions and installations in Ottawa this year as well, though no cuts so far in travelling exhibitions that make stops at 35 communities across Canada.

"Where we're really reducing activities is in Ottawa," Cameron said.

The gallery, with more than 38,000 art objects in its care, has also disposed of many non-art items, such as display cases and crates, to help free room in its overcrowded storage facilities.



The Deloitte and Touche study noted that about 60 per cent of the institution's storage space was taken up by non-art items because the gallery lacks clear storage policies, a problem that may be bleeding precious dollars.

Canadian Heritage, the gallery's parent department, has projected flat funding of $44.5 million annually through to 2008, which means there's no relief on the horizon, forcing a greater reliance on donations to keep up with rising costs and deferred maintenance.

Heritage Minister Liza Frulla promised a review of museums policy last December, but there are 2,500 museums and galleries across Canada clamouring for money. John McAvity, executive director of the Canadian Museums Association, has called the crumbling infrastructure in many of these buildings "a national disgrace."

At the same time, Ottawa is pouring up to $100 million into Winnipeg's planned Canadian Museum for Human Rights.

A long-range strategy for the National Gallery to 2010 was approved by cabinet last month, but won't become public until June at the earliest when it is to be tabled in Parliament - if there is no election called first.

In the meantime, the towering glass-fronted structure designed by architect Moshe Safdie, built in the late 1980s, will continue to admit bad weather along with art patrons.

"Even though it looks wonderful, it's reached an age where there are major components that need to be replaced," said Cameron.

"IMO there are much better uses for money... across the country that benefit way more people than spending millions for Toronto's high society crowd"



How could you argue against such an intelligent summary? LOL!!!

And trust me...if Torontonians were as dumb and greedy as people who cater to this kind of opinion, we would be keeping all our money, rather than watching it get wasted on all you knuckle-dragging cretins.

And if you don't know the difference between non-profit cultural institutions and for-profit corporations, then it's really a waste of time trying to explain to you what the value of them are.



"High Society".


LOL






KGB

Biased, stupid pieces of shit: KGB and the article.

Wow...that was a real classy response...you must be of them high society peoples eh?


Hey...I got an even better idea than the other one...let's start taxing the church. That way the religious fanatics like Harper can pay their fair bit too.






KGB

Hey...I have an interesting idea...why don't we just have the money spent where it's collected...that way every person in Toronto can have everything it wants...and more....and everybody else can just go screw their hat.

How true :)

I'm actually suprised at the level of disdain for the arts. We should look at how successful Europe has been able to cultivate its arts scene and culture, & how its aura attracts visitors and intellectuals worldwide. The Arts should be seen as smart investments, not some piece of trash you throw money at. After, the Arts is a talent trust...teeming with creativity & energy.

You can't be a world class country/city without a thriving arts community.



If the Art Gallery of Ontario wants more money, they can either raise it themselves or get it from the provincial government...

We would be able to afford it if equalization wasn't so painful to the Ontario economy. Afterall, Ontario's post-secondary spending per capita is second lowest in the country, so...

Hey...I have an interesting idea...why don't we just have the money spent where it's collected...that way every person in Toronto can have everything it wants...and more....and everybody else can just go screw their hat.

Couldn't agree more.

Reminds me of a "Yes, Minister" episode in which Minister Hacker wanted to knock down a museum to save a soccer club. Replace the soccer club with NHL hockey, and Hacker with PM Martin... Martin would be the most popular PM ever. :D

Arts are important to all of us whether we realize it or not. It's an expression of our level of civilization some say. Whatever money the arts are currently getting I'm all in favour of keeping it that way. No more no less.

But when I see the government buying pieces called "Voice of Fire" for $1.8 million and people getting grants of $5000 to make bracelets out of pubic hair or to string up dead rabbits I am disgusted at what passes for modern art. For that matter, what was the $5000 bucks spent on ? That's called waste folks and if that's what we're paying for then we should happily cut that sort of thing out of the budget. Theatres and the like though, need that cash and deserve it.
True, I have no interest in the fare they provide at all and the reasoning behind funding them is as applicable to professional sports. And well, if most people had an interest in this stuff we wouldn't be paying for it at all through taxes. Truth is, personally I could care less if we cut all funding to the arts from this day forward. But, there are enough people out there who DO appreciate them so I accept that some of my taxes will pay for their entertainment.

The arts are a vital part of any economy and society, and should be supported. They are public goods. Canada should look into more innovative ways to fund the arts as in Europe. Countries like Spain use tax incentives to corporations and individuals to contribute to lacal arts. That approach should be explored here in Canada.

As for the Impact Stephen Harper will have...It won't change a fucking thing here in Alberta. The federal government gives fuck all to Alberta arts institutions. Maybe if Harper is PM, he can turn Calgary into the next shawinigan?!?! Even though I hate Harper, maybe he will favour this city. That would be nice for a change.

When I lived in Toronto, I was astaounded at the level of support arts institutions were recieving from the federal government. Not so here. I believe the federal government gives less percapita to Alberta in the arts and culture then any other province.

The arts scene here has to sustain itself more or less, and has done so and thrived despite remarkable and shameful lack of government support. Calgary's cultural scene has literally exploded in the last decade. Its reptation as will hopefully catch up to its new reality.

^Well, I definitely have to disagree with the idea that the arts are essential to an economy. They have nothing to do with it. They are many things but good for the economy? If that were the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Quality of life for sure, but certainly they don't contribute to the economy.

^ Don't you think Stratford's theatre festival and the Toronto International Film Festival (as just two examples) have a positive impact on the local economies? Maybe saying "essential" is going a little far, but they do provide a boost, I'm sure.

No no, you're absolutely right that they can be benefitial to an economy but we both know that that is not the norm. If we are subsidizing this sort of thing then it's because it isn't self-supporting. That much is obvious. But in the absence of those festivals who's to say that the money wouldn't be spent in some other sector of the economy? But like I said, I still support arts funding, just not because I have any interest in it.

No no, you're absolutely right that they can be benefitial to an economy but we both know that that is not the norm. If we are subsidizing this sort of thing then it's because it isn't self-supporting. That much is obvious. But in the absence of those festivals who's to say that the money wouldn't be spent in some other sector of the economy? But like I said, I still support arts funding, just not because I have any interest in it.

Quite the contrary, it's absolutely the norm. Even if an institution, lets say, the ROM or Canadian Opera Company has to go on a fundraising venture to get enough for an expansion or new Opera House, these institutions will bring in many thousands of tourists a year, all of whom will most likely spend money on a number of other things in the city. The arts industry is a big business...it's vital to the economy in so many ways.

The arts are a vital part of any economy and society, and should be supported. They are public goods. Canada should look into more innovative ways to fund the arts as in Europe. Countries like Spain use tax incentives to corporations and individuals to contribute to lacal arts. That approach should be explored here in Canada.

As for the Impact Stephen Harper will have...It won't change a fucking thing here in Alberta. The federal government gives fuck all to Alberta arts institutions. Maybe if Harper is PM, he can turn Calgary into the next shawinigan?!?! Even though I hate Harper, maybe he will favour this city. That would be nice for a change.

When I lived in Toronto, I was astaounded at the level of support arts institutions were recieving from the federal government. Not so here. I believe the federal government gives less percapita to Alberta in the arts and culture then any other province.

The arts scene here has to sustain itself more or less, and has done so and thrived despite remarkable and shameful lack of government support. Calgary's cultural scene has literally exploded in the last decade. Its reptation as will hopefully catch up to its new reality.


The support for the Toronto Art's scene by the feds is relatively recent. The arts infrastructure in the city had been suffering for years.

Quite the contrary, it's absolutely the norm. Even if an institution, lets say, the ROM or Canadian Opera Company has to go on a fundraising venture to get enough for an expansion or new Opera House, these institutions will bring in many thousands of tourists a year, all of whom will most likely spend money on a number of other things in the city. The arts industry is a big business...it's vital to the economy in so many ways.
Then why are we subsidizing it?
Okay, I won't play coy...I understand the relationship here. If you hold the festival, the people will come and spend their money. But here's the part that I don't get if what you say is true: If there are so many people out there willing to pay for this sort of thing, why do we need the middle man that is the government? Why not simply have these places operate as private entities and fund the arts themselves?

Look, I don't want to see art galleries go belly-up or orchestras cease playing for lack of funds. This is all rather hypothetical to me. What I'm saying though is that while it may indeed be big business, if so many people had a yen for museums and art galleries then they'd be able to operate privately and free of the public purse strings. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is something that isn't worthy of public funds...I'm just saying that there are no clamoring mobs breaking down the doors to these institutions before they open up every morning. If there were then we wouldn't be funding them through taxes...in fact, I'm sure they'd want to be private for the profit alone.

"why do we need the middle man that is the government? "

Why even have government then?

Reasons I think its fear mongering is take a look at Arts spending from stats can which indicate about 3.5 billion. What we are talking about is not that much. I just don't see a government now matter who it is trashing these programs as its pennies in the scheme of Federal government spending of about $200 billion. If anything I could see more money heading out west somewhere around another billion would do. Look at the discrepancy. I can see why people out west bitch about Arts spending, because so little is spent there that nothing gets done thus it seems like a waste. We always here about the constant whineing from Arts groups here. Reality is that they are being underfunded when compared to the rest of Canada. Look at the numbers from the feds. By the way look at the Alberta numbers vs the Ontario numbers on arts spending. Alberta is seen as not caring for the arts while Ontario cares. If you look at the numbers the Provincial Government in Ontario pays less than the Alberta government on a per capita basis and this is before the Alberta government went debt free where we could see huge increases in such spending (Mueseum expansion here in Edmonton for instance to the tune of 90 million for staters). Expansion of the Jubilee Auditorium in both Edmonton and Calgary as well.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050127/d050127b.htm

Basically Arts spending by the federal government in the western 3 provinces is the lowest out of all levels of Government and the only area of the country where this is the case. Thus the amount of money going in doesn't do much. Looking at the federal funding levels is a joke when compared with the rest of Canada (only place where its less than half of the Canadian average).

Total spending from what I have calculated based on Oct 2003 stats can population estimates and the spending in 02/03 per capita. Granted the numbers would be boosted for Alberta, BC and Ontario (due to faster population growth when compared with Canadian average).

I am using the following data
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050127/d050127b.htm for per capita spending
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050324/d050324c.htm for population

Newfoundland - $44,110,920
Prince Edward Island - $21,026,943
Nova Scotia - $111,512,758
New Brunswick - $54,814,021
Quebec - $1,156,463,616
Ontario - $1,377,545,568
Manitoba - $82,573,213
Saskatchewan - $48,738,487
Alberta - $161,681,577
British Columbia - $183,217,892

Basically the total spent in Atlantic Canada is $231,465,937 with a total population of 2,344,342 recieves more money than either Alberta or BC which have a population significantly higher. Also compare federal arts spending West of Ontario vs East of Ontario and Ontario.

West of Ontario - Total population 9,491,936. Total Spending - $476,211,169
Ontario - Total Population 12,299,514. Total Spending - $1,377,545,568
East of Ontario - Total Population 9,853,846. Total Spending - $1,387,929,553

Anyone else think that if we actually increased funding out West we could have something special actually develop? To me that is the real problem not that a conservative government would kill funding as I don't think they will. Maybe they need to bring even out funding which might mean less money in the rest of Canada and more out here. Then we will see what actually can survive.

Then why are we subsidizing it?
Okay, I won't play coy...I understand the relationship here. If you hold the festival, the people will come and spend their money. But here's the part that I don't get if what you say is true: If there are so many people out there willing to pay for this sort of thing, why do we need the middle man that is the government? Why not simply have these places operate as private entities and fund the arts themselves?

Look, I don't want to see art galleries go belly-up or orchestras cease playing for lack of funds. This is all rather hypothetical to me. What I'm saying though is that while it may indeed be big business, if so many people had a yen for museums and art galleries then they'd be able to operate privately and free of the public purse strings. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is something that isn't worthy of public funds...I'm just saying that there are no clamoring mobs breaking down the doors to these institutions before they open up every morning. If there were then we wouldn't be funding them through taxes...in fact, I'm sure they'd want to be private for the profit alone.


But for the most part they DO operate free of the public purse strings. It's really like any other industry; why should the government contribute anything at all to GM if they want to build a new plant? Why does Bombardier receive subsidies? Why should the government provide business grants and subsidies every single year to for profit businesses and startups? Because by fostering business growth you're ultimately benefiting everyone.

Same applies to the arts. Plus, the arts can provide more than just economic enrichment.

But for the most part they DO operate free of the public purse strings. It's really like any other industry; why should the government contribute anything at all to GM if they want to build a new plant? Why does Bombardier receive subsidies? Why should the government provide business grants and subsidies every single year to for profit businesses and startups? Because by fostering business growth you're ultimately benefiting everyone.

Same applies to the arts. Plus, the arts can provide more than just economic enrichment.
Okay, fair enough.

it goes beyond incoming money during festivals. look at the most popular, trendy neighbourhoods in canada that bring huge amounts of money into the economy. how did they get that way? artists. how are lots of small city downtowns kept alive and thriving? artists. university students. performers. rural places like haliburton or stirling have kept from stagnating partly because they support the arts and cultural tourism.

LOL

If there is any source that we can trust about having access to the plans of the Conservative party is the Toronto Star, right? I cant believe that this is being taken seriously. After the amount of time that it took to get the funding for the new Opera house, I think we can see how dedicated the Liberals have been to Toronto's arts scene. The reality is that in Montreal, or Quebec City, there is a relatively steady stream of government funding for the arts, and outside of that its spotty at best. I see no reason why the Conservatives are going to be any better or worse than what we have.

LOL

If there is any source that we can trust about having access to the plans of the Conservative party is the Toronto Star, right? I cant believe that this is being taken seriously. After the amount of time that it took to get the funding for the new Opera house, I think we can see how dedicated the Liberals have been to Toronto's arts scene. The reality is that in Montreal, or Quebec City, there is a relatively steady stream of government funding for the arts, and outside of that its spotty at best. I see no reason why the Conservatives are going to be any better or worse than what we have.


I think it was the Harris PC government that canceled the original Opera House in the first place...

Yes it was SD. In fact the Provincial Government in Ontario is the worst supportor of teh Arts in Canada.

It was the NDP actually. Big deficit in those days...

LOL

If there is any source that we can trust about having access to the plans of the Conservative party is the Toronto Star, right? I cant believe that this is being taken seriously.
Ah, don't tell me; You must read The Sun. :yes:

Keep in mind the stereotypical image of the starving artist. Art is enriching, but the people that create it and make it available often don't have the big bucks. With few exceptions, none of which are secure, and few of which are realistic in the first place, only a government's wallet can get them off the ground and keep them off the ground. However, the government is now turning out to be less secure than the people had entrusted them to be.

Nonetheless, it is a well-known fact that the Conservatives cater to business and love cutting and privitazing anything they can without causing large riots (they will do it at the risk of small and medium sized riots, proven several times by Harris). They will be ruthless to the arts community across the country, guaranteed.

"In fact the Provincial Government in Ontario is the worst supportor of teh Arts in Canada."


Well, only in terms of "per capita" spending (Albertal is second last).

But considering the actual population difference and other sources of funding available, the realities of the economies of scale hardly put Ontario in any sort of arts drought...can't say the same for Alberta.

Ontario doesn't have to put in as much per capita, because of large sources of funding through federal funding, private funding, corporate sponsership, municipal funding, community support, volunteer groups, and most importantly...massive ticket sales, which translate into a more viable arts community.






KGB

"In fact the Provincial Government in Ontario is the worst supportor of teh Arts in Canada."


Well, only in terms of "per capita" spending (Albertal is second last).

But considering the actual population difference and other sources of funding available, the realities of the economies of scale hardly put Ontario in any sort of arts drought...can't say the same for Alberta.

Ontario doesn't have to put in as much per capita, because of large sources of funding through federal funding, private funding, corporate sponsership, municipal funding, community support, volunteer groups, and most importantly...massive ticket sales, which translate into a more viable arts community.


Absolutely right. The Toronto arts scene is vibrant and has popular support. After the NDP killed the opera house, it was revitalized mostly with public and corporate support for the arts. This type of situation seems like a pretty good argument for why the arts in Toronto wont have to worry too much about a Conservative government. If the topic was Edmonton's, Winnipeg's or Quebec City's arts scene, it might be a different story :)

"In fact the Provincial Government in Ontario is the worst supportor of teh Arts in Canada."


Well, only in terms of "per capita" spending (Albertal is second last).

But considering the actual population difference and other sources of funding available, the realities of the economies of scale hardly put Ontario in any sort of arts drought...can't say the same for Alberta.

Ontario doesn't have to put in as much per capita, because of large sources of funding through federal funding, private funding, corporate sponsership, municipal funding, community support, volunteer groups, and most importantly...massive ticket sales, which translate into a more viable arts community.






KGB

Yes but to say Alberta does not have an arts scene is obsurd. Actually the second largest theatre in Canada in located here in Edmonton. We are expanding the arts gallery here (tripling he size) through private funds, symphony is run pretty much entirely through tickets sales. They exist out here with little to no help from the government. The soon to be renamed Royal Alberta Museum is going through an expansion of $90 milion. The U of A just got a donation of $37 million for a museum on Chinesse Arts or the like. Also the Edmonton has a huge festival scene. The only thing that is really needed in Alberta that would be nice.

Now what is here is done almost entirely with no government help. There is no way you can say the same about the Ontario arts scene. The Feds spend almost 1.4 billion in Ontario on the arts. How much do they spend in Alberta. Now also look again at federal arts spending. The population in Canada east of Ontario is the same as West of Ontario. However in Quebec and the Atlantic the spending is 3 times that in the West.

Now if what your saying is true regarding per capita spending not needed to be so high in Ontario when compared to other provinces and you mentioned Alberta, then why does the Federal givernment spend 2.5 times more per capita in Ontario than Alberta. Maybe Ontario should get the least spending per capita as its not needed there if thats what your arguing? The places that do need it should get the hghest funding per capita.

Now another thing to consider, the problem is that I have with Federal Arts funding for Alberta is the total funding is lower than NS and NB, while Alberta has twice the population. If the government were to fund Ontario the same as Alberta. Say give Ontario lower funding than Alberta and BC combined the Ontario Arts funding would lose more than $1 billion dollars a year. Thats a huge dent in the current 1.38 billion given.

The arts is one of the few areas where the feds are not screwing Ontario but actually giving more than its fair share.

Soooooo.....
Okay, just so all the art lovers understand where many of us who don't support 'art for art's sake' are coming from, consider this:


Sun, April 24, 2005

Public poet's slim volume criticized

By KATHLEEN HARRIS, Ottawa Bureau

Canada's first parliamentary poet was no Shakespeare -- he penned only two poems during his two-year stint. George Bowering was paid $12,000 plus a $10,000 travel allowance each year to write poems and promote the art of verse. He finished his two-year mandate as poet laureate late last year with 87 lines under his belt.

The first, Whatever You Do, included a 16-line sequel and the second, Pages Move, was written for the Book and Periodical Council.

But Guylaine Rondeau, an executive assistant for the Parliamentary Librarian's Office, said MPs imposed no quotas when they drafted the job description in 2002.

'QUANTITY ON CREATIVITY'

"I guess at the time the bill was voted on in the Chamber, they felt it was difficult to put a quantity on creativity, so they didn't want to impose any standards or limits on what the position or what the incumbent would have to do," she said.

Bowering, who has since moved back to British Columbia, visited school children, worked with other poets and launched a "poem of the week" program that ran on a website for 70 weeks. He also travelled the country to attend poetry readings and promote the written word.

Pauline Michel, who replaced Bowering four months ago, has written about six poems and insists on having her poems translated into both official languages. She sees celebrating national events such as Winterlude and Canada Day with special verse as part of her job.

"She has been very active since she was nominated," Rondeau said.

NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre) said Bowering should have been more prolific while he was on the public dime.

Calling it "expensive poetry," Martin rhymed off this response: "You may think it odd of me, but I like frugality."

John Williamson, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, offered his own flowery reaction:

"He's no poet, and taxpayers know it."

While he has no objection to Canada having a poet laureate, Williamson questioned the low output of the taxpayer-funded writer.

"It suggests he had a very easy go as the first poet laureate," he said.


Like I said before, I'm all for funding the arts but somebody somewhere has to decide just what it is that we're paying for. If we insist on handing out cash to artists, why don't we give it to people or organizations that actually do something for their work? For instance, I would have happily handed this guy's salary over to any museum, ballet or festival any day of the week. Never mind that poetry is personally just about the most useless thing on the planet IMO, this guy didn't seem to find the time to produce much of it to begin with.
Okay, I'm biased, I hate poetry and consider it completely useless, but like I said before, enough people like it that sure, okay whatever, I'll support it I guess. But this is exactly the kind of thing that people bitch about when they say "Cut the funding !" I dunno....what do we need a national poet for anyway? Shouldn't they maybe just earn the position at least?

"Yes but to say Alberta does not have an arts scene is obsurd."


Of course I don't see anybody saying there is "no" arts scene. Of course there is...every place has the arts. It's only when comparing it to Toronto's arts scene, would the vast difference be obvious.






"Now what is here is done almost entirely with no government help. There is no way you can say the same about the Ontario arts scene."


In terms of the overall arts scene, at least in Toronto, federal funding is a spit in the bucket....it's a very small percentage. It's very big...so big it supports much for-profit arts business.

Ottawa is a different story...it's the capital, so it obviously gets plastered with all kinds of "national" arts centres, to showcase the capital and the country.

I don't think government funding of the arts in Alberta is a result of unfair funding practices, but more a result of a lack of interest in the arts in Alberta. I'll definetely say Edmonton is the more artsy city compared to Calgary. But Alberta just needs to embrace the arts more...from more artists...to public interest...to corporate interest in spaonsership...etc, etc.

You have to lobby for government arts handouts...if you aren't in line...you ain't gett'n anything.






KGB

"If we insist on handing out cash to artists, why don't we give it to people or organizations that actually do something for their work? "


Well, government grants to individual artists are very small, in the instances when they actually give it. I wouldn't worry too much about much money being spent on that in the first place, regardless of what you personally feel is "art" or not. Amlmost every cent of arts funding goes to arts organizations.







"Never mind that poetry is personally just about the most useless thing on the planet. Okay, I'm biased, I hate poetry and consider it completely useless"


There you go again...projecting your personal level of arts appreciation on the rest of us. Let's just I'll probably take EE Cummings over whatever it is that would turn your crank (I shudder to think what that is).








" I'm all for funding the arts but somebody somewhere has to decide just what it is that we're paying for."


Thank god for small miracles...that it isn't you. LOL!!






KGB

If you have a large enough population base, then you don't need government support for the arts. The philanthropy levels for the ROM and AGO borders on sick (sick as in amazing, not discusting). Large cities also support less affluent artists better than smaller places do, because you still have concentrations of them.

Don't forget, though, that alberta is the highest per capita spending province in Canada AND they're debt free. They spend more because they get more. The question you should raise to yourself is how would alberta cope and change if oil were to drop back to $20/barrel. Edmonton has a large theatre scene (didn't they start the fringe festival?) and Calgary is coming into it's own, as affluent families breed bratty punk kids and spoiled suburban children who are now finally comming of age and moving downtown. It happened in Toronto and Montreal ages ago.

"Never mind that poetry is personally just about the most useless thing on the planet. Okay, I'm biased, I hate poetry and consider it completely useless"


There you go again...projecting your personal level of arts appreciation on the rest of us. Let's just I'll probably take EE Cummings over whatever it is that would turn your crank (I shudder to think what that is).

" I'm all for funding the arts but somebody somewhere has to decide just what it is that we're paying for."


Thank god for small miracles...that it isn't you. LOL!!






KGB

I get the feeling that if it was up to me you'd be out of a job.

Nevertheless, you have no clue what my interests are so you can't go about accusing me of projecting my interests on anyone. I stated that I hate poetry. So what? I doubt you share my interests too...but I'm still willing to fund people who come up with it because there are enough people like YOU who think it's worth funding. It looks like you are confused again about the definition of selfishness.

Anyway, if we're going to pay someone twenty two grand a year I'd expect a little more than a few lines of poetry for it. Most people agree with me on this. If you think it's worth it, then maybe YOU should be paying for it personally by buying this guy's latest book of poetry. Pretty slim pickings apparently but I'm sure you'll savour every word.

I don't know what's worse...your level of disgust for anything that doesn't fall within your narrow margin of what's considered art...or the fact you like to base everything on one particular example. Yep...don't like what this poet wrote...kill all poets. LOL

You sound like your usual mal-adjusted self.






KGB

I don't know what's worse...your level of disgust for anything that doesn't fall within your narrow margin of what's considered art...or the fact you like to base everything on one particular example. Yep...don't like what this poet wrote...kill all poets. LOL

You sound like your usual mal-adjusted self.






KGB
See....here we go again. I say I can't stand poetry and you take that to mean that I'm somehow forcing my opinions and tastes on you. How many times do I have to point this out you numbskull : I WILL STILL PAY FOR THIS CRAP BECAUSE THERE ARE ENOUGH PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO DO LIKE IT !

Go ahead and read that over and over again until it sinks in. Sooner or later it's bound to.

And there you go again with your usual amazing leaps. I say I can't stand poetry and you decide that that means I want to kill all poets. Good grief, KGB, just read what people actually say for once.

Soooooo.....
Okay, just so all the art lovers understand where many of us who don't support 'art for art's sake' are coming from, consider this:


Sun, April 24, 2005

Public poet's slim volume criticized

By KATHLEEN HARRIS, Ottawa Bureau

Canada's first parliamentary poet was no Shakespeare -- he penned only two poems during his two-year stint. George Bowering was paid $12,000 plus a $10,000 travel allowance each year to write poems and promote the art of verse. He finished his two-year mandate as poet laureate late last year with 87 lines under his belt.

The first, Whatever You Do, included a 16-line sequel and the second, Pages Move, was written for the Book and Periodical Council.

But Guylaine Rondeau, an executive assistant for the Parliamentary Librarian's Office, said MPs imposed no quotas when they drafted the job description in 2002.

'QUANTITY ON CREATIVITY'

"I guess at the time the bill was voted on in the Chamber, they felt it was difficult to put a quantity on creativity, so they didn't want to impose any standards or limits on what the position or what the incumbent would have to do," she said.

Bowering, who has since moved back to British Columbia, visited school children, worked with other poets and launched a "poem of the week" program that ran on a website for 70 weeks. He also travelled the country to attend poetry readings and promote the written word.

Pauline Michel, who replaced Bowering four months ago, has written about six poems and insists on having her poems translated into both official languages. She sees celebrating national events such as Winterlude and Canada Day with special verse as part of her job.

"She has been very active since she was nominated," Rondeau said.

NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre) said Bowering should have been more prolific while he was on the public dime.

Calling it "expensive poetry," Martin rhymed off this response: "You may think it odd of me, but I like frugality."

John Williamson, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, offered his own flowery reaction:

"He's no poet, and taxpayers know it."

While he has no objection to Canada having a poet laureate, Williamson questioned the low output of the taxpayer-funded writer.

"It suggests he had a very easy go as the first poet laureate," he said.


Like I said before, I'm all for funding the arts but somebody somewhere has to decide just what it is that we're paying for. If we insist on handing out cash to artists, why don't we give it to people or organizations that actually do something for their work? For instance, I would have happily handed this guy's salary over to any museum, ballet or festival any day of the week. Never mind that poetry is personally just about the most useless thing on the planet IMO, this guy didn't seem to find the time to produce much of it to begin with.
Okay, I'm biased, I hate poetry and consider it completely useless, but like I said before, enough people like it that sure, okay whatever, I'll support it I guess. But this is exactly the kind of thing that people bitch about when they say "Cut the funding !" I dunno....what do we need a national poet for anyway? Shouldn't they maybe just earn the position at least?


This case isn't exactly the norm...that's why it was reported.

You have to lobby for government arts handouts...if you aren't in line...you ain't gett'n anything.

KGB

That is why the Winspear Centre for Music (the home of the Edmonton Symphony did not get money from teh Feds when it was built but rather all private donations. Wasn't deemed worth it. That is why the Edmonton Art Gallery is getting an expansion right now with no Money from the Feds all private donations and the feds were the first people approached. No Federal or Provincial money for that matter for the Arts Barns off of Whyte Ave which house part of the Fringe (which happens to be the second largest alternative theatre festival in the world second only to the one in Edinbourgh Scotland. But I do think we are getting money for the newly renamed Royal Alberta Museum. Overall the projects that one thinks should get money don't. Thats where I have a problem.

By the way we are seeing a large boost in provincial funding for the arts here in Alberta. We are getting moeny for the Provincial Museum to the tune of $90 million, and for the Jubilee Auditorium.

Well, not everybody with their hand out gets money every time...happens a lot more here...trust me. But that's not my point....arts funding is not based just on total population, which is why you can't base it on that. Toronto simply has a lot more to it's arts sector...there are more patrons...more people attend and support the arts here.

And one festival does not an arts sector make. Every day is a fringe festival in Toronto...only NYC and London sell more live theatre tickets than Toronto.








"How many times do I have to point this out you numbskull : I WILL STILL PAY FOR THIS CRAP BECAUSE THERE ARE ENOUGH PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO DO LIKE IT ! "


Yea yea yea...whatever...considering how you went overboard with the "I hate poetry...it's useless" rant, and considering your previous comments along these lines, don't waste your breath trying to convince me of your patronage of the arts.






KGB

"How many times do I have to point this out you numbskull : I WILL STILL PAY FOR THIS CRAP BECAUSE THERE ARE ENOUGH PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO DO LIKE IT ! "


Yea yea yea...whatever...considering how you went overboard with the "I hate poetry...it's useless" rant, and considering your previous comments along these lines, don't waste your breath trying to convince me of your patronage of the arts.






KGB
Man, you sure know how to not do yourself any favours.

As far as my 'rant' (all one line of it) and my patronage of the arts goes, you really have a thing for stereotypes. You just couldn't possibly imagine that someone with my political leanings could share some of the same interests as you eh? Fortunately for me, you're wrong. Fortunately for you, you're wrong as well. If it wasn't for people like me to begin with, (people who have no use for some of your interests but are still willing to subsidize it anyway) you might have a legitimate complaint concerning arts funding.

And hey, you're the one who figures $44,000 is a steal for 87 lines of poetry so maybe you're the one who's out of touch here.

Well for those intrested in the arts, here is a nice story to post. I hope we actually get funding from other levels of government on this one here in Edmonton. A new arts gallery.

http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/news/cityplus/story.html?id=461601dc-b3d5-4c9e-a055-f9b473d568c9

This will be great once this is completed. I still wish they would go the full 12 stories but oh well. Cant get everything you want. But I must say this does seem thus far that we will get an impressive building. I am hoping so anyways.