[Psudo]

Zipperfish, why are you so dedicated to comparing the $250 million for Canadian art to the $700 billion for the US financial bailout? One is annual while the other is a one-time emergency response. One is in Canada and the other is in the USA. One relates to an industry that is, by definition, a luxury, while the other refers to the financial sector which is imperative to the financial operation of every other sector of the economy. Even though I have no problem with $250 million for the arts and a HUGE problem with the financial bailout, I can easily see that there's no reasonable comparison here. Why not randomly compare that $250 million to some other huge number - the speed of light in meters per second, for example?

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

Zipperfish, why are you so dedicated to comparing the $250 million for Canadian art to the $700 billion for the US financial bailout? One is annual while the other is a one-time emergency response. One is in Canada and the other is in the USA. One relates to an industry that is, by definition, a luxury, while the other refers to the financial sector which is imperative to the financial operation of every other sector of the economy. Even though I have no problem with $250 million for the arts and a HUGE problem with the financial bailout, I can easily see that there's no reasonable comparison here. Why not randomly compare that $250 million to some other huge number - the speed of light in meters per second, for example?

Well actually, I was trying to sat with apples and apples here. I compared the 700 billion because I believe that the "piss christ"--the work of "art" raised by Hyperion was American and funded by the NEA. I've tried to use Canadian comparison with people discussing Canadian art.

I don't think the comparison is that perverse. What I think is perverse is to complain about a pittance given to artists when there's that kind of money being given away to banks (or, in Canada, to teh automotive sector, for example). It's like a cop giving a ticket for jaywalking while a guy is getting mugged across the street. Although, I do think I've made my point and should move along now.

I suppose some conservatives constantly raising the "piss christ" or (in Canada) the "shit dress" is the same as some liberals raising the luxury retreat taken by AIG top sellers right after their bailout--it deliberately raises the worst in a disingenuous effort to slag the whole sector.

Part of it is personal. I think art is a beautiful thing. As an agnostic myself, it's a way for me to connect with something divine. So I guess I get personally offended when someone debases art to the "piss christ" level. Maybe the same way a Chirstian feels when he sees a crucifix in a jar of urine.

[scarecrowe]

With so many more important and necessary services to be provided by any government, artists should have to pay fees to the government for a license in order to have the privilege to fuck around and doing nothing.

[roger-roger]

How will the starving artist be able to buy food then?

[Zipperfish]

scarecrowe wrote:

With so many more important and necessary services to be provided by any government, artists should have to pay fees to the government for a license in order to have the privilege to fuck around and doing nothing.

Pay fees to the government? Then you mean tax them? Some conservative you are.

Thanks for showing up. This thread may be be advanced for you. Maybe head off to one of the "LIEberals suk big weenie" threads. Sounds more your speed. Cheerio.

[Psudo]

I agree that $250 million is a pittance and $700 million is a ridiculously huge amount of money. I'd prefer both of them got between a pittance and nothing from the government, and were instead expected to survive, individually and as an industry, on their own merits.

Any objection to that?

[Pseudonym]

I'll toast to that.

[scarecrowe]

Zipperfish wrote:

scarecrowe wrote:

With so many more important and necessary services to be provided by any government, artists should have to pay fees to the government for a license in order to have the privilege to fuck around and doing nothing.

Pay fees to the government? Then you mean tax them? Some conservative you are.

Thanks for showing up. This thread may be be advanced for you. Maybe head off to one of the "LIEberals suk big weenie" threads. Sounds more your speed. Cheerio.

... and there should be a larger fee applied inversely proportional to one's IQ. Hold on to YOUR wallet.

[Kjorteo]

Now, now, children.