[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Weening the artists (click to view)
Date: October 8, 2008
There haven't been many controversies in this election so far. Things seem to be playing out in a fairly conventional way, and everyone expects Stephen Harper to be reelected in some form.

But being the front-runner has opened the Conservatives up to a lot of criticism from the various interest groups who didn't fare particularly well under Harper's first term. Among the most vocal of these has been Canada's so-called "art community," who, under the previous Liberal governments, had come to rely quite heavily on a consistent flow of federal subsidies for their work. Harper's government has scaled back these subsidies in a number of ways, both through outright cuts and the imposition of stricter "standards" that artists must conform to in order to recieve cash.

Granted, a lot of this math is fuzzy; the Conservatives maintain that they haven't actually decreased federal arts funding in any serious way, just tinkered with the existing regime to make it more efficient and cost-effective. But perception is what matters, and the "Conservatives as anti-art" label seems to be sticking.

[ziggy]

Oh man! That's great!

[hwacker]

If they really had some art they could sell it. Screw them.

[Chumley]

Good one.

[SideShowCecil]

So the Conservatives have upset a tiny little sector of the electorate that would never vote for them anyway. Big deal!

[Wada]

The cartoon might have had Harper sucking on a teat and pushing the "art community " out of the way. It would be more realistic.

[Anansy]

I'm disappointed that Harper folded on the debates when he was asked about arts funding. Started mumbling something about his son's guitar lessons and actually claimed that it was important for Canada to fund the arts...

Considering that the arts community that actually depends on government handouts probably won't vote for Harper anyway, why did he feel the need to mince words?

[Blue_Nose]

That's the strangest looking udder I've ever seen - left of centre as some sort of political commentary, or artistic license?

[SDGHomero]

Do those guys (the so called "artists") have notorious representatives of their own? I would like to see a little of their work to have a non-biased opinion. I mean, if they are doing a great job, let them be. But if not?

But gotta say, with the way too loose definition of "art" going on these days, I do not think that we would have to wait and see what kind of art these guys do in order to agree with Harper's "stop the leechers" policy. At least here in Mexico, mainstream art sucks. Big time. Why the founding need, anyway? Because average "artists" are always unemployed. Let them work normal jobs like everybody else. It is silly to have a guy spit a wad of paint in a canvas a pay him for that. HM

[Anansy]

SDGHomero wrote:

I would like to see a little of their work to have a non-biased opinion. I mean, if they are doing a great job, let them be. But if not?

Um, if they're any good, they should have no problem subsisting on their art without government support.

Government supporting a good artist makes as much sense to me as the government funding, say, coffee shops. If there is market for something, why does it require taxpayer support?

[Zipperfish]

I'm an interested party as someone who's sold work to magzines that are partly funded by various provincial or federal art grants. Also, like most people who live in the lower mainland of BC, I have frineds who rely on the film industry for a living. I think art and culture has to be treated differently than a business, so I don't accept the idea that, if an artist can't make money, he or she has no business being an artist.

I don't like funded "gala" events, and I don't like self-aggrandizing prentious iconoclasts trying to pass off outrageous behaviou as art. But I think there is more to arts funding than that. What about all those great NFB films we all love, like the Hockey Sweater?

[Sucros]

The big part that raised the most controversy is a section that snuck past parliament but got spotted by the senate. There's a provision to expand the heritage minister's power so that she can deny funding to any work she deems to be contrary to public policy.
Basically, it's giving the government complete say over what gets funded and what doesn't, based on if the work agrees with the government's agenda. That's what's gotten the artsies in a knot, and why this issue is sticking.

And while it's easy to point at the haughty artists at their swanky galas, it's worth noting that the Canadian music scene is quite vibrant, in part due to the help it recieves from government aid, both on the independent and international commercial ends of things.

I'm not saying arts funding wasn't bloated, I'm just tired of a nuanced issue being boiled down to arts-hating hick harper versus elitist gala goers.

[CanadianJeff]

Frankly I do agree with some funding for the arts but Mr. Harper was right to put some limits in place. No one for example should be paid a million bucks for a white canvas with a red line on it. I kid you not it's in the Saskatchewan parliment right now in regina sitting behind glass.

However I also tend to greatly enjoy many Canadian films and music and I realize that some of that did really deserve government funding to even begin to get going.

Point in case it's a hard line to draw in the sand. But you can't just leave it unregulated. It had to be done sooner or later. Frankly I just hope this means better funding for those who DO deserve it.

[Jabrwock]

Sucros wrote:

The big part that raised the most controversy is a section that snuck past parliament but got spotted by the senate. There's a provision to expand the heritage minister's power so that she can deny funding to any work she deems to be contrary to public policy.
Basically, it's giving the government complete say over what gets funded and what doesn't, based on if the work agrees with the government's agenda. That's what's gotten the artsies in a knot, and why this issue is sticking.

As part of their economic plan released just recently, the CONs are promising to axe C-10.

After all that blustering about "we want to protect Cdn taxpayers from funding porn"...

Sad.

What really annoyed me was how they portrayed artists with a broad brush of "elite gala-attending snobs who don't really need the money". If that were reality, then Saskatoon wouldn't be building low-income housing for artists. Only those who make it big can attend the galas. Galas are mostly thrown so wealthy business types and philanthropists can hob-nob it with other business types about what's the "next big thing" that they can sell, or which cause they can champion this week.

[Sucros]

They pretty much had to. The tories hadn't released a platform at all (which still astounds me), so all the opposition parties had to hammer on was the tories short record in office. And Quebec is very much in play right now, it's a pollster's nightmare. Quebec cares far more than the rest of the country about arts funding. The vast majority of their entertainment is homegrown, and gets help getting started with the help of the government. These cuts in quebec literally mean less variety on TV.

Harper refused repeatedly to repeat his "swanky galas" comment in french, and did everything in his power to avoid mentioning C-10 in quebec. In an election that is intentionally about nothing, Harper had to quash an actual dividing topic.