NDP as champion of the arts

[capricorn]

The NDP held a press conference to boast new MPs with ties to the arts and culture set.

The press conference was convened to talk about arts and culture – no announcements, no numbers – but it was really aimed at showing off the party’s impressive new strength from the arts community. Unimpressed, reporters asked NDP MPs why they were even holding a news conference and accused them of being ill-prepared – a taste of what may be in store for the party in its new role as Official Opposition.

---

Mr. Angus wanted to criticize Stephen Harper’s Conservatives for being tone deaf to culture in contrast to the NDP, which is attuned to arts and culture simply by the fact that several of its caucus members now come directly from that field.

He joked that he had never seen so many Tories at galas after Mr. Harper’s intemperate remarks in the 2008 election about such red-carpet events. Mr. Angus argued that quip cost the Tories a majority government last time around.

Short on specific numbers, the four MPs talked instead about the need for income averaging to help starving artists, whose average income is $13,000 a year – well below the poverty line. They talked about pension reform and increases to the CPP that would be a “practical way” to help artists have more security.

And they talked about how important the arts and culture are to Canada and its identity.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ill-prepared-ndp-strikes-dissonant-chord-in-pressing-arts-agenda/article2025056/

It's evident that in setting itself up as the champion of the arts, the NDP is taking early steps to solidify their support in the Province of Quebec. This is probably a move sparked by Harper giving the artistic community in Quebec the cold shoulder in 2008. It's a gamble. But the NDP better be cautious about cementing itself as the "gimme, gimme" alternative to the Conservatives or its new found glory will be short lived.

[RNG]

Are they advocating that young, struggling artists be given CPP? Are they saying that CPP money should be used for grants to these artists? And who defines who is an artist and what is art? Heavy danger here, if Happy Jack is serious. Or is it just eye candy for the followers? With him I'm never sure.

[lukin]

Are they advocating that young, struggling artists be given CPP? Are they saying that CPP money should be used for grants to these artists? And who defines who is an artist and what is art? Heavy danger here, if Happy Jack is serious. Or is it just eye candy for the followers? With him I'm never sure.

Time to get out my box of crayons, colour me some pictures, call myself an artist, and get the free money. Thanks NDP for supporting me, a struggling artist.

[capricorn]

a struggling artist.

Make that "starving artist" for maximum impact.

[scouterjim]

But only the rich and well to do can afford art, so by rights, the NDP should hate it. All the artwork should be sold to make money for those who want to leech off the government.

[capricorn]

But only the rich and well to do can afford art, so by rights, the NDP should hate it.

That all changed when the orange wave swept Quebec. Now, art for the NDP includes musicians and acrobats.

Charlie Angus and Andrew Cash were members of the 80's punk group L'Etranger, Pierre Nantel was artistic director of Cirque du Soleil and Tyrone Benslki was an ACTRA vice-president.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/05/17/punk-rockers-in-parliament-rally-for-arts-funding

Here's an interesting comment from the above Sun article.

I'll comment on this as a musician.

It concerns me to hear the lack of interest in arts that is commonly espoused by the general public. Having said that I would prefer to see the government investing in young artist's careers rather than subsidizing unprofitable artists.Too often the same well connected people receive grants year after year, essentially living off the taxpayers.

There is also a problem in that grants cannot be used for promotion. In the modern age of computer recording software, the cost of creation of music is minimal while promotion costs have soared. As much as it made a neat movie it is not at all true that "if you build it they will come". Promotion is essential and let's face it, unsuccessful art doesn't bring a return for anyone no matter what statistics the "arts community" presents.

Our society is attacking the music industry at every turn. Everything from the crackdown on drinking and driving to smoke free bars to free downloading has made it harder and harder to create music and live off it.

I know some of the challenges concerning visual artists are the same.

We need term limits for sitting on the Canada and Ontario arts council, maximum limits on the number of times an artist can be funded and a plan to help PROMOTE talent and not just talent that fits the CBC's definition of Canadian.

I'm not against funding the arts but we could surely spend the money a lot more intelligently than we do now.

[Guest Derek L]

If a plumber, cook and lawyer are unable to garner interest in their work, should the taxpayer also support them? For the record, I also think pro athletes/owners should get zero funding from the taxpayer.....same with "cultural events".

I seem to remember the Tobacco companies sponsored a lot of artistic events here in Vancouver……just saying.

[Evening Star]

That all changed when the orange wave swept Quebec. Now, art for the NDP includes musicians and acrobats.

Arts funding has always included those things. That's not an innovation of the NDP or anything. If anything, the lack of actual innovation is what the press was ridiculing about this press conference.

Canada has generally been very good about supporting the arts and has done well by it. This sector has become quite strong for us. I hope that with this personnel, the NDP become effective advocates for culture.

--

Derek, you do realize that there are plenty of public defenders/prosecutors? And plenty of government programmes to help small businesses?

Edited May 18, 2011 by Evening Star

[Guest Derek L]

Derek, you do realize that there are plenty of public defenders/prosecutors? And plenty of government programmes to help small businesses?

Sure, but unlike artists, barristers & solicitors choose to "donate" their time to legal aide programs in Canada, well also practicing law for profit.

WRT small business, those programs require at the very minimum, a business strategy prior to receiving funds that show how the potential claimant plans to earn profit.

Art for profit is very dodgy, when an artists "business plan" is reliant on the "eye of the beholder".

[August1991]

From link above:

Tyrone Benskin, the new MP for Jeanne–Le Ber and former ACTRA national vice-president.

Mr. Angus wanted to criticize Stephen Harper’s Conservatives for being tone deaf to culture in contrast to the NDP, which is attuned to arts and culture simply by the fact that several of its caucus members now come directly from that field.

What they don't mention is that Tyrone Benskin was the Persian who gave the gold cup to the Greeks in 300.

You can see Benskin's film career here.

300 was filmed in Montreal. While the NDP wants to raise corporate taxes in general, it seems to prefer lowering corporate taxes (or even offering subsidies) to Hollywood movie corporations so that they hire Canadian actors to play cartoon Persians of 2500 years ago.

Q: What did the Spartans have that the Persians didn't? A: Six pack abs.

---

And this is called a culture policy.

[Machjo]

The NDP held a press conference to boast new MPs with ties to the arts and culture set.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ill-prepared-ndp-strikes-dissonant-chord-in-pressing-arts-agenda/article2025056/

It's evident that in setting itself up as the champion of the arts, the NDP is taking early steps to solidify their support in the Province of Quebec. This is probably a move sparked by Harper giving the artistic community in Quebec the cold shoulder in 2008. It's a gamble. But the NDP better be cautious about cementing itself as the "gimme, gimme" alternative to the Conservatives or its new found glory will be short lived.

Highly inefficient approach.

Of course we can debate whether the government ought to fund the arts at all. But just for the sake of argument, let's suppose that it's already been decided that the government ought to fund the arts and the only question remaining is 'how'.

Should it come down to that, then I don't see how throwing money at some arts bureaucracy like the Canada Council for the Arts is the best use of arts funding.

If you want an efficient use of government funding for the arts, here's how I'd go about it:

Increase funding for education, introduce a school voucher system at the provincial level, and either add more arts options to the school curriculum or even make arts education compulsory for let's say 9 years starting at the age of 5 let's say.

Of course this would mean more provincial rather than federal involvement, but I think it would still be fare more efficient than what the Federal NDP is currently proposing. This would achieve a number of objectives:

1. It would ensure more government funding for the arts (what we'd have decided as the primary objective at the beginning of this post),

2. It would ensure artists be actively involved in the education of the future generation of artists so as to ensure that they give back in a contrete way in return for this investment,

3. It would ensure arts funding be spread evenly throughout the education system province-wide and not just in metropolitan centres, so as to make it part of pupular culture rather than just elite culture.

4. It would ensure artists be more responsive to students' and parent's needs owing to the voucher system.

Just throwing money at some arts bureaucracy in Ottawa does not achieve any of this in any efficient, planned or structrued manner.

Again, we can certainly debate the merits and demerits of providing government funding for the arts at all. But should it be decided that it ought to be funded, one would think it ought to be funded in a well thorught out and well-planned manner with clearly defined objectives in mind, and not just by throwing money randomly at some bureaucracy like the Canada Arts Council.

The NDp seems to have miscalculated here.

[Machjo]

If a plumber, cook and lawyer are unable to garner interest in their work, should the taxpayer also support them? For the record, I also think pro athletes/owners should get zero funding from the taxpayer.....same with "cultural events".

I seem to remember the Tobacco companies sponsored a lot of artistic events here in Vancouver……just saying.

Likewise with sports education. While we can certainly debate the merits and demerits of providing government funding for sports, once the decision is made to fund them, then we need to look at an efficient means of funding them. In my opinion, throwing money at some Olympic or Commonwealth Games Committee is not the best use of such money. Again, do it at the provincial level by increasing funding for sports education in public schools along the same principles set out above for art so as to ensure athletes make a direct contribution via education and fitness for all, not just elites.

Again, we can debate whether or not government ought to fund these things, but once the decision is made that government ought to fund them, then let's at least fund them in a well thought out and methodical manner with clearly defined objectives in mind, not just by throwing money at it in such an ad hoc manner.

[capricorn]

I hope that with this personnel, the NDP become effective advocates for culture.

I really don't think that the NDP gave much thought to this idea of pushing the arts and culture agenda so early in its mandate as the official opposition. Had Harper not screwed up in 2008 by alluding that galas were the playground of elites, this NDP press conference would not have taken place. I believe what's at the bottom of it is that the NDP saw an opportunity to differentiate itself from the Conservatives. To an extent that's the name of the game in politics, ie, show that you're not like the other guy. But timing is everything. The NDP leaped too quickly and are now being grilled by the media. They'll learn.

[RNG]

Likewise with sports education. While we can certainly debate the merits and demerits of providing government funding for sports, once the decision is made to fund them, then we need to look at an efficient means of funding them. In my opinion, throwing money at some Olympic or Commonwealth Games Committee is not the best use of such money. Again, do it at the provincial level by increasing funding for sports education in public schools along the same principles set out above for art so as to ensure athletes make a direct contribution via education and fitness for all, not just elites.

Again, we can debate whether or not government ought to fund these things, but once the decision is made that government ought to fund them, then let's at least fund them in a well thought out and methodical manner with clearly defined objectives in mind, not just by throwing money at it in such an ad hoc manner.

Go Winnipeg Jets II! Just don't let tax dollars get involved. And if fed money gets into the Quebec City arena, I'm grabbing my pitchfork and revolting.

[Guest Derek L]

Highly inefficient approach.

Of course we can debate whether the government ought to fund the arts at all. But just for the sake of argument, let's suppose that it's already been decided that the government ought to fund the arts and the only question remaining is 'how'.

Should it come down to that, then I don't see how throwing money at some arts bureaucracy like the Canada Council for the Arts is the best use of arts funding.

If you want an efficient use of government funding for the arts, here's how I'd go about it:

Increase funding for education, introduce a school voucher system at the provincial level, and either add more arts options to the school curriculum or even make arts education compulsory for let's say 9 years starting at the age of 5 let's say.Of course this would mean more provincial rather than federal involvement, but I think it would still be fare more efficient than what the Federal NDP is currently proposing. This would achieve a number of objectives:

1. It would ensure more government funding for the arts (what we'd have decided as the primary objective at the beginning of this post),

2. It would ensure artists be actively involved in the education of the future generation of artists so as to ensure that they give back in a contrete way in return for this investment,

3. It would ensure arts funding be spread evenly throughout the education system province-wide and not just in metropolitan centres, so as to make it part of pupular culture rather than just elite culture.

4. It would ensure artists be more responsive to students' and parent's needs owing to the voucher system.

Just throwing money at some arts bureaucracy in Ottawa does not achieve any of this in any efficient, planned or structrued manner.

Again, we can certainly debate the merits and demerits of providing government funding for the arts at all. But should it be decided that it ought to be funded, one would think it ought to be funded in a well thorught out and well-planned manner with clearly defined objectives in mind, and not just by throwing money randomly at some bureaucracy like the Canada Arts Council.

The NDp seems to have miscalculated here.

You had me sold at school voucher & more provincial rather than federal involvement

I have nothing against the arts or sports, I've purchased (and love) west coast landscapes and first nations artwork from local artists. I donate to a local theatre, and enjoyed the winter games here and pro hockey & football, I just don't think at the federal level, taxpayers should be supporting these "hobbies" of others.

[scouterjim]

Mind you, some of the crap that is created and called "art" is not worthy of ANY money from anybody.

[RNG]

Mind you, some of the crap that is created and called "art" is not worthy of ANY money from anybody.

And that is the problem, what you consider crap I might think is genius, and visa versa. And neither of us is wrong. So, keep the government out of it.

[Evening Star]

Sure, but unlike artists, barristers & solicitors choose to "donate" their time to legal aide programs in Canada, well also practicing law for profit.

WRT small business, those programs require at the very minimum, a business strategy prior to receiving funds that show how the potential claimant plans to earn profit.

Art for profit is very dodgy, when an artists "business plan" is reliant on the "eye of the beholder".

Yes, those are fair points. Arts funding is not always contingent on profitability. And in my opinion, it should stay that way because art and artistic activity can have a value that is not always recognized by the marketplace. I'm perfectly fine with a peer-review process and don't think the amount we spend is enough to really be objectionable at all. However, I can see why someone would have a philosophical issue with this.