You don't allow for the fact a great many artists of the past had wealthy patrons who subsidized them. The Medici family by way of example. The British royal family alone and in conjunction with the Guild of St. George and the Tate gallery sponsored some of Britain's notable painters. And then we can't forget the Roman Catholic Church responsible for the Italian Renaissance and great architecture the world over.
As a recipient of a government grant taught art to indigenous youth in remote communities. The best student went into a B.A. program. Her work I was told, was considered favourably in her application. She went on to medical school. Funny the effect the arts can have.
While I will support the idea that perhaps government grants have become a more management than arts programing, save the wealthy of this country massively increasing patronage, it may be the best thing we have at the moment.
I'm not against government spending on the arts per se, but I would prefer that decisions were made based on two metrics:
1. That the spending shouldn't squeeze out more critical projects. For instance, did the remote youth you worked with all have basics like accessible healthcare and clean water?
2. That the spending should be effective. Can we justify the costs when almost none of the projects we've funded is ever seen by more than a few close friends?
I'm not convinced that such questions have been properly addressed yet.
1/ In the NWT all the communities have access to clean water due to government efforts. Most communities have community nursing stations at great expense due to agency staff hiring. Doctors will visit communities with serious cases flown into Yellowknife or if serious enough Alberta. Many of those with poor water are in provincial\federal jurisdiction.
2/ When was the last time you were in a gallery as a self admitted philistine? Have you visited the McMichael to view the group of seven? Seen a Coville even on-line? While the Canada Council could do a much better job touring work, that Canadians don't make the effort either by inclination or ignorance is not a reflection of the calibre of the work.
It is Netflix's job to present popular but short lived "art." I can go to any number of galleries and museums and see the arts and crafts that make our history. Many of those works were supported by patrons either directly or by the fees paid to an artist for another work.
I haven't been to the McMichael since I was a kid (A.Y. Jackson was then still alive). I may not be a representative example in this department, though. I personally have no motivation to "go out" and see art, but I still have very strong memories and even reactions to art that I saw many years ago. Even though I had never seen the original, Picasso's Guernica once, out of the blue, strongly struck me on an emotional level.
Perhaps most people these days are willing to consume their art remotely. After all, we do live in a age when high-quality copies of any classic art or music or cinema can be downloaded at will. Besides the fact that government is, by an large, unable to solve the distribution problem, perhaps distribution shouldn't even be a priority for them.
Ditch it all. Free market rules. If you produce good stuff, people will pay for it.
You don't allow for the fact a great many artists of the past had wealthy patrons who subsidized them. The Medici family by way of example. The British royal family alone and in conjunction with the Guild of St. George and the Tate gallery sponsored some of Britain's notable painters. And then we can't forget the Roman Catholic Church responsible for the Italian Renaissance and great architecture the world over.
As a recipient of a government grant taught art to indigenous youth in remote communities. The best student went into a B.A. program. Her work I was told, was considered favourably in her application. She went on to medical school. Funny the effect the arts can have.
While I will support the idea that perhaps government grants have become a more management than arts programing, save the wealthy of this country massively increasing patronage, it may be the best thing we have at the moment.
I'm not against government spending on the arts per se, but I would prefer that decisions were made based on two metrics:
1. That the spending shouldn't squeeze out more critical projects. For instance, did the remote youth you worked with all have basics like accessible healthcare and clean water?
2. That the spending should be effective. Can we justify the costs when almost none of the projects we've funded is ever seen by more than a few close friends?
I'm not convinced that such questions have been properly addressed yet.
1/ In the NWT all the communities have access to clean water due to government efforts. Most communities have community nursing stations at great expense due to agency staff hiring. Doctors will visit communities with serious cases flown into Yellowknife or if serious enough Alberta. Many of those with poor water are in provincial\federal jurisdiction.
2/ When was the last time you were in a gallery as a self admitted philistine? Have you visited the McMichael to view the group of seven? Seen a Coville even on-line? While the Canada Council could do a much better job touring work, that Canadians don't make the effort either by inclination or ignorance is not a reflection of the calibre of the work.
It is Netflix's job to present popular but short lived "art." I can go to any number of galleries and museums and see the arts and crafts that make our history. Many of those works were supported by patrons either directly or by the fees paid to an artist for another work.
I haven't been to the McMichael since I was a kid (A.Y. Jackson was then still alive). I may not be a representative example in this department, though. I personally have no motivation to "go out" and see art, but I still have very strong memories and even reactions to art that I saw many years ago. Even though I had never seen the original, Picasso's Guernica once, out of the blue, strongly struck me on an emotional level.
Perhaps most people these days are willing to consume their art remotely. After all, we do live in a age when high-quality copies of any classic art or music or cinema can be downloaded at will. Besides the fact that government is, by an large, unable to solve the distribution problem, perhaps distribution shouldn't even be a priority for them.
‘George (“chocolate rations have increased from 30 grams to 20 grams”) Orwell would have been right proud of that one.’
What an excellent quotation! Thank you.