Historically, our past and current Yukon governments have been very supportive of cultural funding because it is understood that the arts is an economic driver.
Too bad the short sighted Harper campaign can’t borrow a page from us hard working Yukon creative people rather than typify practicing artists as members of the bejeweled ‘gala elite’ waving their programs with limp wrists while ‘regular’ Canadians watch this on television in their underwear.
Ironically Mr. Harper’s wife is the honorary chair of the National Arts Centre gala and will be wearing a custom made gown designed by couture designer Justina McCaffrey. Not sure if there are many Canadian artists that can afford that.
Like
The arts industry is exactly that: an INDUSTRY that employs many people. Artists, adminstrators, tradespeople, designers. These people work for their pay.
What I can’t figure out is how supporting the arts industry is different than supporting the auto industry in Ontario and Quebec. That industry employs adminsitrators, trades people, designers AND it also receives plenty of public money.
What’s the difference?
Seems to me that artists themselves are always receiving public money. If you can’t make a living selling your art, find other work to supplement your income, don’t expect me to give up some of my hard earned money to support you.
Does KIAC run on its own revenue or does it constantly need taxpayers money injected into it to keep it going.
The only reason the Yukon Government seems to be so supportive is because of all the artists in the territory. Throw them some money to get there vote. “Regular ” canadians would probably rather keep there money in there own pockets then see it given out to the poor starving artist.
If we were flush with cash, sure some could be given to cultural funding programs. But until that time lets try to make sure we are all fed and healthy.
Withheld, Tough logic to combat. My question is why always pick on the artist? Why not the farmer who gets government subsidies. Why not the auto plant worker who works in a factory that receives millions government money each year. Why always the artist?
There is a perception that practicing art isn’t a real job, or gainful employment such as farming, fishing or other forms of self-employment. It is seen as a happy consequence of free time where one can putter about and amuse one self by making pretty pictures.
There is also a perception that ‘work’ for money is not meant to be enjoyable; it is meant to earn money. This, no doubt stems from our culture of the Protestant work ethic and the advancement of capitalism as the social ideal.
If I might generalize, motivation is another factor that sets the aspiring artist apart; it is not to make a profit or grow rich while making and selling widgets, rather their drive is to create value that can be enjoyed by others on an aesthetic level. Just like the Mastercard ads say, ‘priceless!’.
The irony of course, is that many of these underpaid creative people have their innovations and designs ripped off for profit by the very people that criticize them for being self indulgent, state supported layabouts.
The Arts are looking like a pretty good deal right about now, what with conservatives clamouring to pour BILLIONS of dollars into an automobile industry that didn’t have the brains to foresee a decline in the popularity of SUVs.