Canadian artists living in poverty - 43% earn less than $10,000
Not a surprise to anyone who does this work for a living:
"Earnings by most Canadian artists are hovering at poverty levels and the situation is likely to worsen as the worldwide recession deepens, according to a statistical profile of the country's artists released yesterday."
"It identified 140,000 Canadians as artists – defined as those who spent most of their working time in nine occupational categories, including actors, dancers, authors/writers, visual artists and producers/directors/choreographers.
The study reports that artists over all are working for near-poverty-level wages, with an average annual earnings in calendar year 2005 of just $22,731, compared with $36,301 for all Canadian workers – a 37-per-cent wage chasm."
"According to the Hill study, the poorest-paid Canadian artist category is that of female visual artist, with average earnings in 2005 of $11,421, closely followed by female artisan/craftsperson ($12,307), female musician/singer ($12,449), and female dancer ($12,502).
Indeed, while there are more female artists than males (74,000 versus 66,000) in the country, female artists over all earn much less than their male counterparts: In 2005, a female artist earned on average $19,175, a male $26,714 – a span of close to 30 per cent."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090204.wearnings020...
My sister is an artist and has very little demand or interest in her pictures. Way overpriced and has not sold a painting for a long long time.
Art galleries never book her and I know of a couple of her friends in the same boat.
My question is....why should our taxes support artists that don't produce art that people actually want to buy.
I have a 28-year-old niece who fancies herself an artist...and, because she calls herself an artist and she creates art, I suppose she is "an artist". But, people aren't terribly interested in buying what she makes. So, she does what a lot of artists do: She continues with her art and she waits tables.
Does she "deserve" more financial support and a sufficient income to support her choice to be an artist? If so, who "owes" her that income?
If a person wants to be a painter, a poet, an actor, or a sock-puppeteer, for that matter, have at it. But, society doesn't have any obligation to support you in your endeavors.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Who said anyone should support artists who can't make a living with their art?
I suppose I find it hypcoricital that there are always who make arguments such as Sven and Nussy avove, begrudging every cent the government spends that supports an industry they don't value, but they have no objections to the tax dollars that support the infrastructure they use to earn a living. For example, how do you get to work, Sven? Do you travel on any roads and sidewalks that are taxpayer built and maintained? Did you pass through traffic lights patrolled by cops? Did you turn on the tap and and have a glass of water? What does the US pay to kill Iraqis and others to ensure cheap gas?
Why do I. as a taxpayer, have to support you in making your living? Why don't you pay for the roads and services you use yourself?
You'll have to trust me on this, FM, but I am 99.9% confident that Ms. Sven and I pay more in taxes in two or three years than you'll pay in a lifetime.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I don't give a shit (that's somewhat patronizing and arrogant, isn't it? What do you know about me?).You should pay for the full cost of all services you use to earn a living. Why should anyone else subsidize your income?
Here you are begrudging just considering any dollars going to artists and Americans just poured in the area of a trillion dollars subsidizing banks?
And you're serious?
No, banks should fail if they mismanage, industries and business should pay full recovery for every service they use, and so should you. Why would you object to that? Isn't it in keeping with your philosophy?
I don't give a shit (that's somewhat patronizing and arrogant, isn't it? What do you know about me?).
To be perfectly fair, I don't. But, most Lefties that I know (other than a few trust-fund baby Lefties) pay substantially less taxes than I do. So, my comment is just paying on the law of averages.
You should pay for the full cost of all services you use to earn a living. Why should anyone else subsidize your income?
If I only paid taxes for things that subsidized my income or benefitted me directly, I'd only have to pay a tiny fraction of the taxes I now pay.
Here you are begrudging just considering any dollars going to artists and Americans just poured in the area of a trillion dollars subsidizing banks?
And you're serious?
No, banks should fail if they mismanage, industries should pay for every service they use, and so should you. Why would you object to that? Isn't it in keeping with your philosophy?
I couldn't agree more. I wish the banks would fail. I'm no proponent of the Bush-Obama bailout.
But back to artists:
I'm skeptical of a government making intelligent choices about art funding. I just think government bureaucrats are not well-suited to determine: This artist is "good" and deserves funding but this artist is not and does not deserve funding.
I might be able to play the pan-flute as well as Zamfir...but should the government pay me to play it?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Sven, I think your remark to Frustrated Mess was a bit beneath you. This is not a modetorial intervention, you're welcome to lower your own bar. Just sayin'...
That statement demonstrates you have no idea as to the cost of the services provided by all levels of government. If you paid full recovery for all services provided wither you would be broke or your city would be comprised of broken dirt roads and open sewage.
But again you are misrepresenting what the report actually says and you have skipped over why any taxpayer should have to subsidize any business or person in making their living through the provision of infrastructure.
If for example, a truck driver had to pay full recovery for road usage, fuel, the full cost of manufacture and eventual disposal of the vehicle, and to mitigate the pollution he and his truck add to the environment, as did every user of the system along the chain from the farmer, to the worker, to the consumer, what would a quart of milk cost? And I assume you would have no objection to paying it.
Fair enough. But, he was claiming that his taxes pay for my government benefits. Now, putting aside the fact that we're in different countries and assuming, instead, that we were both Canadian or both American, the likelihood of anyone paying more taxes than I pay is very, very small.
Now, I pay the taxes I do because I've made certain choices about my career. My niece, on the other hand, pays ZERO federal income taxes (along with 36% of other Americans). And, for someone who doesn't make a lot of money, paying zero federal income taxes is fine with me...and the right thing. But, I don't think we need to ALSO subsidize artists who can't make a living on their own.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
If a person wants to be a painter, a poet, an actor, or a sock-puppeteer, for that matter, have at it. But, society doesn't have any obligation to support you in your endeavors.
You're kin'a wrong there, Mr Sven the adult. There are consoivatives and lefties alike who would say that it is not a good thing for the economy in general for anyone to live below poverty no matter what their vocation or personal calling. And there are reasons other than good economics for people to have an income and right to life's necessities as defined by a modern democratic society. And the reason why society is obligated to provide for the least of its citizens goes back to theft of the commons in England and beginning of exclusive private property laws. The poor dont have a choice anymore to live outside of society. There is no commons anymore for people can live off the fat o' the lan'
That statement demonstrates you have no idea as to the cost of the services provided by all levels of government. If you paid full recovery for all services provided wither you would be broke or your city would be comprised of broken dirt roads and open sewage.
But again you are misrepresenting what the report actually says and you have skipped over why any taxpayer should have to subsidize any business or person in making their living through the provision of infrastructure.
If for example, a truck driver had to pay full recovery for road usage, fuel, the full cost of manufacture and eventual disposal of the vehicle, and to mitigate the pollution he and his truck add to the environment, as did every user of the system along the chain from the farmer, to the worker, to the consumer, what would a quart of milk cost? And I assume you would have no objection to paying it.
Even if I paid the fully-loaded costs as you describe them...and if that was all I paid...I'd pay a fraction of what I pay now. Besides, if I am not paying the full costs of the social benefits that I consume, then 99% of the taxpayers are paying even less of a percentage of those social costs than I am.
Our neighbor lives in a house comparable to ours (we bought our house for $106,000 back in the mid-1990s). We probably do the same amount of driving for work. Use the same amount of water and electricity. Etc., etc., etc. But, I'd venture to guess that we pay about ten times the taxes our neighbors pay. So, if we are not paying our fair share of social costs, then our neighbors sure as hell aren't, no?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Can you expand on that a bit? I'm not sure I'm following you.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Can you expand on that a bit? I'm not sure I'm following you.
At one time before the period of British enclosure, landless poor in old England did have the option of supporting themselves by working the common land and growing crops to feed them and theirs. Or they might have "gleaned the grain" leftover from the king's harvest, as Canadian Linda McQuaig wrote in "All You Can Eat" Then private propertly laws came into effect. The common lands were cordoned off with dry stone walls, hedge rows and fences. They had nowhere to turn, and dissolution of the monasteries pretty much eliminated what there was of England's social services provided by the monks.
The price of flour shot up, and there was widespread hunger and food riots, protests to no avail. English peasants fled to live free lives in the forests. But then the lords and new land barons realized that the land was worthless without anyone to actually do the toiling. Oppressive labour laws were next, and peasants found outside their designated buroughs or shires were horsewhipped and hauled back to the lord's land to toil some more, sometimes as a life sentence without rights to day wages. John Locke's intellectual argument for exclusive private property was supposed to be based on natural laws. But as McQuaig says, how natural were they when full force of the king's men and sherrifs were required to enforce and uphold the new laws? They wouldnt have gotten away with theft of the commons today, said McQuaig. Not with the new basic human rights laws in England and western world in general.
Society does have a responsibility to provide for all. And they do so begrudgingly, providing a meagre subsistence income to the poor in the US and Canada. It's either that or the subject arises for freeing up private property for common use as it was before Lockean era England. I think capitalists want to avoid that for the most part, Sven.
Thanks for the explanation, Fidel.
With regard to:
Society does have a responsibility to provide for all.
Even as a libertarian, I don't disagree with that. I think our disagreement is over the degree of support. When it's bitterly cold here in Minnesota, I think of the tragedy that anyone is homeless and living outside in those conditions. On the other hand, I don't think it's a "tragedy" when people have to spend $60 to get a digital TV converter.
And, back to artists: People have choices. The niece whom I referred to above is just as bright as her older brother. But, whereas that nephew of mine will be a net giver to society (in terms of taxes), she will be, forever, a net taker from society (she will receive from government far more than she contributes to that government). She wanted to be an artist and he chose to spend eight years of hard study to become a dentist. I say, do whatever you want. Do want you think will make you happiest. Life is short. But understand that there are financial consequences to your career decisions. If you want to be an artist, then prepare to be poor and to cede control of your financial life to others (including the government) (and don't piss-n-moan about how life is "unfair").
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
You don't have a clue what the services you use are worth Sven. If you did, you wouldn't make such a nonsensical claim and as such this discussion isn't worth the investment in time.
You don't have a clue what the services you use are worth Sven. If you did, you wouldn't make such a nonsensical claim and as such this discussion isn't worth the investment in time.
Here's my point: If I consume about the same amount as my neighbor but I pay ten times the amount of taxes he pays and if I am not paying my "fair share", then my neighbor sure as hell isn't, right?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Well not that it matters now, but your feds gave away rights to public airwaves for digital TV spectrum in 1996, and worth something like $70 billion, for nothing in return. But generally speaking in a real democracy, information is supposed to be accessible by all. Joe Goebbels never dreamed of such a propaganda setup as the corporate owned and controlled TV, radio and newsprint arrangement in the US today. And hopefully the new cosmetic government will make some effort to reverse the warrantless FISA wiretaps making legal the NSA and telecoms surveillance of the lives of others across America
What a dull world it would be without artists, philosophers, and people not brainwashed into believing there is nothing worthwhile outside narrow corporate interests. Your country doesnt need anymore business grads running around in chalk-striped suits pushing paper and gambling on stocks and fraudulent money-making schemes. I have more respect for the least talented artists who give it their all anyway than those greed-driven over-paid dullards, and those tremendous idiots running things into the ground on Wall Street and Bay Street.
Here's my point: If I consume about the same amount as my neighbor but I pay ten times the amount of taxes he pays and if I am not paying my "fair share", then my neighbor sure as hell isn't, right?
You are focused on what you call "your share" when what we are talking about is "user pay" and "full cost recovery".
Here's the thing, if we take just roads - building, maintnenance, snow clearing, water treatment, other environmental mitigation - and we applied to them full-cost, user pay, most people and small business would stop using them almost at once. The economy would nose dive and the cost of "your share" would sky rocket because you will be sharing the cost with far fewer people.
In a tax regime where everyone pays, even a little bit, and regardless of whether they use the service such as roads and/or transit, the cost is lowered across the board. And even then, the full cost is often passed off to future generations in the form of debt. For example, in Canada, cities are said to require an investment in the neighbourhood of 120 billion to upgrade infrastructure (roads, sewers, bridges, etc ...).In the US the number is probably 10 times that amount. That is an infrastructure cost that will be paid by your great grandchildren or their children if the planet hasn't already collapsed.
In a user pay, full cost system cities and economies would fail. That is why there is not a single right wing business think tank, that I am aware of, calling for such a program despite that all right wing business think tanks are incapable of producing any sort of document that doesn't demand tax cuts.
In Ontario there is talk of user pay for roads that could include tolls and a 7% fuel surcharge but even that would only be intended to pay for maintenance from what I recall.
BTW: If you think my taxes are that low, maybe you wouldn't mind paying them for me. I mean, after all, it would hardly cause a dent in the tax bill you and Mrs. Sven pay. PM me and I'll tell you wher e to send the cheque and the amount.
What a dull world it would be without artists, philosophers, and people not brainwashed into believing there is nothing worthwhile outside narrow corporate interests.
What's amazing (incredulous, actually) is that any art was ever created prior to the advent of modern socialism and government-funded art!! How was that even possible?
And philosophers? Nary did a single one exist prior to the 20th c.
So, yeah, I get your point.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
You're a hard case, Sven. And by the way, capitalism ended in your country after 1932 or so. You have more socialism in your country in some respects than we do in Canada. But in order to keep thirdworld capitalist countries down and out with capitalism, US style socialism is never on the Warshington based IMF's austerity menu. Their backward economies are held in check with hare-brained schemes for liberal capitalism of some variety or another that never worked anywhere.
And now some number of your corporate CEO's are screaming to the feds for socialized medicine so they can compete with the rest of the world, and your banksters want socialism, too.
American capitalism amounts to socializing risk and privatizing profits. It's upside-down Keynesianism aka socialism for the rich. It's no wonder they dont want Grapes of Wrath era capitalism back again. There's just no money in old fashioned laissez-faire except when crooking the public.
Double F'ing Post.
Sorry.
You are focused on what you call "your share" when what we are talking about is "user pay" and "full cost recovery".
Here's the thing, if we take just roads - building, maintnenance, snow clearing, water treatment, other environmental mitigation - and we applied to them full-cost, user pay, most people and small business would stop using them almost at once. The economy would nose dive and the cost of "your share" would sky rocket because you will be sharing the cost with far fewer people.
In a tax regime where everyone pays, even a little bit, and regardless of whether they use the service such as roads and/or transit, the cost is lowered across the board. And even then, the full cost is often passed off to future generations in the form of debt. For example, in Canada, cities are said to require an investment in the neighbourhood of 120 billion to upgrade infrastructure (roads, sewers, bridges, etc ...).In the US the number is probably 10 times that amount. That is an infrastructure cost that will be paid by your great grandchildren or their children if the planet hasn't already collapsed.
In a user pay, full cost system cities and economies would fail. That is why there is not a single right wing business think tank, that I am aware of, calling for such a program despite that all right wing business think tanks are incapable of producing any sort of document that doesn't demand tax cuts.
In Ontario there is talk of user pay for roads that could include tolls and a 7% fuel surcharge but even that would only be intended to pay for maintenance from what I recall.
Okay. I think I understand the angle from which you are looking at this.
But, how does that dovetail with your comment "Why do I as a taxpayer, have to support you in making your living?" I think that's where this discussion started, no?
I think you're arguing (and for purposes of this discussion, I won't disagree) that the cost of roads, etc. that I use are much more than the taxes I pay. Let's just stipulate that that is true. But, then, how does my neighbor pay for or "support [me] in making [my] living" when my neighbor consumes as much as me (and, hence, is not even paying his share of total costs, let alone paying for any of my share of total costs) when I'm paying ten times the taxes he's paying?
In other words, if Ms. Sven and I pay, say, $250,000 in taxes, you're saying that the true total cost of that portion of "the system" that I use is much more than that. Let's assume that's true. But, then, how is my neighbor, who lives in a similar-sized house, who probably drives about as many miles per year as I do, and is otherwise pretty similarly-situated--but who pays only, say, $15,000 in taxes--paying to "support [me] in making [my] living" when he's not covering even less of his same share of those total costs?
Or, to put it another way, if my taxes aren't paying my fair share of the total actual costs of the system, then my neighbor surely is not paying his fair share of the total actual costs of the system (and even more surely is not paying part of my share).
BTW: If you think my taxes are that low, maybe you wouldn't mind paying them for me. I mean, after all, it would hardly cause a dent in the tax bill you and Mrs. Sven pay. PM me and I'll tell you wher e to send the cheque and the amount.
If you're working hard (or honestly trying to work) and literally can't put food on your table, I'll happily send you a cheque.
By the way, do you have any idea what percentage of working Canadians pay no federal income taxes? I'd be curious to know. Here, the percentage is about 36% (that was under Bush...and that percentage was a significant increase over his predecessor). But, that percentage is expected to rise to closer to 50% under Obama.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
And just look at the economy now after Loco Jorge II part deux. Are Americans soured by unprecedented socialism for the rich under Bushler, do you think, Sven?
And just look at the economy now after Loco Jorge II part deux. Are Americans soured by unprecedented socialism for the rich under Bushler, do you think, Sven?
Probably not nearly as sick as the Russians were of "socialism for everyone" under the Soviet system.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
And just look at the economy now after Loco Jorge II part deux. Are Americans soured by unprecedented socialism for the rich under Bushler, do you think, Sven?
Probably not nearly as sick as the Russians were of "socialism for everyone" under the Soviet system.
And by 1998, public opinion in Russia favoured a return to Soviet communism. Putin observed the attempts by oligarchs and western "investors" in 2003 to bribe members of the Duma. Gangster capitalism was said to have been a Russian experience only. But we know who the gangsters are, dont we, Sven. Your gangsters on Wall Street and Pentagon capitalists need tough love, Sven. Do you think this cosmetic government is up to the job? ha ha
Hey Sven or nusy, where in the OP was it suggested that everyone should be "supported by our tax dollars" or that everyone "deserves their choices to be subsidized"? That is a straw man of your own making. Nobody is trying to take your money boys so relax.
It is truly amazing. One mention of how others are living in poverty and the reflex for some people is to check their wallets.
I posted this because I think it says something about our priorities as a community that we simply do not value the arts very much. Eh?
just one of the concerned, thanks for posting this article and link.
I personally think it's a huge damn shame that artists live in poverty and are subsidized (when they do manage to get a few meager grants) so badly. I say this as an artist-wanna-be.
Of course, even within the poor artist category, white men are at the top in terms of earners. (That's why I use the terms "institutionalized" and "systemic" oppression, btw).
I know a few writers and visual artists that live on grants. Some of them have partners with "regular" jobs. Some don't.
Here's some comparative stats from 2003. All dollars have been converted to Canadian dollars.
Canada: Pop. 33 million Spent on arts: $7.3 billion
US: Pop. 293 million Spent on arts: $116 million (yes, million)
Australia: Pop. 20 million Spent on arts: $4.9 billion
Austria: Pop. 8 million Spent on arts: $1.9 billion
Denmark: Pop. 5.4 million Spent on arts: $105 million
England: Pop 49 million Spent on arts: $1.2 billion
Finland: Pop. 5.2 million Spent on arts: $440 million
France: 61 million Spent on arts: $4.3 billion
http://www.giarts.org/usr_doc/VitalSigns.pdf
P.S. Tax cuts to businesses are government subsidies. So is corporate welfare and corporate bail-outs from the government. If we add up all the arts spending in a year it wouldn't come close to the handouts the corporations get for profiteering for a select privileged minority, poverty for millions, and destroying the planet. My advice is, if you don't appreciate the arts, and if you don't think artists should be properly subsidized, go away and watch "King of the Hill" already.
Yes, I'm very upset about the turn this discussion has taken. Nothing about "discussing labour issues from a worker point of view". More like dissing artists as people pretending to work and of all things claiming that rich people give more to society than people who create culture.
From the left viewpoint, I'd rather not see this discussion simply dissolved into the greater issue of basic social entitlement.
Artists contribute a great deal to societies and cultures, and deserve recognition.
As an artist who's art does not make enough to pay the bills, I'm offended by other artists who think that is anyone's problem other than their own. Nobody owes me anything.
I have another job that pays the bills, and I sell what I can on the side. If I have enough freelance work to quit the day job, I will. Why should I expect otherwise? An artist who lives in poverty does so by his/her own choosing.
I apologize if I took the thread off track, but I wanted to demonstrate that some people have a sense of entitlement and priviledge they so easily deny to others. Our entire lives are subsidized from start to finish in North America and Europe and most often at the cost of the global poor. And still those who benefit the most will stand and proclaim "I did it all myself".
That is okay, mess. What I wonder about are the rightwingers who join this board just to diss its outlook and sabotage posts. I don't mean sven, who is a longterm poster (much as I disagree with his world outlook), but the usual trolls who happen on with crap like "An artist who lives in poverty does so by his/her own choosing", or talk about his/her sister who is a bit of a poseur.
What I'm wondering is how to get this thread back on the rails in terms of support for working artists (no, I don't just mean grant money).
Oldgoat:
"Sven, I think your remark to Frustrated Mess was a bit beneath you. This is not a modetorial intervention, you're welcome to lower your own bar. Just sayin'..."
Sven and Mrs. Sven measure life itself by their tax rate, goat. He's only trying to get our goat in this world of "lefties".
As for his remark to FM being beneath him...he defines shallow materialism, but the poor bastard does not even understand that and so babbles forth.
Well, it's pretty clear that Sven joined this thread to a) mock people who take up art as a vocation, b) to boast about how much money he makes and c) to claim that as such he is entitled to dictate how artists make a living. I don't care how long he's been a poster here, personally. Such behaviour is despicable.
As for the question of making a living as an artist, it's a very difficult one, because art and capitalism are not exactly bedfellows. Already several posters have alluded to the number of people willing to 'buy' an artist's work as indicative of that artist's right to make a living. Historically, that's not how patronage works. Of course, right-wing critics will turn this problem into hyperbole and spin yarns about hardworking peeps earning keep to provide room, board and spending cash to pottery workers, but I would hope that sensible folk realize that it's a bit more complex than that.
Is Van Gogh a great artist because his paintings get a lot of money at auction? I predict someone will bring up Barnett Newman's Voice of Fire soon...
Here's some comparative stats from 2003. All dollars have been converted to Canadian dollars.
Canada: Pop. 33 million Spent on arts: $7.3 billion
US: Pop. 293 million Spent on arts: $116 million (yes, million)
This is a discussion about artists (including the sub-issue of government support of art). So, if you confidently toss out some numbers regarding government spending, then one would naturally think that those numbers would relate to government spending for art, no?
Well...
Let's take a mere 10-second look at the link regarding your $7.3 billion number for Canada versus your $116 million for the US.
For starters, not "[a]ll dollars have been converted to Canadian dollars". The 7.3 billion dollar figure is CN$ and the 116 million figure is US$. But, that's a relatively minor point.
More importantly, have you ever heard of the expression: "Compare apples to apples"?
The US$116 million figure (or CN$141 million) is national (federal) US funding for the art (through the NEA). So, applying the apples-to-apples principle, what does the Canadian federal government spend on art?
Well, looking at your link, total Canadian (federal and provincial) funding for "culture" is CN$7.3 billion. Of that amount, CN$3.4 billion was federal funding for "culture". Of that amount, only 7%, or CN$238 million, was federal funding for "art".
There's a monumental difference between your claimed CN$7.3 billion "spent on arts" and actual CN$238 million "spent on arts".
And, then, as to your "logical" equation that more government spending leads to more art and less government spending leads to "King of the Hill", then how is it even possible (t'would seem counter to the very laws of physics) for our Twin Cities, for example, to have a vibrant performance arts community? Take a look at this list. I would venture to guess that, for example, that per-capita theaters in the Twin Cities rivals, if not exceeds, per-capita theaters in T.O.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Mr. Sven:
"If you're working hard (or honestly trying to work) and literally can't put food on your table, I'll happily send you a cheque.
By the way, do you have any idea what percentage of working Canadians pay no federal income taxes? I'd be curious to know. Here, the percentage is about 36% (that was under Bush...and that percentage was a significant increase over his predecessor). But, that percentage is expected to rise to closer to 50% under Obama."
Yeah, the number of tax dodges assigned to the wealthy and their accountants by conservative administrations here have increased so that the, according to Derek DeCloet of the Globe, "The latest data from the Canada Revenue Agency show that nearly one-third of tax filers already pay no federal income tax...that's up from 18 per cent in the late 1960s"
Can't imagine the employment of such an insulting, ignorant bastard as yourself.
Okay. I see the thread "Canadian artists living in poverty - 43% earn less than $10,000" and think: So, artists don't make a lot of money. Not a surprise. But, does that mean there is a problem in search of a solution, particularly a government solution?
I don't think so.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Yeah, the number of tax dodges assigned to the wealthy and their accountants by conservative administrations here have increased so that the, according to Derek DeCloet of the Globe, "The latest data from the Canada Revenue Agency show that nearly one-third of tax filers already pay no federal income tax...that's up from 18 per cent in the late 1960s"
Can't imagine the employment of such an insulting, ignorant bastard as yourself.
In the U.S., 36% of all people with income pay ZERO federal income taxes and of those that pay zero federal income taxes, about 98% earn $40,000 or less.
My point in noting that is that there are vast swaths of people who contribute nothing to funding the federal government. A certain percentage of those people (the truly poor) should pay zero federal taxes.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
As for the question of making a living as an artist, it's a very difficult one, because art and capitalism are not exactly bedfellows. Already several posters have alluded to the number of people willing to 'buy' an artist's work as indicative of that artist's right to make a living. Historically, that's not how patronage works. Of course, right-wing critics will turn this problem into hyperbole and spin yarns about hardworking peeps earning keep to provide room, board and spending cash to pottery workers, but I would hope that sensible folk realize that it's a bit more complex than that.
Is Van Gogh a great artist because his paintings get a lot of money at auction? I predict someone will bring up Barnett Newman's Voice of Fire soon...
I wasn't going to bring it up but I did think about it. :D That one is still puzzling to me in terms of the high valuation put on it, though I will admit that it's piece that you really have to see first hand to get what it's all about. In person it's actually pretty durn cool and is much more then just three stripes.
I think though the points you bring up about the value of art being solely equated with the market pretty much hits on why these sorts of discussion are so difficult. Art is an area that doesn't play ball so to speak. To me the biggest problem is that art is really quite subjective so the discussions about get bogged down into 'good' art and 'bad' art which really in my mind is a discussion without any possibility of consensus or conclusion.
To me money as some sort of main indication of it's inherrent value is a very, very small part of it. I mean how many stories are out there about people who are now considered great artists and there works go for zillions and who were basically poor while living. I'd say the same could go for some art that right now that does make zillions. If we only used money to value it the someone like Thomas Kincaide, Painter of Light should be considered one of the greatest living artists of our time! My own subjective view on Kincaides work...that's just insanity. :D His stuff, personally, makes me nauseous.
Can we please turn this distasteful conversation away from how much tax we pay and back to how we can support artists living under the poverty line?
ETA: Thanks ElizaQ!
Thanks, Catchfire!
Oh, I wasn't excusing sven. Just pointing out the odd phenomenon of posters appearing out of the ether just to diss artists in the most hackneyed ways: "I know someone who claims to be an artist but just farts around, and wants a handout..."
I find sven's outlook on life rather sad, actually.
I think that is a great point. If government bureaucrats determined who is to be funded and who is not to be funded, then you have the government (of all entities!!) determining what is "good" art and what is "bad" art (or not "art" at all).
Governments have a difficult time handling thoroughly mundane problems like road potholes. How much more ill-equiped is the government to make subjective decisions regarding the quality of art.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Buy their art, of course.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Hey...whadda you know, another poster appearing out of the ether to be a...right wing troll.
I agree with bsenka,. I'm also a working artist who spent years working a day job and honing my skills so I could kiss that government position goodbye and make my living doing something I'd rather devote my time and effort to.
Sure I'd love it if I could just get paid from the public purse so i don't have to worry about actually getting out there and marketing my stuff. Just think, a paycheck every two weeks, benefits, EI eligibility, paid time off, Paradise !! and all I have to do is sit around at home and produce whatever I want.
Fortunately, I'm a realist who knows that the key to surviving as an artist is to give the public what they want and as a result I'm not sitting around bathing in my own egotistical delusions about what people should want from me and decrying a lack of an income from my art as being based on other peoples ignorance.
Maybe if the Op had submitted a commentary of where they expected this thread to g rather than simply posting a link, the "real" solution to this problem would have surfaced right away. Buy more local art.
Go ahead do it, today. Buy more local art.
Can we please turn this distasteful conversation away from how much tax we pay and back to how we can support artists living under the poverty line?
I have a few random thoughts. First I thought it interesting that the most immediate reactions by some is that whats in consideration is merely the government funding of individual artists, things like grants. To me thats very myopic. I don't know much about the grant systems we do have but overall I'm not against the idea. I don't personally think that everyone who considers themselves and 'artist' just should automatically get a grant to live on but to me that's really just a strawman as I'm not sure I've ever come across any serious proposal suggesting that what it means.
Supporting artists doesn't just need to be about grants. Where I live there is a pretty big artistic community. Through the work of the artists themselves through organized societies and co-ops along with government entities the arts community as a whole is promoted. There are studio tours promoted by the tourism board which give you a map and explanation about each artist. There seem to be shows pretty much every other week in the summer months, and even an art school which many local artists teach courses at. The arts and artists as a whole is promoted as a valuable part of the vitality of the area. Even generic highways signs point to studios. I don't know specifically how this translates into the individual incomes of each artist but considering that the whole thing seems to be growing year to year there must be some value to it. It's also quite common to have most public festivals to have a large arts componant that is actually promoted along with whatever ever the main theme of it is.
With all of this some compenant does come from government funding whether at the local, provincial or federal.
I remember the first serious piece of art that I ever purchased.
About 20 years ago, I was meandering around the "Four Corners" area of the American southwest principally looking at Native American art (I have a particular interest in Native American ceramics). I ran across a guy who had a tiny little shop alongside a highway and ended up spending a half day talking with him about his particualr ceramic art (he was a young artist, just getting his start, and had no other visitors the entire time I was there). I was captivated by his pottery. While he was just starting in his art, I was a student with, essentially, no money (you know, the ramen-noodles-on-a-hotplate kind of a lifestyle). I really wanted to buy one of the artist's pieces but the piece I was interested in was a bit over two grand. So, we struck a deal: He would give me the pottery and I would take it back with me home to Minnesota and then I would send him a check for $100 every month until the balance was paid (which is exactly what I did over the next two years).
Twenty years later, the artist is now very well-known and will sell some of his larger, highly complex pieces for $100,000 or more. Yet, of all the pieces of art that I have that I would not want to part with, regardless of the amount of money offered, is that ceramic piece (it would be among the last five things, art or otherwise, that I'd ever agree to part with).
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Sven,
I think you might have hit on a point which has to do with access. The studio tours that I mentioned are great, because you actually get to see and talk to the artist in an informal setting. A person might be a great artist but if no one sees it or has access to seeing it then they might as well be the worst artist in the world. I do think that there can be a place for things like government funding to help promote things like access. There is still onus on the individual when it comes to specifc marketing but the broader community can also benefit. In the case where I live people actually purposely travel to the community or region just for all of the art stuff.
My situation is a rural one and if it wasn't for the community promotion I wouldn't know that some people even exist. I had a similar experience last year. I found a guy through the toursim brochure and loved his stuff. There was no way I could afford to buy the painting outright so we struck a layaway deal. I'm almost done paying for it. It also works to his benefit because he knows a certain, though pretty small, amount of money will be coming in as well he gets to continue displaying the painting with a 'sold' sign on it. That in itself is a small bit of marketing for him. This would never have happened if I hadn't picked up the tourism brochure and been able to develop a person to person relationship.
I don't go to galleries any more when I'm off the coast because art is expensive and I'm living on a low fixed income. Even a very small framed nature painting by Brenda Carter a few years ago (at the gallery in Merrickville, just west of Kemptville, Ontario) goes for about four hundred bucks. which for me is a mortgage payment here. Luckilly there's two artists here n the coast who occasionally put brush to canvas and make their work available to the public two or three times a year, but ony one of the two works at their art full time. I can usually get a nice painting - unframed - from them for about $150 which is more my ability to pay.
When I go off the coast (not very often) sometimes I see an exhibition run by 'the starving artists group'. I don't know what to make of them - are they for real?
Sven,
I think you might have hit on a point which has to do with access. The studio tours that I mentioned are great, because you actually get to see and talk to the artist in an informal setting. A person might be a great artist but if no one sees it or has access to seeing it then they might as well be the worst artist in the world. I do think that there can be a place for things like government funding to help promote things like access. There is still onus on the individual when it comes to specifc marketing but the broader community can also benefit. In the case where I live people actually purposely travel to the community or region just for all of the art stuff.
My situation is a rural one and if it wasn't for the community promotion I wouldn't know that some people even exist. I had a similar experience last year. I found a guy through the toursim brochure and loved his stuff. There was no way I could afford to buy the painting outright so we struck a layaway deal. I'm almost done paying for it. It also works to his benefit because he knows a certain, though pretty small, amount of money will be coming in as well he gets to continue displaying the painting with a 'sold' sign on it. That in itself is a small bit of marketing for him.
Those are some great points, ElizaQ. Attending community-organized and community-promoted art festivals is one of my favorite pastimes. The city of St. Paul has an annual "Art Crawl" that takes people through a tour of the many (usually hidden) little art galleries in the downtown area (probably 90% or more of the galleries are not "shops"--they're just where the artists work). There are many community-promoted events like that around the Twin Cities. And, I think those events are great. Like you said, it gives unknown artists access to some publicity and then the artists...and their work...have to take it from there--and either sink or swim based on the appeal of their work).
By the way, here is an example of one of the piece of ceramic art produced by the artist I was referring to above. I would estiimate this piece to be maybe 30-35cm in height and, while the photo is not the best, it gives you a little indication of the intricate and detailed work that goes into his pieces (even the bottom of this piece is likely carved as well). It takes a lot of time to complete a piece like this (multiple firings, many slips, and much, much hand etching). My guess is that piece would sell for around $15,000 (maybe more).
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Hi ElizaQ
Excellent posts there, I was sort of expecting this thread to be about the how government *should* be directly supporting artist through programs like grants, but it went all Fidel, so I just ended up confused.
Here in BC there's a pretty significant infrastructure in place for artists to get out there ans show their works, all those artists have to do is access that infrastructure. Those highway signs are cheap to get, and there's some criteria as to operating hours in order to get one ( we don't want people who're just driving around following those signs to galleries that are only open one day a month ) There are inexpensive venues provided at festivals ( usually government funded ) there are community arts councils who'll bend over backwards to help an artist whose willing to work find a "suitable' venue. There's designated artist spaces in parks and public areas eg Stanley Park and Queen Elizabeth Park in Vancouver, the list goes on.
THE biggest problem that I've seen is a lack of marketing skills on the part of artists themselves. It's like some artists think that their art should just sell itself. That's a rare bird IMO, and maybe artists should pay more attention to the marketing issue than a lot of them do. Every successful ( as in not getting rich, like Bateman, but not eating grass and leaves ) I've run across has gotten a handle on promotion whether that be through directly marketing their stuff to the public ( meet the artist
) or finding an "effective" gallery space.
Cheers Sven, I can see why you're attached to that artist's work. Of course to be able to afford it and pay the artist for his/her time and skill, one does need to be in a high tax bracket. Unfortunately, I could only cough up for the cheap mass produced knock off.
One of my clients is an association promoting Aboriginal arts (visual, performance, musical etc) and they work a lot on promotion, diffusion, dissemination...
Not all artists have the personality to market their own work, and it is unfair to expect that of all of them. There are ways artists can join forces and hook up with those skilled at promotion and dissemination.
No, art certainly won't sell itself, but there are ways of supporting the promotion process.
It is also necessary to promote a culture that values the arts. A lot of people who will think nothing of buying electronic gadgets would never spend serious money on art.
Public spending on the arts doesn't just mean Canada Council type grants - there is also the concept of 1% of all new building projects - public and privates - being set aside by law for artwork.
Hi lagatta, yes, not all artists have the personality to market their work however there are people they can hire as agents do do that for them eg, galleries. Likewise, "shy" artists can hook up with more experienced artists under some sort of mentorship program should they choose to do so and got to marketing school, so to speak.
IMO, marketing should be a part of every art school's cirriculum with stress being put on just how important the topic is should an artist decide that he/she wants to make their living with their art. As far as i can tell, most art schools teach art, not how to make a living at as an artist and upon entering the "real" world of art as a profession, it can be like jumping into a bath of ice water.
Interestingly enough, I think the US has a culture that appreciates art moreso than Canada does. I'm just basing that on personal observations, nothing else. Aside..it took an American to teach me, a Canadian, that we have poetry on our money.
Ummmm yea, those electronic gadgets.. I'm still trying to figure out what I'd do with a personal GPS unit if I had one. I mean the advertising people tell me I need one, but they don't give me any reason to "need" one. I did, however, cough up for a PVR last December, so now those advertising people are ancient history.
I could get behind a law that requires new construction projects to devote a percentage of their budgets to public art. I'd want some conditions though, the main one being some sort of "guarantee' that the available funds will be accessible to new or emerging artists rather than just going to already established artists like university arts professors.
Once we get up into that realm, it becomes more about the artist's name and nepotism than it does about what the public wants to see as a reflection of their culture...IMO, again.
Excerpt from Mel Hurtig's god-awful Truth About Canada
Mel's appalling fact #4:
"For social spending as a percentage of Canada's GDP, Canada ranks 25th of the 30 OECD countries."
On the vanishing Canadian identity:
"Canadian performing arts have more revenue than all of our sports put together. This boggles most people's minds. All you have to do is open up the daily newspaper and see how many pages are devoted to sports, and how many to performing arts. Yet there are more jobs in Canadian cultural industries than in agriculture, mining, and forestry combined. Despite this, we're still not doing a good job of protecting Canada's cultural industry. Would you live next door to the world's most powerful culture-exporting country in the world, and then agree to sell-off major components of your cultural industry? Eighty-nine per cent of Canadians say the CBC helps distinguish Canada from the United States, but we decide to cut the CBC's budget by $400 million. This is no way to maintain the Canadian identity."
Mel's five steps to fix Canada: . . .
Welcome to the Northern Puerto Rico
Sven, the most successful civilizations in history have without exception supported the arts and sciences. That correlation should make you wonder if there's a cause and effect relationship, I'm hardly the biggest fan of the arts on this board, I'm into Hollywood comic-book movies and that sort of thing. However, whenever there's discussion about taxpayer funding of the arts, it's often "fiscal conservatives" railing against 0.07% of the budget going to the arts, or something like that.
I don't know the "true value" of art, but it seems like a low-risk, high-reward scenario, so why not?Sven, the most successful civilizations in history have without exception supported the arts and sciences.
Putting aside "science" (and leaving that for another thread), how have "the most successful civilizations in history" actually "supported" art? Are you saying that the governments of all of those civilizations funded art (and artists), akin to the National Endowment for the Arts in the U.S. or similar funding in Canada? If so, I hardly think that's the case. Have successful "societies" supported art? I don't know (so I won't argue that point) but much historical "support" for art was in the form of private patronage.
That correlation should make you wonder if there's a cause and effect relationship...
Causal in the sense that a society that supports art will be (or will, even, more likely be) a "successful" society? I don't think there's so definite a causal link. But, I will say that societies that support art are likely going to be more interesting and vibrant than they otherwise would be.
However, whenever there's discussion about taxpayer funding of the arts, it's often "fiscal conservatives" railing against 0.07% of the budget going to the arts, or something like that.
It's not whether the precentage is 0.07%, 0.7%, 7.0%, or 70.0%. The issue is: Should governments be funding art? I think ElizaQ made a very good point this past weekend regarding community promotion of local artists. But, whether a federal government should be spending any money funding artists in the form of grants or otherwise is questionable. At a minimum, such funding necessarily requires government bureaucrats to determine what art is "good" and what art is "not good" (or not "art" at all) or to determine which artists are "deserving" of funding and which artists are not. Governments are ill-equiped to make those kinds of subjective decisions.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Of course the faulty distinctions of this paragraph are ideological and without historical grounding. To dissolve them, we need only point to the powerful Medici family of Firenze, who provided a few popes, bankers and rulers (including one named Lorenzo) and sponsored perhaps the greatest artists the Western world has ever seen over a period of 400 years. Of course, Shakespeare, Spenser and Marlowe were given patronage by the Queen of England, and they ended up producing a few pretty good works (although I could skip the last 10 books of the Faerie Queene). Add Mozart, Handel, Bach and Beethoven to the list and the above quoted pasage begins to look quite foolish.
But this, again, perhaps misses the point. As if 'great art' is a result of how much money an artist may or may not be getting. We might as well draw a correlation between the lasting artistic merit of an artist's work and the income she received when she composed it, thus producing the conclusion that artists should be starved for their own benefit. But that will bring little solace to artists, I should say. The fact is that art results from a large number of cultural factors, and the ability to afford a litre of milk a week is hardly a key determinant. Indeed, the best eras of artistic production emerge from acommunity of artists who speak and truck with ach other their ideas, processes, drawbacks and successe. If this is anythign to go buy, the better we foster and support a community and collaboration of artists, the betterart we, as a nation, will produce.
Add Mozart, Handel, Bach and Beethoven to the list and the above quoted pasage begins to look quite foolish.
A king or queen or Pope making a decision to support or not support an artist is quite a different thing than society, collectively, saying, "We're going to spend tax dollars of everyone to support artists". Historically, I hardly think there was a conscious, collective decision by the members of society to "support" art. Individual royal or papal decisions to support artists is more analogous to individuals (today) making decisions to support or not support artists than it is to a government entity, such as the NEA, making such decisions.
As if 'great art' is a result of how much money an artist may or may not be getting.
I would simply counter that by saying: "As if "great art' can be divined by government bureaucrats or 'elite experts' (read, principally, as academics)". I think a handful of designated "experts" are no more likely to be able to determine which contemporary artists will create art of lasting value and importance than the art market can.
Indeed, the best eras of artistic production emerge from acommunity of artists who speak and truck with ach other their ideas, processes, drawbacks and successe. If this is anythign to go buy, the better we foster and support a community and collaboration of artists, the betterart we, as a nation, will produce.
There probably more than a little truth to that. And, that's why I think ElizaQ's comments about community-promotion of local artists are so appealing and make so much sense.
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
But, whether a federal government should be spending any money funding artists in the form of grants or otherwise is questionable. At a minimum, such funding necessarily requires government bureaucrats to determine what art is "good" and what art is "not good" (or not "art" at all) or to determine which artists are "deserving" of funding and which artists are not. Governments are ill-equiped to make those kinds of subjective decisions.
This is typical of neoliberal market fundamentalism. Democratically elected governments cant be trusted to interfere in what are supposed to intricately fine-tuned market affairs that could be responsive to people's needs if left its own devices. But capitalism has never worked well to satisfy human needs, only dollar-backed demand. And markets fail as is evident today and several times in the last 30 years. The shine is off market fundamentalism. All that's left is democratically elected governments and people to pick up the shattered test tubes of this second experiment for laissez-faire capitalism gone awry.
This is typical of neoliberal market fundamentalism. Democratically elected governments cant be trusted to interfere in what are supposed to intricately fine-tuned market affairs that could be responsive to people's needs if left its own devices. But capitalism has never worked well to satisfy human needs, only dollar-backed demand.
If, by "human needs," you're talking about helping people who are homeless or without food, I agree that capitalism isn't ideally suited to address "human needs". But, if, by "human needs," you're talking about determining which art is "good," which art is "bad," and which "art" isn't even art at all, then government bureaucrats are quite ill-suited to make such decisions.
Besides, if you were to completely remove art from the realm of "the market" and turn it over to the government entirely, there are obvious pitfalls to that, too. From a Reuters wire piece from last week:
Jorge "Papito" Serguera, who at the time was president of the Cuban Institute of Radio and Television, pulled Beatles music from the airwaves in the 1970s even though he later admitted he enjoyed listening to it in private [of course!!].
Serguera, who was 76 when he died, said in a 2001 interview he was following orders from high government officials who viewed the British band's music as a threat to the revolution.
Now, and I want to be very clear about this, I don't think anyone who has posted in this thread thus far (other than you, perhaps) is so anti-"market" that they would advocate ceding all control over art to the government. But, if a person is an anti-market purist, such as yourself, then that's the logical conclusion of pure anti-market reasoning (otherwise, of necessity, you'd have to concede that "the market" can actually play a valuable role in fostering art).
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
And with capitalism, works of the artistic masters generally arent recognized until after they are dead.
And with capitalism, works of the artistic masters generally arent recognized until after they are dead.
At least there is artistic freedom in democratic, capitalist societies. Although an artist shouldn't expect the government to pay for such endeavors, if an artist wanted to creat a "Piss Christ", for example, the artist is perfectly free to do so (unlike some countries within 90 miles of southern Florida, which shall remain unnamed, of course).
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I'd like to comment on the completely false notion that "governments, bureaucrats and academics" are the ones who "choose" which artists get funding, within the granting system.
Toronto, Ontario and Canada Arts Councils are known as "arm's length" organizations. They are funded by the various levels of governments but are run independently. Juries are selected which are made up of artists in the very field they're screening.
For writers there are stringent guidelines about not having your name on the writing that you've submitted, and you submit 6 copies, so the process is pretty vigorous. I've known a few published writers who've sat on juries and it sounds like a very thorough process. I will assume that visual art, music and other performing arts are similar.
And with capitalism, works of the artistic masters generally arent recognized until after they are dead.
At least there is artistic freedom in democratic, capitalist societies. Although an artist shouldn't expect the government to pay for such endeavors, if an artist wanted to creat a "Piss Christ", for example, the artist is perfectly free to do so (unlike some countries within 90 miles of southern Florida, which shall remain unnamed, of course).
The country is Cuba, and your government maintains a quasi embassy in the capital. And since gringos are not very friendly, Cubans erected a mural on the Malecon across the street from the US "interests section" for their artistic viewing pleasure and tribute to freedom-loving gringos everywhere
The country is Cuba, and your government maintains a quasi embassy in the capital. And since gringos are not very friendly, Cubans erected a mural on the Malecon across the street from the US "interests section" for their artistic viewing pleasure and tribute to freedom-loving gringos everywhere
This is obviously major thread drift, but it's an interesting sidebar.
So...
That's a nice deflection, Fidel, but I'm sure Cuba's government will always make space available for anti-American polical propaganda masquerading as "art".
However, that's not the real question (for you, Fidel). The pertinent question is: During the Castro reign, have artists been able to produce, publish, and sell whatever art (visual, music, film, performance, etc.) that they want to produce? The answer is obviously and indisputably "No". That government does not like free expression. And, that is precisely my point about ceding art decisions to a government (and foregoing entirely the hated "market").
So, my specific question to you (Fidel) is: Do you agree that "the market" can play an important role in fostering the development of art OR do you believe that "the market" adds nothing of value (or is affirmatively harmful) to fostering art and that total government control of art would be the ideal?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
However, that's not the real question (for you, Fidel). The pertinent question is: During the Castro reign, have artists been able to produce, publish, and sell whatever art (visual, music, film, performance, etc.) that they want to produce? The answer is obviously and indisputably "No".
That's true. Since the 1960's, Cuban exports to the US were embargoed by the vicious empire and are still prevented from entering the US, with the exception of Cuban vaccines for meningitis marketed by Glaxo and saving around 200 to 300 American children's lives annually - Cuban ball players and professional talent are also welcomed by US hypocrisy. But Americans are not allowed to import buy or sell Cuban products for the most part due to ongoing paternalism of US plutocracy over the years. You have no choice in the matter, Sven. Trust and obey, it's the only way.
That's true. Since the 1960's, Cuban exports to the US were embargoed by the vicious empire and are still prevented from entering the US, with the exception of Cuban vaccines for meningitis marketed by Glaxo and saving around 200 to 300 American children's lives annually - Cuban ball players and professional talent are also welcomed by US hypocrisy. But Americans are not allowed to import buy or sell Cuban products for the most part due to ongoing paternalism of US plutocracy over the years. You have no choice in the matter, Sven. Trust and obey, it's the only way.
Ah, what about art, Fidel?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Cuban Art on the Auction Block
HAVANA TIMES, Nov. 25.- Top Cuban art goes up on the auction block Wednesday November 26th in an annual event held at the landmark Hotel Nacional.
Subasta Habana, an online site which stages four yearly public auctions of Cuban Art, has 53 lots from 42 artists for this year’s event. . .
The auction took place for the first time in 2002, and has garnered followers and prestige over the years. Nonetheless, it still hasn’t been able to attract buyers from the US, without a doubt a very important market.
The reason is because the commercial restrictions imposed by the US Helms-Burton Act punish those who purchase or sell merchandise to or from the island. In theory, US citizens could take part in the auction, since the Berman Amendment “restricts the president’s authority to regulate, directly or indirectly, the importation or exportation of information or informational materials, regardless of the format or medium of transmission or whether the information or informational materials are for personal or commercial use.”
However, in practice very few US citizens attend, intimidated by the threat of reprisals from the US government.
So there you have it. Gringo plutocrats and the corporatocracy are not only afraid an idea, they are afraid of Cuban art as well.
If you knew you had the personal freedom to do so, would you buy Cuban art, Sven?
If you knew you had the personal freedom to do so, would you buy Cuban art, Sven?
You have a very diffult time answering simple and direct questions that make you uncomfortable, don't you, Fidel?
So, I'll answer that question as soon as you answer this question (posed to you above): Do you agree that "the market" can play an important role in fostering the development of art OR do you believe that "the market" adds nothing of value (or is affirmatively harmful) to fostering art and that total government control of art would be the ideal?
Fair enough?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
If you knew you had the personal freedom to do so, would you buy Cuban art, Sven?
You have a very diffult time answering simple and direct questions that make you uncomfortable, don't you, Fidel?
Not at all. I think it is you who doesnt appreciate your own government's anti-market decisions for the sake of waging ideological, economic and military warfare on tiny Latin American countries. Your ideologues say they promote freedom and democracy, but the truth is entirely something else.
As for your over-simplified question about markets, no. The US doesnt want free trade with any country in particular. But it does want to dominate other countries by hook or crook. The historical evidence is there to examine, if youre at all curious and interested, which I highly doubt.
Markets have existed for a long time, Sven. Way before the Dow-Jones, and well a Dutch East India Co. issued shares on the first Amsterdam stock exchange. And as is painfully evident for very many today, markets do fail.
Mr. Sven:
"You have a very diffult time answering simple and direct questions that make you uncomfortable, don't you, Fidel?"
----------------------------------------
The discomfort, Mr Sven, is caused by your tendency to take a picayune point and create a bloody endless stream of platitudes.
Wow: This thread drifted more than a log in the Fraser River.
Question: What are the primary sources of income for artists?
e.g. govt(Canada Council Grants), sales to public, patrons??
Wow: This thread drifted more than a log in the Fraser River.
Question: What are the primary sources of income for artists?
e.g. govt(Canada Council Grants), sales to public, patrons??
The primarly source of income for the typical artist? I would guess it's a second job.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Let me rephrase: primary source "as an artist"..i.e. not income independent of practicing art.