Byron draws a line: This public funding, however, comes with a whole host of problems. Art is often used to push existing boundaries, while taxpayers tend to like a low tax burden. Often, the combination is explosive-as demonstrated by the hullabaloo over the so-called "Piss Christ," a controversial work of photography partially funded by the National Endowment for the Arts in the U.S. Or take the current furor over an amendment to Bill C-10-which seeks to ban public funding for documentaries and other media projects that run contrary to public policy. Such self-righteous, moralistic and conservative opposition to sometimes legitimate works of art and points of view is an inherent problem that comes along with public funding-and one that could be avoided if there simply was no public funding.
Crystal cleans up what she started: Again, government investment in the arts is paid back through bigger-picture benefits. Statistics Canada noted that the $7.7-billion 2005 arts investment generated $40-billion and 600,000 jobs-this can only be seen on a macroeconomic scale. Public funding is not insular. It encourages private funding through creating institutions for mediation like the Canada Council for the Arts that solicit large private donors. Unless you are in an autocratic state, the even stronger censoring hand than policy is the firm guiding-and limiting-hand of the market. The atrocious, vaguely-worded 1984-type Bill C-10 would prevent questionably immoral art from being realized-but no public funding at all, and everything would be cut. Artists need to censor themselves and compromise their artistic vision in order to stay afloat in a purely market-driven arts exchange. I find appalling your suggestion that government censorship is just a de facto price for public funding. When the government funds the arts, it must do so in a manner consistent with the rights to free speech unchallenged in our constitution-this is why Bill C-10's proposed amendment is wrong.
Byron splashes paint everywhere like Pollock: Like humourist P.J. O'Rourke once said, when it comes to democracy, we're all just "a parliament of whores." Its not that I support government censorship. I merely find it inevitable that artists will push the boundaries on the public's dime and uptight citizens will crusade againist their tax dollars being used in such a way. The best-and only-solution to such a dilemma is to let the market take care of everything. Artists will always be able to find rich patrons and wealthy buyers-so let's put the public's money to better use.
2008 Woodie Awards
Be the first to comment on this story