I watched the ChrisTube vid and completely disagreed. That was the most pretentious artist v.s. general public "IQ graph" I have ever seen. It is not the governments responsibility to promote art. It is the ARTISTS. Does one trust such an establishment to promote cultural integrity via art? We all hear the grumblings of artists in the pubs,and shows about what is and isn't getting funding. All of us secretly thinking that "it should've been me". I know I get those thoughts. And I know others do. BUT... Art should always emerge from the sewers of society (I think anyway). When it gets to the point of one lecturing a $100 a plate function about how to get government involved with art production, isn't the sole purpose lost? Is that not sleeping with the enemy? Where Shamans overseeing the cave drawings? I sure hope not! Someone slap me on this. This topic is always one of my rant inducers.
I like that the cover has a life preserver, save us, save us, we're drowning!
I always think that these books serve as motivators and help with little tricks, although, if this guy is an artist, what is his motivation in showing the competition the tricks...hmmm.
Might be good though, worth taking a look. Thanks for posting!
I believe Chris Tyrell is now retired from the art world so my guess is that the book is more about sharing a life's worth of observing the Canadian art scene. The book may even fall into the category of "self-help" to some degree, I can't say I haven't read it yet -- the book's due out next week. The example chapters posted on his site seem aimed at those who want to "make a living" being a "Canadian" artist and not necessarily "a killing" in the art market -- or what I've always thought of as the winning-the-lottery school of financial planning. Whether or not government should fund arts is endlessly debatable. For many years I looked to Leni Riefenstahl as a classic example of why one shouldn't take money from a government. But, I also grew up on a small farm in rural Canada and without "insurance" programs and "stabilisation" funds for the lean years I doubt that my family would still be farming today. In music, CanCon regulations in broadcasting were were universally whinged at decades ago and yet Canadian recording artists and broadcasting are stronger now than they were the era preceding these policies. My view of "government" is that while often slow and not perfect, it's the reflection of the beliefs of the society which elects it. We are the government. Get out and vote. Generally we, as a social democracy in Canada, have voted for governments that legislate policies which support many other industries besides just the arts (medicine, agriculture, big oil, social welfare et al) directly (payments, loans and grants) or indirectly (tax incentives). The book is aimed at artists wanting to stay in Canada. There is a big neighbour to the south which run the alternative to our system (read: no system) for those who want a bigger pond to swim in...just watch out for the sharks. ~m
My argument (against Bluemasks comment) would be that there is no "sole purpose" for art. It has many reasons for its continued existence, including the social critique that Bluey suggests, but also a myriad of other things (decoration, tourism, communication, cultural preservation and growth, championing of old and new ideas, and the list goes on and on). I will get this book, both to have a good laugh, and maybe to help me apply for some much needed financial support.
Interesting... I know that I have obtained funding (as part of a group) a couple of times from government agencies, for recording music and producing videos. All of that money went to pay the people involved other than the band members, although we certainly did receive the benefit of being able to put our material "out there" for publicity's sake (the recordings were demos, and so didn't earn any financial benefits outright).
However, we soon turned away from that path. I don't know if it was a conscious decision, but I think a large part of it had to do with avoiding the red tape and paperwork, as well as the political in-group schmoozing involved, which I for one have never been good at whatsoever. Since then, I have come to see the utter unfairness of how the Canadian system operates, at least as far as the music side of things goes (I have no idea about visual arts funding).
There are two basic problems, as far as I see it. For one, much funding is done on a personal basis - that is, you get money because you know someone(s). Secondly, a great deal of funding depends on being able to demonstrate an ability and track record of being able to repay a required amount (they may not want all their money back, but they badly want what they ask you to pay back, and will hound you for years afterwards about it).
I think that both of these go against what I hope most people would see as the value in this type of funding, which would be to produce Great Art. Knowing people and being able to recoup money don't have anything to do with that (although one could make arguments about the money issue vis-a-vis popular music/art).
It would seem, then, that arts (or music, at least) funding does not achieve what many people probably feel it's intended purpose should be. This is entirely aside from the discussion of whether or not the production of Great Art is of intrinsic value, or something that should be funded by governments. My point is that the system we have fails at that, regardless of whether that is what we want it to do or not.
A Love for Art was a collaborative blog for visual artists, musicians, writers, and social scientists. This blog has evolved into a new blog called BETA, go check it out!
10 comments:
I watched the ChrisTube vid and completely disagreed. That was the most pretentious artist v.s. general public "IQ graph" I have ever seen. It is not the governments responsibility to promote art. It is the ARTISTS. Does one trust such an establishment to promote cultural integrity via art? We all hear the grumblings of artists in the pubs,and shows about what is and isn't getting funding. All of us secretly thinking that "it should've been me". I know I get those thoughts. And I know others do. BUT... Art should always emerge from the sewers of society (I think anyway). When it gets to the point of one lecturing a $100 a plate function about how to get government involved with art production, isn't the sole purpose lost? Is that not sleeping with the enemy? Where Shamans overseeing the cave drawings? I sure hope not! Someone slap me on this. This topic is always one of my rant inducers.
I like that the cover has a life preserver, save us, save us, we're drowning!
I always think that these books serve as motivators and help with little tricks, although, if this guy is an artist, what is his motivation in showing the competition the tricks...hmmm.
Might be good though, worth taking a look. Thanks for posting!
Yes. Regardless of my stance, thanks for posting! lol
I believe Chris Tyrell is now retired from the art world so my guess is that the book is more about sharing a life's worth of observing the Canadian art scene. The book may even fall into the category of "self-help" to some degree, I can't say I haven't read it yet -- the book's due out next week. The example chapters posted on his site seem aimed at those who want to "make a living" being a "Canadian" artist and not necessarily "a killing" in the art market -- or what I've always thought of as the winning-the-lottery school of financial planning.
Whether or not government should fund arts is endlessly debatable. For many years I looked to Leni Riefenstahl as a classic example of why one shouldn't take money from a government. But, I also grew up on a small farm in rural Canada and without "insurance" programs and "stabilisation" funds for the lean years I doubt that my family would still be farming today. In music, CanCon regulations in broadcasting were were universally whinged at decades ago and yet Canadian recording artists and broadcasting are stronger now than they were the era preceding these policies.
My view of "government" is that while often slow and not perfect, it's the reflection of the beliefs of the society which elects it. We are the government. Get out and vote. Generally we, as a social democracy in Canada, have voted for governments that legislate policies which support many other industries besides just the arts (medicine, agriculture, big oil, social welfare et al) directly (payments, loans and grants) or indirectly (tax incentives). The book is aimed at artists wanting to stay in Canada. There is a big neighbour to the south which run the alternative to our system (read: no system) for those who want a bigger pond to swim in...just watch out for the sharks.
~m
My argument (against Bluemasks comment) would be that there is no "sole purpose" for art. It has many reasons for its continued existence, including the social critique that Bluey suggests, but also a myriad of other things (decoration, tourism, communication, cultural preservation and growth, championing of old and new ideas, and the list goes on and on). I will get this book, both to have a good laugh, and maybe to help me apply for some much needed financial support.
Interesting... I know that I have obtained funding (as part of a group) a couple of times from government agencies, for recording music and producing videos. All of that money went to pay the people involved other than the band members, although we certainly did receive the benefit of being able to put our material "out there" for publicity's sake (the recordings were demos, and so didn't earn any financial benefits outright).
However, we soon turned away from that path. I don't know if it was a conscious decision, but I think a large part of it had to do with avoiding the red tape and paperwork, as well as the political in-group schmoozing involved, which I for one have never been good at whatsoever. Since then, I have come to see the utter unfairness of how the Canadian system operates, at least as far as the music side of things goes (I have no idea about visual arts funding).
There are two basic problems, as far as I see it. For one, much funding is done on a personal basis - that is, you get money because you know someone(s). Secondly, a great deal of funding depends on being able to demonstrate an ability and track record of being able to repay a required amount (they may not want all their money back, but they badly want what they ask you to pay back, and will hound you for years afterwards about it).
I think that both of these go against what I hope most people would see as the value in this type of funding, which would be to produce Great Art. Knowing people and being able to recoup money don't have anything to do with that (although one could make arguments about the money issue vis-a-vis popular music/art).
It would seem, then, that arts (or music, at least) funding does not achieve what many people probably feel it's intended purpose should be. This is entirely aside from the discussion of whether or not the production of Great Art is of intrinsic value, or something that should be funded by governments. My point is that the system we have fails at that, regardless of whether that is what we want it to do or not.
Just my two cents.
P.S. I'm sure the shamans were around when the cave painting was happening! Whether they were patrons or patronees, is another question...
I'm liking the term Great Art. I don't know what it means, but I'm really liking it!
perhaps I meant "pigment regulation" by the shamans lol
perhaps I meant "pigment regulation" by the shamans lol
Post a Comment