Conservatives v. The Arts


David Akin has a go at sorting out to what degree Stephen Harper truly despises theatregoers.

Therein, he wonders where a partisan twitterer has sourced a separate claim that a distinction must be made between funding for arts and funding for culture. James Bradshaw sorted through that question 11 months ago.


Conservatives v. The Arts

  1. Not to hijack your thread for shameless self promotion, but your humble colleague has done so as well.

  2. I guess one of the pitfalls of believing passionately in much smaller government is believing that one can manage all the details. The Conservatives have (perhaps) increased funding to the arts… but by continually getting involved in the negative news stories they give the opposite appearance.
    It is an interesting contrast to their law and order agenda. In quotes from Nicholson, Harper and others brought forward by Aaron last week, they clearly look past the statistics to sell their approach based on its emotional appeal; in the arts they look like Neanderthals but point at statistics in defence.
    Of course, both the arts and law&order approaches are dictated by the conservative core that wants criminals to pay, and certainly does not want queers frolicking on the street. What is most interesting is that with all the chances Harper has taken in efforts to get into majority territory, he hasn't stood up to the Christianists that hamstring his party.

  3. In a country with a population in the tens of millions and a federal operating budget in the hundreds of billions, any funding figures this government throws at us will sound huge. All economists know that. Oh, wait…

  4. I can't get past the fact that sports funding is in any way considered either "art" or "culture". Sure, hockey is our life's blood it appears, one thing Canadians from coast-to-coast-to-coast can enjoy and discuss together. But like Tim Hortons, hockey probably doesn't need the support of our tax dollars whereas other sports probably do need the helping hand. Like, say, fencing. I get that the Olympics are culturally important to us, and I get that fencing is an Olympic sport. But does that mean that fencing is culturally important to us? Because I think that's a stretch.

    I am generally supportive of funding for Olympic athletes, and therefore supportive of funding for possible future Olympic athletes. I just don't think it should come out of the "arts and culture" envelope. If the arts and culture envelope has to be a little less stuffed in order to fund a "sports" envelope, I can appreciate that–maybe because that would be the honest way of doing things. But don't tell me you have increased funding to the arts because the Olympics are coming up in Vancouver.

    • Certainly getting along with ones neighbours can be an artform and I was once told that fencing makes good neighbours… which kinda makes fencing an artform, no?