Conference kaosws::canada

    Equally p.o. taxpayer here too.  More and more I'm getting perturbed
    when those in the artistic scenes scream about the 'lack' of government
    funding.  Give me a break.  The country has some real problems right
    now, without the whining of these types.  I say (beginning to sound
    like SOAPBOX) that ALL funding of the arts should be curtailed.  I
    sometimes think that if its really worthwhile then a private citizen or
    corporation looking for brownie points, or possessing some altruistic
    tendencies will cough up some dough.  
    
    Reminds me of the 'art' that featured real meat tacked onto a mannequin
    and then allowed to rot while tens of thousands of people were lining
    up at food banks.
    
    This is money better spent elsewhere!!
    
    Doug

    Right, well lets do a little exercise in mathematics. For the moment,
    we'll assume that taxes fund the National Gallery 100%, Canada has
    a population of roughly 27 M, if we assume 1/2 of these pay income tax
    it works out to be about $0.13 per taxpayer, now if we assume that your
    in a higher tax bracket and therefore pay above average tax I'll give
    you the benefit of the doubt and send you a quarter by interoffice
    mail. Now, you go slop out the pigs with Felix Holtzmann and I'll go to
    the gallery (and pay fair admission) and look at my painting.
    
    By the same math someone out there owes me $740.00 for helicopters I
    don't think we need (actually, we need to replace the Sea Kings, but
    the EH-101 program is about the most wasteful possible way to go about
    doing it, lets say we bought an existing design and accepted a little
    less less Canadian content, even if that only saves us $1B thats still
    $148 someone who thinks the EH-101 is a good idea owes me, I'll give it
    to a worthy charity).
    
    Hell, for the money we could have saved in infrastructure if the GST was 
    a 5% sales tax instead of a 7% VAT we could buy this painting 100 times 
    over. Lets get our priorities straight here, arts and cultural spending 
    by Governments at all levels is, by percentage, almost immeasurably small.
     

    I agree, that painting could actually be resold at an auction and fetch
    2 million. Canadians seem to be nit-picking about small stuff now. 150K
    for Brians stuff wasn't very much. Now the NCC is going to have to go
    buy new furniture. This is all peanuts and is not a good example of
    government waste in my opinion.
    
    If we really wanted to save big $$$, let's cut back on our UN peace
    keeping expenses.
    
    Glenn

    I don't think we need a "good example" of government waste!
    Whether it's 2 million or 20 million being wasted, I don't 
    believe, should determine our 'nit-picking'.
    
    In this day in age, with all the need around us, I find it
    hard to imagine that anyone would condone spending $1.8 million
    on a painting.  Especially when that money is going right into
    the U.S.!  
    
    Perhaps i would feel differently, if we were doing this to make
    a profit.  Such as, sell it at an auction.  But for now, that
    money is tied up on a wall.
    
    That money is irrelevant because it's amount is comparatively small?
    Well, all the 'small' amounts probably add up to one very big one!
    
    I feel that the needs of the masses aren't being met.  But rather
    the needs of Jacqueline Holzman and the like.
    
    Makes me sick

    The cost of the arts is pretty small on a per capita basis, and often
    it is money well spent.  How many more people will visit the National
    Gallery to see what these people wasted their money on ?  Probably
    quite a few, thus taxing those who visit twice.  Although I cannot
    remember the source, it has often been found that cuts in arts
    spending during lean times helps destroy a country's emotional
    buoyancy.
    
    Such a vast amount on a single foreign piece of art does disturb me
    when other worthwhile institutions like the CBC are forever under the
    axe.  Yes, the CBC needs to become more lean, but spending on quality
    programming is important.  Local news in many areas was cut in the
    last CBC round ... would the sum spent on that painting have saved one?
    Possible.
    
    As so often, this painting was another in the class of wrong place,
    wrong time.
    
    Stuart
    

    I also agree spending on arts is capital for cultural identity, not
    that buying a US painter's work will help us in ours, but...it is a
    very small amount compared to the billions spent on defence (of
    what????) and on a bottomless deficit.
    
    	As to the 150K, I think the Mulroneys gave it back, but are going
    to leave the stuff in the house.  From what I understand, they did not
    even pay for the furniture and other things they tried to sell us.
    
    	Altough $150k is a small amount compared to the country's budget,
    it is indicative of the way the elected (and non-elected)
    representatives are filling their pockets as fast as they can before
    the money supply dries up.
    
    Jean
    
    PS If our money was being spent on arts, research and foreign aid
    INSTEAD of guns, there would be no deficit and no wars and full
    employment.
    

    As I understand it the mandate of the National Gallery is not to
    collect Canadian Artworks particularily but to collect, on behalf of
    Canadians, superior examples of artworks from around the world so that 
    we may have an opportunity to enjoy and educate ourselves. There are
    galleries who do have a primarily Canadian mandate (e.g. The McMicheal).
    Interestingly they have just received a large donation of significant
    Canadian modern art (from ICI) including several artists who have been
    influenced by the New York School and given it a uniquely Canadian
    twist (I'm thinking principally of Harold Town but there are others). 
    Having as a national resource examples of significant movements in art 
    history provides our artists with the background to move forward.
    
    Last year the National Gallery spent >$3M on an 17th century Italian
    painting. Didn't hear much complaining about all that money going to
    Italy did we? 
    
    As for the Mulroney's furniture the problem there is not the money, at
    least in my mind, but the fact that, contrary to the rules Mila took it
    upon herself to redecorate the public areas of the house. The real
    question that should be asked is why nobody at the N.C.C. put a stop to
    what virutally amounts to vandalism. I can't believe that we did not
    have an accurate inventory of what furniture was in the house prior to
    1984. Who knows what treasures left by previous prime ministers have
    been discarded or destroyed by the Mulroneys in favour of the tasteless
    garbage that Mila favoured. 
    
     
    
     

    Indeed, the mandate is not to focus on Canadiana ... but I think the
    objection is that in this time, does it make good *morale* sense to
    spend such sums outside Canada.  Yeah, it's a drop in the balance of
    payments ocean ... but ...
    
    One of the problems again is that there is high visibility at the
    moment to what appears to be profligate spending.  Modern art such as
    this piece and "Voice of Fire" give the impression of little artistic
    merit to a GREAT many people.  Buying a Rembrandt or a Monet or a
    Constable or a Kreichoff, in which more people *understand* the works
    to have artistic merit would go down a lot easier.
    
    Stuart

    >>Indeed, the mandate is not to focus on Canadiana ...
    
    No, it is not. And even so, what would be more "politically correct": 
    buying a Tom Thompson from a US collection or Jackson Pollock from a 
    Canadian source ?
    What about exiled, expatriated or displaced artists (Picasso, Da Vinci,
    Dix) ? no good for any "national" gallery ? 
     
    >>Modern art such as this piece and "Voice of Fire" give the impression 
    >>of little artistic merit to a GREAT many people.  
    
    Who says ? Did you run a poll ? 
    If I wanted to be cynical I would say that the proof is in the pudding:
    the works of Mark Rothko or Lawren Harris fetch prices which talk for
    themselves: the market decides, and usually the market is a good
    indicator of what "a GREAT many people" think.
    
    >>Buying a Rembrandt or a Monet or a Constable or a Kreichoff, in which 
    >>more people *understand* the works to have artistic merit would go down a 
    >>lot easier.
    
    Monet and his impressionist colleagues were thrown out of the mainstream
    exhibits and "salons" as their work was qualified of no artistic merit
    and themselved as perverts! They were so ostracised that they ended up 
    creating their own "Salon des Independants".
    
    Finally, we should be glad that the Gallery showed enough restraint to
    buy low-cost artists as Rothko or Harris. A Monet cost 10-15 time that
    price (some Van Gogh are in the 20-40 million range). There are no
    Rembrandt legally available for sale at the moment, but if there was any, 
    they would start were Van Gogh ends (40M+).       
    
    

    re. Mila's bad taste.
    
    From what I've seen of Mila, she has great taste and in my opinion
    she's a very nice lady. Best looking first lady I've ever seen.
    
    Glenn

    Re .9
    
    Louis,
    
    Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that this piece, or Voice of Fire,
    or any other piece doesn't have artistic merit.  I think the problem
    with this purchase is not so much what was purchased, but just the
    visibility of the piece and the timing of the purchase.
    
    When we are being taxed to death and there is no end in sight to
    increased taxation, you've got to wonder where the priorities are,
    and spending nearly 2 M$ on a single piece of artwork does make
    one scratch one's head.  I think we can all see things we'd prefer
    this spent on ... or even not spent at all ...
    
    Yes, it's only 13c per taxpayer ... but that's the problem isn't it ...
    all those 13c per taxpayer add up to the thousands of dollars we are
    taxed each year and have to pay in interest on the accumulated debt.
    
    Stuart
    
    

    I don't like taxes either, and I often question the use of my tax
    money. We could fill 100's of topics with describing situations where
    our taxes have been wasted, scammed, stolen, etc. on worse things than
    acquiring work of art and at a tune way over C$2 million/year.
    
    I am not in Ottawa and have not had an opportunity to visit the NAG,
    but I hope to visit it soon. Whenever I can, I like dropping by, 
    and browsing through the AGO or the McMichael and catch a glimpse at a
    Rothko or a Harris (they have them too, here). By the way, these places
    require admission fees, memberships and fundraising to survive, so your
    C$0.13 is not going that far, and I have to pay from my own pocket to
    satisfy my decadent tastes.