quote:

---

So if you spend quite a few bucks on the opera and the ballet, should you feel bad about depriving the NDP or worthwhile charities of a donation? Is auntie going to scold you?

---

quote:

---

Better to use your money to support the arts and the artists who make art than to use it to buy one more consumer product making some big corporation even richer.

---

And along with that, continue to support the party that at least has a chance of developing intelligent policies about our cultural industries - as in, the party that has some members who grasp that those industries cannot survive in Canada by sheer market economics alone.

I don't actually know how enlightened the NDP's cultural policies are, even how well developed they are. But I'm assuming that most dippers know that artists and the craft-workers who work in the arts ARE workers, mostly highly skilled but drastically underpaid, and further that they tend to be a politically enlightened bunch.

I think the writer is calling certain arts/art events elite primarily because of their cost. I doubt there would be any guilt over a free poetry reading, for example, or a free concert in the park. It's the cost that limits it to those who can afford it, and that is what makes it "elite".

Most arts require an audience. And not everyone who is part of that audience has any interest in actual performance. I love music. The last thing I want to do, though, is play it for others. I also love art galleries, but I'm no painter, don't even want to be. Whereas I may make and exhibit a film, but if I only have other filmmakers to show it to, that's an awfully limited audience and that would worry me silly. I'd also hate it if my audience were only the wealthy.

quote:

---

The fact that we call some of the arts "elite" or "high culture" is a problem, one we should probably take apart thread by thread.

---

I think the separation generally comes in the penetration a certain diversion enjoys into society. Many "elite" or "high culture" activities are considered such because they aren't a very common interest, whereas "low culture" has broad popular appeal. I frequently use both terms, and I consider each just as concerned with culture as the other, neither is superior to the other.

quote:

---

But I can't see that it is ever healthy politics to reject the work of people who were dedicated to something other than productivity'n'efficiency and who were willing to put their lives where their mouths were, which has been true of most artists and craft-workers.

---

quote:

---

Better to use your money to support the arts and the artists who make art than to use it to buy one more consumer product making some big corporation even richer.

---

quote:

---

Fourteen Rivers, I think that is a gross generalisation. Some of the "classic" works were very political indeed.
Moreover, it is important not to be too instrumental in our appreciation of the arts; being a political artist does not just mean producing propaganda. As for the Infringement Festival™, a lot of it was self-indulgent rubbish.

---

"Were" is the operative word there Lags - they are now co-opted and impotent fluff in most cases. Perhaps you'd like to argue otherwise, so please feel free to point out your examples. As for the so-called "self-indulgent rubbish", again please feel free to criticize. Unlike the Opera Houses and Ballet Theatres (which in my view are full of "self-indulgent rubbish"), the iF allows any artist to play, regardless of their contribution. It is a case of corporate arts versus arts democracy - all I am saying is that the writer should try and support both.

[ 21 February 2006: Message edited by: FourteenRivers ]

quote:

---

FourteenRivers, it disappoints me that you cannot make a series of distinctions - among the work of art itself, the artists who may bring it to life (in the case of the performing arts), the corporate structure required to sustain some of the arts (not just the performing arts but also, eg, sculpture, architecture, etc), and the patrons who are also needed to sustain many of the arts (not least of them in this country - the government).

---

I can make the distinctions. Perhaps youy can tell me of one ballet or opera in Canada or the Western world that isn't highly corporatized?

Let's face it, there really isn't much! Here's one on the ballet:

quote:

---

Mattel, the makers of Barbie dolls, are to sponsor the English National Ballet's production of The Nutcracker.
The six-week run at the Coliseum Theatre in London will coincide with the release of the first Barbie movie on 29 October, Barbie in the Nutcracker.

The world-famous doll is seen dancing The Nutcracker in the computer-animated film.

Mattel said the £85,000 sponsorship deal, due to be officially announced on Tuesday, was designed to encourage young girls to become more interested in ballet.

---

And let's not forget about the opera - this one in New Zealand, including the Opera House itself, is named after "The National Business Review".

A solid cultural grounding is a very important resource for art that is "against" - as we have certainly observed in the former Czechoslovakia, for example.

But Fourteen Rivers, how exactly do you propose that these utterly pure artists live? "The people" - if you mean the poorest strata of the working class and underclass - don't have the money to support us, and quite rightly they have other priorities, such as proper food, and yes, a brew or two (why not?)

Moreover, I strongly disagree that artworks of the past are somehow irrelevant to today's issues. That is an ahistorical outlook that is ... as corporate as it comes.

Tomorrow People
David "Ziggy" Marley

Tomorrow people, where is your past?
Tomorrow people, how long will you last?
Tomorrow people, where is your past?
Tomorrow people, how long will you last?

Today you say you deyah
Tomorrow you say you're gone
But you're gone so long
If there is no love in your heart - so sorry
Then there is no hope for you - true, true

Tomorrow people, where is your past?
Tomorrow people, how long will you last?
Tomorrow people, where is your past?
Tomorrow people, how long will you last?

So you're in the air
But you still don't have a thing to spare
You're flying high
While we're on the low o-o-oh

Tomorrow people, where is your past?
Tomorrow people, how long will you last? Tell me now
Tomorrow people, where is your past? No where
Tomorrow people, how long will you last? Ten years!

Stop tellin' me the same story
Today you say you deyah
Tomorrow you say you're gone and you're not coming back
If there is no love in your heart oh now
There will never be hope for you

Tomorrow people, where is your past?
Tomorrow people, how long will you last? Ten years!
Tomorrow people, where is your past?
Tomorrow people, tomorrow people, come on
Tomorrow people, tomorrow people, come on
Tomorrow people, tomorrow people, no soon come
Tomorrow people, tomorrow people, soon come
Tomorrow people, tomorrow people, today is here

If you don't know your past, you don't know your future
Everyone
Don't know your past, don't know your future everyman
Don't know your past, don't know your future, come on
Don't know your past, don't know your future

quote:

---

But Fourteen Rivers, how exactly do you propose that these utterly pure artists live? "The people" - if you mean the poorest strata of the working class and underclass - don't have the money to support us, and quite rightly they have other priorities, such as proper food, and yes, a brew or two (why not?)

Moreover, I strongly disagree that artworks of the past are somehow irrelevant to today's issues. That is an ahistorical outlook that is ... as corporate as it comes.

---

1. By "the people" I mean any person who wants to create or witness the arts in a non-corporate environment. The money in this sort of fest comes from ticket sales, which the artist keeps 100%. There are also ethical sponsors, fundraisers, etc. to help pay for costs. It is a different system from the corporate one, an entirely new model based on the needs of the artists and community versus those of the corporations. Here the artists can be as critical as they like, whereas I don't think we'll be seeing that corporate opera in New Zealand doing any anti-capitalist musicals in the future.

quote:

---

1. By "the people" I mean any person who wants to create or witness the arts in a non-corporate environment. The money in this sort of fest comes from ticket sales, which the artist keeps 100%. There are also ethical sponsors, fundraisers, etc. to help pay for costs. It is a different system from the corporate one, an entirely new model based on the needs of the artists and community versus those of the corporations. Here the artists can be as critical as they like, whereas I don't think we'll be seeing that corporate opera in New Zealand doing any anti-capitalist musicals in the future.

---

Clearly you don't understand how expensive some forms of art are to produce. Speaking locally, the Edmonton Opera company operates with funding from ticket sales, fundraisers, private donations, corporate donations, and governmental subsidies. The corporate donations are probably the largest portion of that, but you're talking about using funding sources that are already maxed out to compensate for losing a very very large source of funding. Ticket prices would have to be ridiculously expensive to support an opera company, or a ballet company, or an orchestra.

quote:

---

2. artworks of the past can certainly be seen as relevant to today, especially if put under the microscopes of postcolonialism, feminism, historiocity, etc. Re-interpretation and deconstruction can bring new light to these relics. It is not "ahistorical" to criticise co-opted traditional "classics" nor their corporate re-enactors. It is merely pointing out that there is a lot more to art, especially for an activist like the Writer, than meets the eye in the officially-sanctioned corporate arts milieu.

---

But seriously, while I may have made up the reasons for the horse hair shirt and self flagellation, I don't think there's anything wrong with indulging in the opera or symphony. I don't consider them "elite". Beethoven, Rossini, Vivaldi, those guys rock big time.

I really do want to see the 5th or the 9th preformed live. Heck, I'd settle for the 6th.

I wonder if "Enjoying both sides" is confusing such events with conspicuous consumption. Seeing the opera is okay, it's art, just like the Ramones.

Seeing it in a $50,000 dress with a diamond over the nipple isn't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raos:
Speaking locally, the Edmonton Opera company operates with funding from ticket sales, fundraisers, private donations, corporate donations, and governmental subsidies. The corporate donations are probably the largest portion of that, but you're talking about using funding sources that are already maxed out to compensate for losing a very very large source of funding. Ticket prices would have to be ridiculously expensive to support an opera company, or a ballet company, or an orchestra.

---

I think that funding from ticket sales, fundraisers, private donations and corporate donations (which, as you say, represent the bulk of the non-ticket support) are all great. Government subsidies, on the other hand, are questionable.

Public radio (though not really an art, elite or otherwise) in Minnesota is tremendously healthy (it has the largest public radio membership in the country and has great corporate support). My only objection is that they have their hand out to the state government for funding, too. That’s what I object to. Same concept for the arts, in my opinion.

quote:

---

I think that funding from ticket sales, fundraisers, private donations and corporate donations (which, as you say, represent the bulk of the non-ticket support) are all great. Government subsidies, on the other hand, are questionable.

Public radio (though not really an art, elite or otherwise) in Minnesota is tremendously healthy (it has the largest public radio membership in the country and has great corporate support). My only objection is that they have their hand out to the state government for funding, too. That’s what I object to. Same concept for the arts, in my opinion.

So, I agree that ticket sales are insufficient to support many of the arts. But, I think the funding should be privately based, not from the government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
That is not anti-corporate; it would mean making it even harder for full-time artists to make a very modest living.

---

For example, this:

quote:

---

That money should be divided more evenly amongst every day Canadians, who should be encouraged to do some art or performance.

---

quote:

---

strikes me as populism disguised as democracy. It means artists' studies and years of practice are worthless. I'm not setting "artists" up as some exalted beings - I feel the same about all craftworkers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
I dunno. Very difficult discussion, though a few that have touched on it expressed the idea that aesthetic sense was utterly subjective.

---

And why shouldn't the government support the arts? I'd rather it was them than a corporation.

Sure, professional artists make more than a starving artist, but guess what. Take any major orchestra. I'll bet a significant portion of them have a masters degree in music. How about the performers in an opera company. I'd bet they're all more educated than you'd expect, too.

quote:

---

So, even when we're not talking about "elite" art (symphony orchestras, the opera, etc.), art in general, to many people, appears elite because it is either not understood or it feels inaccessible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raos:
So now you're for corporate funding, as long as the government has no hand in it? How about you make up your mind.

---

quote:

---

Creating an artist-friendly environment is far more important than subsidizing corporate fluff.

---

quote:

---

And just because you don't get anything from opera, ballet and other "high art", doesn't mean it doesn't hold a message for other people, or has to have a message all the time. Do all forms of "low art" always have a message? And who are you to choose what messages are deserving of financial support?

---

But I will be waiting for your proof that "high art" is nothing more than a corporate spectacle.

[ 22 February 2006: Message edited by: Raos ]

I love art too.And also architecture,antiques, classical music.

And Sven is Stephen Harper not in disguise.

Really, FR's argument comes very close to Harper's current plan for daycare rebates - right-wing populism dressed up as a "democratic" measure. Ptui.

It is very much in the interest of the corporate elites to keep education in the arts - as in the humanities, especially history - a preserve of the elites, as lagatta's quotation from Ziggy Marley above very aptly says. The more public money you drain away from any institution, the more likely that the decisions of that institution are going to be directed by corporate forces, or the big players in the market.

There was an interesting review a few days ago in the G&M of a TSO program devoted to some late works of the great modern composer Dimitri Shostakovich, works that are considered difficult and still not absorbed into the predictability of the mainstream. The reviewer remarked on how interesting it was to observe the audience: most of the expensive seats, where bejewelled subscribers normally sit, were empty for the first half of the performance, while the middle sections of the audience were partly full - and up in "the gods," where the impoverished students sit, the place was packed. At intermission, our reviewer told us, the serious students began creeping down to the empty, better seats. And apparently the interaction between that obviously highly committed audience and the conductor and orchestra was intense - the performances were great, and the students erupted with enthusiastic applause at the end.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

There was an interesting review a few days ago in the G&M of a TSO program devoted to some late works of the great modern composer Dimitri Shostakovich, works that are considered difficult and still not absorbed into the predictability of the mainstream. The reviewer remarked on how interesting it was to observe the audience: most of the expensive seats, where bejewelled subscribers normally sit, were empty for the first half of the performance, while the middle sections of the audience were partly full - and up in "the gods," where the impoverished students sit, the place was packed. At intermission, our reviewer told us, the serious students began creeping down to the empty, better seats. And apparently the interaction between that obviously highly committed audience and the conductor and orchestra was intense - the performances were great, and the students erupted with enthusiastic applause at the end.

---

My boyfriend in highschool was a very serious music student. We'd buy student cheapie nosebleed seats in the gods of Massey Hall. During the first half, we'd scope out better seats below. In the intermission we'd move. The ushers not only didn't care, they aided and abetted us.

Also the opera company used to sell a limited number rush seats at like 11 a.m. on a weekday, figuring, I guess, that only students and pensioners would have the time to line up. Twas true. The people in line were under 25 or over 60. I don't think they do this anymore.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

... and the blindness of uninformed populist attacks on the genuine potential of great art to enrich lives, everyone's life, if only we can be given the chance.

---

In my travel plan for the future,an opera and a symphony concert will be included whatever the cost.

Considering the logistics of moving a symphony orchestra or opera company are prohibitively expensive,exposure to the arts are limited for the peasantry.

Nevertheless,I consider the spending of millions of taxdollars to allow those in smaller centers the opportunity to experience these arts to be money well spent.

quote:

---

Please provide evidence that opera is a corporate spectacle, or "reality advertising".

---

Evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

In my travel plan for the future,an opera and a symphony concert will be included whatever the cost.

Considering the logistics of moving a symphony orchestra or opera company are prohibitively expensive,exposure to the arts are limited for the peasantry.

Nevertheless,I consider the spending of millions of taxdollars to allow those in smaller centers the opportunity to experience these arts to be money well spent.

I consider Monet or Emily Carr an artist and the creator of the stripe a housepainter.Does holding this opinion condemn me as a blind uninformed populist?

---

I never follow this argument at all.

Your personal opinions about individual works of art are your personal opinions and you are welcome to them. That doesn't give us much of a start on public policy, though.

Where I might partly agree with FR: I don't consider "art" to consist only of masterpieces, and few artists or serious students of the arts ever have. For one thing, we don't usually know we've got a masterpiece until some years after it has been produced, so if we're talking about public policy to promote the arts, we would be expecting clairvoyance on the part of policy-makers or -implementers if we asked them only to encourage the makers of masterpieces.

To most artists, their work is part of a living stream of works in which they swim. Minor or experimental or even failed works are often as useful to artists or students as are the masterpieces.

So smart-mouth snarking about one or another piece that isn't immediately accessible to 100 per cent of the population is just that, IMHO: smart-mouth snarking, also not very useful in deciding public policy.

Gee...I use expressions such as "peasantry" as self-depreciating humour.I spose it refects a certain insecurity to communicate in the idiom of my peers.I try to improve my writing skills and your response gives me food for thought.

I know I don't have much knowledge in the arts but I try to learn.I honestly posted my opinions,in a desire to participate even though the level of discourse is beyond me.

Perhaps there would be fewer blind uninformed populists if people such as yourself who have the ability to share knowledge of the arts with those that don't,actually engaged in a dialogue rather than condescending into bafflegab about public policy.

And I certainly wouldn't be the person to educate anyone into liking it - I don't get much out of it m'self.

But many people do, people who know the tradition I don't, so I accept that. I don't snark at them. I don't fully understand why so many people do.

I don't feel put down just because I don't know everything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
jester, I have no problem with your opinion of Voice of Fire. Like it; don't like it; up to you....

...I don't feel put down just because I don't know everything.

For pity's sake. You're the one trying to make other people feel awful.

---

I am not trying to do anything to make other people feel awful.

I am a very direct and no-nonsense person.I don't feel put down in the least.I do however feel that attempting to increase my understanding of art involves interaction with those who willing to challenge the concepts of blind,uninformed populists.

I am also aware that I do not communicate well and use self depreciating humour to soften my hard edges.I'm being honest rather than manipulative.I'm sorry if I offend,it is not my intention to be snarky.

Urbanites with access to various forms of art debate whether a $100 expenditure on a ticket is extravagant but in my case,it requires the outlay of thousands of dollars

I am attempting to ascertain in the context of this thread whether guilt is relevant to a willingness to spend a great deal of money in order to experience art.

Also whether guilt should be involved in an opinion that Voices of Fire is crap. Guilt due to an opinion formed merely because of the huge price paid for it.

I am forthcoming in my opinion even though it is based solely on its price.Is it such an awful question to ask others for their opinion?

Perhaps it is conceptual and the whole point of the piece is to encourage dicussion of whether it is crap or not.

Is considering Voices of Fire a piece of crap really a guilty pleasure?

The intellectual arty community is rather limited in Podunck so I ask here.What's wrong with that?

Am I a blind uninformed populist and if I am, why?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

I am not trying to do anything to make other people feel awful.

I am a very direct and no-nonsense person.I don't feel put down in the least.I do however feel that attempting to increase my understanding of art involves interaction with those who willing to challenge the concepts of blind,uninformed populists.

I am also aware that I do not communicate well and use self depreciating humour to soften my hard edges.I'm being honest rather than manipulative.I'm sorry if I offend,it is not my intention to be snarky.

Urbanites with access to various forms of art debate whether a $100 expenditure on a ticket is extravagant but in my case,it requires the outlay of thousands of dollars

I am attempting to ascertain in the context of this thread whether guilt is relevant to a willingness to spend a great deal of money in order to experience art.

Also whether guilt should be involved in an opinion that Voices of Fire is crap. Guilt due to an opinion formed merely because of the huge price paid for it.

I am forthcoming in my opinion even though it is based solely on its price.Is it such an awful question to ask others for their opinion?

Perhaps it is conceptual and the whole point of the piece is to encourage dicussion of whether it is crap or not.

Is considering Voices of Fire a piece of crap really a guilty pleasure?

The intellectual arty community is rather limited in Podunck so I ask here.What's wrong with that?

Am I a blind uninformed populist and if I am, why?

.

---

jester, I have already said that there is nothing wrong, and could never be anything "wrong," with your opinion about Voice of Fire. Mine probably isn't much different, but I haven't spent much time thinking about Barnett Newman and his circle, I must admit.

I was interested in thinking about public policy, about public support for the arts, and in that context I don't expect my opinions to rule all the time. I don't know everything, and am happy to say so.

quote:

---

Who wouldn't want to see The Phantom of the Opera or Les Miz when visiting a tourist centre like NYC or Toronto?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

jester, I have already said that there is nothing wrong, and could never be anything "wrong," with your opinion about Voice of Fire. Mine probably isn't much different, but I haven't spent much time thinking about Barnett Newman and his circle, I must admit.

I was interested in thinking about public policy, about public support for the arts, and in that context I don't expect my opinions to rule all the time. I don't know everything, and am happy to say so.

I also have never said anything mean about where you live, and I wouldn't. I come from Medicine Hat and am damned proud of it. I don't know why you are so defensive, or why you are making all the assumptions about rich "urbanites" that you are. I happen to be a penniless widow, and for the last two years an orphan too, so put that in your pipe and smoke it. If you're coming to a metropolis every once in a while and going to the symphony, you're probably doing that more often than I am.

---

Whoa there.Skdadl,I am not being critical of urbanites or anyone else,certainly not you.Please don't take any of this personally and also excuse my blundering.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
Is considering Voices of Fire a piece of crap really a guilty pleasure?

---

quote:

---

There was an interesting review a few days ago in the G&M of a TSO program devoted to some late works of the great modern composer Dimitri Shostakovich, works that are considered difficult and still not absorbed into the predictability of the mainstream. The reviewer remarked on how interesting it was to observe the audience: most of the expensive seats, where bejewelled subscribers normally sit, were empty for the first half of the performance, while the middle sections of the audience were partly full - and up in "the gods," where the impoverished students sit, the place was packed. At intermission, our reviewer told us, the serious students began creeping down to the empty, better seats. And apparently the interaction between that obviously highly committed audience and the conductor and orchestra was intense - the performances were great, and the students erupted with enthusiastic applause at the end.

---

Oh, I love Shostakovich. Sounds like it would have been a fantastic experience.

quote:

---

Also the opera company used to sell a limited number rush seats at like 11 a.m. on a weekday, figuring, I guess, that only students and pensioners would have the time to line up. Twas true. The people in line were under 25 or over 60. I don't think they do this anymore.

---

Actually, the Edmonton Opera's Explorer's Club is kind of like that. You get tickets for cheap, but you can only buy them and hour and a half before the show starts, but you get the best seats available in the house at the time (plus, if you go to a tuesday or thursday show, you get two free pieces of pizza and a glass of beer during the first intermission). Membership is $40, and then the tickets are $20, and you can get two per show, plus a free ticket. If you share the subscription between two people, it averages to about $25 per person per show, which is ridiculously cheap, especially considering the seats you get. So far this season, I've sat in the 2 most expensive sections, with subscription prices for 3 operas of $237.30 ($79.10/show), and $267.30 ($89.10/show).

quote:

---

Evidence.

---

Oh, bravo. And shall we damn those pesky corporate puppets cavorting as charities, like UNICEF with the same broad brush-stroke, or are any artistic companies that receive corporate donations enough for now?

quote:

---

How expensive are operas and symphonies? I've always assumed they're about the same as a typical rock concert ... about $25. Hardly elite by most standards (considering the number of folks who jam rock concerts).

---

It mostly depends on where you sit. For the Edmonton Opera, the only company I've had the opportunity to see, tickets range from $22.00 (for students/seniors, cheaper nights, at the back of the second balcony) to $115.25 (regular adult rate, opening night, best seats on main terrace).

quote:

---

I like the idea of the government supporting a large number of small galleries (and artists) throughout the country rather than putting a lot of money in a few big galleries (which tend to be in Ottawa from what I can tell ). This might go a long way to getting rid of the populist criticism of gov't support as well - its easier to attack galleries thousands of miles away than one your kids are taken to on field trips.

---

I certainly hope that they already do fund smaller galleries in addition to large national centers. The Galleries in Ottawa and/or Toronto could be the best in the world, but that still excludes a lot of Canadians in regional access to them.

quote:

---

When I was growing up in Ottawa, I visited the old National Gallery on Elgin every Sunday afternoon - it was a ritual for me. Some great stuff. I liked it all. Some of the modern art I liked less because it was so boring - the Campbell's Soup stuff, the service station from the 1950's, I though the artists were pulling our legs, and getting paid handsomely for it. What the hey. It's all art, even if it doesn't appeal to everyone. I try to get to the new National Gallery 9and others) as often as I can (not often enough since I retired).

---

Yah, I take a walk through the U of A's FAB gallery whenever they have a new show. I find modern art really polarizes my response. I either really like it, or really dislike, very seldomly in the middle.

quote:

---

People enjoy different art forms. Telling them (us) what is appropriate to enjoy and what is 'corporate' or 'elite' is absurd and offensive.

---

Thank you, arborman! I've felt like I'm beating my head against a brick wall, trying to say that.

quote:

---

Um, have you actually seen it, for a while, up close? It's actually a very breathtaking piece of work. I love the Nat Gallery, and this piece, as much as it might cost as a historical work, is truly moving.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by retread:
How expensive are operas and symphonies? I've always assumed they're about the same as a typical rock concert ... about $25. Hardly elite by most standards (considering the number of folks who jam rock concerts).

---

quote:

---

People enjoy different art forms. Telling them (us) what is appropriate to enjoy and what is 'corporate' or 'elite' is absurd and offensive.

---

C'mon, you can't really stand by that statement, can you? If it is corporate it is evident in the "corporate sponsors" section, or if it features Barbie as the lead role or is named after a financial group. "Elitism" is a different cup of tea altogether - IMHO it doesn't exist any more. Most of the "elite" arts were co-opted a long time ago, so now the subscriber is basically digesting corporate schlock. Can we at least agree to differentiate which arts are corporate and which aren't?

[ 22 February 2006: Message edited by: FourteenRivers ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:

It's sadly been some time since a typical rock concert was $25, except in smaller venues. Opera and symphony are at least as expensive. Canadian Opera Company tickets run from $40 to $175. Toronto Symphony tickets are $34 to $115.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
Um, have you actually seen it, for a while, up close? It's actually a very breathtaking piece of work. I love the Nat Gallery, and this piece, as much as it might cost as a historical work, is truly moving. If all one knows of it is what is talked about by those who havn't stood in front of it and opened their minds a little, should just stay at home and drink beer in front of a reprint of dogs playing pool and tell their friends for the thousandth time how 'they may not know much about art but they know what they like'.

---

Ahhh...you must have Podunck in mind. Except that the Closet of Commerce activities room has an Elvis on velvet rather than dogs playing pool.

My cultural tastes are eclectic and most of my peers consider me a bit weird due to an afinity for opera and military bands,especially pipebands.It is difficult to appreciate many forms of art when there is noone to discuss it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FourteenRivers:

C'mon, you can't really stand by that statement, can you? If it is corporate it is evident in the "corporate sponsors" section, or if it features Barbie as the lead role or is named after a financial group. "Elitism" is a different cup of tea altogether - IMHO it doesn't exist any more. Most of the "elite" arts were co-opted a long time ago, so now the subscriber is basically digesting corporate schlock. Can we at least agree to differentiate which arts are corporate and which aren't?

[ 22 February 2006: Message edited by: FourteenRivers ]

---

I dunno.If I have the opportunity to attend a performance,having to shake hands with Ronald MacDonald is a small price to pay.

quote:

---

Oh, make no mistake, I am highly interested in opera, ballet, musical theatre, etc. Who wouldn't want to see The Phantom of the Opera or Les Miz when visiting a tourist centre like NYC or Toronto?

---

People with taste.

Every spring the local opera society puts on one production here. Amateurs, and the odd pro, perform works such as "Carmen" and "The Marriage of Figaro" in a high school auditorium.

Mme. Bong and I make it out to about one ballet a year as well. We hardly feel elitist going to these shows.

Over the holidays we had friends over, and the conversation eventually got around to music. The others talked about the musicians they had seen at the Calgary Folk Festival, and the rock concerts they had attended in Seattle and Vancouver, etc. I didn't even know who they were talking about, and I used to have a pretty good grasp of whatever was current in most genres of pop music.

Me and the Missus looked at each other, sorta shrugged in ignorance, and muttered something about seeing "Swan Lake" by the National Ballet.

[ 23 February 2006: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

quote:

---

C'mon, you can't really stand by that statement, can you? If it is corporate it is evident in the "corporate sponsors" section, or if it features Barbie as the lead role or is named after a financial group. "Elitism" is a different cup of tea altogether - IMHO it doesn't exist any more. Most of the "elite" arts were co-opted a long time ago, so now the subscriber is basically digesting corporate schlock. Can we at least agree to differentiate which arts are corporate and which aren't?

---

Due to your rather insane notion of what constitutions "corporate schlock", I don't think there will be any agreement on the matter.

quote:

---

It is very much in the interest of the corporate elites to keep education in the arts - as in the humanities, especially history - a preserve of the elites, as lagatta's quotation from Ziggy Marley above very aptly says.

---

My father-in-law, a Mennonite farm boy who didn't complete high school, is a serious, very knowledgeable student and fan of classical music (Mennonites take music very seriously). Not only that: he's a 'high-art' artist, in my opinion. As the Mennonite Mass Choir has accompanied performances of Handel's Messiah in K-W, he's been up there on stage with the best of 'em.

He reminds me a bit of my grandfather (a low-level worker for the CPR) and my great uncle (who worked in the Lantic Sugar plant), both of whom were huge opera fans, spending hours trying to explain to the ten-year-old me why German singers were to be preferred to Italians.

The much older me has more formal education than these three working-class gentlemen combined, and yet I don't have the tenth part of their knowledge of musical art.

quote:

---

arborman is absolutely right when he called your views absurd and offensive. You're trying to define for everybody else what is valid art, and what isn't.

---

Raos, I am not trying to say what is valid and what isn't - I am pointing out that it is better if we can recognize corporate art versus non-corporate art. I think CATS is a "vaild" show, albeit a corporate one. Quite entertaining watching all those felines singing and dancing...

The reason I think it is important to differentiate corporate from non-corporate is the same reason the fair-trade activist wants a label so the consumer knows that they are getting the real deal, and not some corporate oppression to get their coffee. It is not right to cloak corporate advertising in "art" - it devalues and potentailly negates any potency the art may have had, effectively co-opting it. Think of a revolutionary songs from the 60s now being used to sell cars on commercials.

All I'm saying is that, valid or not, arts today fall into corporate and non-corporate varieties. And herein lies the weakness in Auntie's response:

quote:

---

Better to use your money to support the arts and the artists who make art than to use it to buy one more consumer product making some big corporation even richer.

---

In many, if not most cases today when you purchase a cultural experience (which is basically a consumer product) you might very well be making some big corporation richer - sometimes at the expense of artists.

I think the discerning spectator needs to look a little bit more behind the scenes nowadays.

[ 23 February 2006: Message edited by: FourteenRivers ]

Maybe not everywhere in Europe but in many places, opera especially was a popular art form. Most people could fiddle or plunk away on some musical instrument or other, and communities sang together. I suppose TV (everywhere, even in Europe) bears the heaviest burden for luring people away from public performance, and as that has happened, people have come to think of public performance as something separate, special, maybe elite.

But we have also projected a class profile on to the performing arts, and that projection has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, really. My difference with FourteenRivers is that he is willing to surrender the field to the capitalists and I'm not. I don't see why we should. I don't think any kind of art should be immediately defined as irrelevant to the people, to any people.

Nor is that "old country" only European and Western by any means. I've met a lot of engineers and hard science types from the Maghreb and Middle East who write poetry, and others from South Asian cultures. (I'm sure this applies to many other cultures; I'm just not as familiar with them).

quote:

---

But we have also projected a class profile on to the performing arts, and that projection has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, really. My difference with FourteenRivers is that he is willing to surrender the field to the capitalists and I'm not. I don't see why we should. I don't think any kind of art should be immediately defined as irrelevant to the people, to any people.

---

quote:

---

Raos, I am not trying to say what is valid and what isn't - I am pointing out that it is better if we can recognize corporate art versus non-corporate art.

---

Right, so calling it "corporate schlock" was in no way a value judgement? Riiiight.

quote:

---

schlock also shlock
Slang
n.

Something, such as merchandise or literature, that is inferior or shoddy.

adj.

Of inferior quality; cheap or shoddy.

---

quote:

---

I think CATS is a "vaild" show, albeit a corporate one. Quite entertaining watching all those felines singing and dancing...

---

Except, the problem is you're off in your own world in how you define corporate. Having a corporate sponsor does not make something corporate art. CATS is a person's artistic creationg, that has been brought into production using financial support from corporations. They were not responsible for the idea, for artistic choices, for casting choices, for choreographic choices, for theme choices, or music choices, or set choices.

quote:

---

The reason I think it is important to differentiate corporate from non-corporate is the same reason the fair-trade activist wants a label so the consumer knows that they are getting the real deal, and not some corporate oppression to get their coffee.

---

Right, which is why corporations are never involved in selling fair-trade coffee, because fair-trade is about being anti-corporation, and not about treating producers in a responsible manner. Fair-trade is entirely controlled by anti-corporations like Starbucks.

quote:

---

It is not right to cloak corporate advertising in "art" - it devalues and potentailly negates any potency the art may have had, effectively co-opting it. Think of a revolutionary songs from the 60s now being used to sell cars on commercials.

---

Except that the art itself, is not an advertisement. If I watch a production of Swan Lake, there's no motive in the art for selling Ford vehicles. If K-Mart donates clothes to a homeless shelter, are the homeless who wear those donations now corporate bill-boards. Their lives are tainted by corporate sponsorship, now, aren't they? What about corporations who donate to cancer research? Is the research itself nothing more than corporate schlock? The program will have advertising in it, advertisements for the art may mention sponsors, and the venue could have advertisements in the lobby. The art itself, is not corporate, it's the art. Television commericals are corporate art. The advertisements themselves in the program, are corporate art. When the corporation comissions the music and choreography, controls artistic decisions, and has final say on what happens when and how, then I'll agree it's corporate art. Until then, your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.

quote:

---

All I'm saying is that, valid or not, arts today fall into corporate and non-corporate varieties. And herein lies the weakness in Auntie's response:

---

And you're out to lunch in deciding what's corporate and what isn't. How does supporting the opera make a corporation richer? Do the sponsors get a cut of the proceeds from ticket sales? No. Why? Maybe it's because it isn't THEIR art, and they're just sponsors of it.

[ 23 February 2006: Message edited by: Raos ]

Personally I think we need a new standard. If art is funded publicly or by ethical corporations, it should fall into the "non-corprate" category. Those sponsored by unethical companies, such as Petro-Canada, should be deemed "Corporate Art". That way the consumer knows what they are supporting, and artists have a standard: if they want to be real artists versus corporate puppets.

BTW, Starbucks is hardly an anti-corporation, as any activist worth their salt surely knows. Their use of fair trade coffee is largely marketing. Go into your local branch and see how many types are Fair Trade...

[ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: FourteenRivers ]

2. 'Corporate shlock' is a relative term. Many movies are probably corporate shlock, but I still enjoy them. Street theatre certainly isn't, but I have almost never enjoyed it.

3. Corporations are a problem in our society, for sure. However, a corporation is essentially a business algorithm, operated by people. Knowing this means that it is possible to manipulate them, in certain ways, into supporting positive things, like the Arts. That support does not automatically mean that the supported Art has lost validity - that is overly simplistic.

quote:

---

Well, you may have a lot of rhetoric, but you are not offering much analysis, let alone solutions to the current problematic status quo. Corporate interests certainly DO influence what is produced and what isn't. A Producer's job is to make as much $ as possible for the corporste sponsors & Angels.

---

I'm sorry, what solutions were you looking for? I've said more government funding should be available to the arts, and that corporate funding is necessary and here to say. You've provided what alternatives? Oh, that's right...none.

Please, tell me one thing. What money does a corporation make off of a production that they're sponsoring? Wait, what's that? They don't? So if Petro-Canada doesn't make money from a ballet, they get to fire the producer or artistic director? Or not, perhaps. And you claim everybody else "needs to look a little bit more behind the scenes"?

quote:

---

Personally I think we need a new standard. If art is funded publicly or by ethical corporations, it should fall into the "non-corprate" category. Those sponsored by unethical companies, such as Petro-Canada, should be deemed "Corporate Art". That way the consumer knows what they are supporting, and artists have a standard: if they want to be real artists versus corporate puppets.

---

yet again, being supported by a corporation doesn't necessarily mean that the art is presenting the corporations message. Guess what, that just isn't possible. A large production will have dozens of corporate sponsors. And hundreds of private supporters. Are you really going to claim that an opera or ballet is presenting hidden advertising for them?

quote:

---

BTW, Starbucks is hardly an anti-corporation, as any activist worth their salt surely knows. Their use of fair trade coffee is largely marketing. Go into your local branch and see how many types are Fair Trade...

---

No. Shit. Sherlock. That was exactly my point. You created a metaphor between free-trade products being independent art, and "corporate oppression coffee" being corporate art. I showed how your poor analogy that free-trade equates to non-corporate was false, as corporations can deal in fair-trade. Calling Starbucks anti-corporate was sarcastic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman: 1. Ethical corporation is a marketing term - there is no such thing, by definition... In the case of an 'ethical corporation' they have decided that profit is maximized by appearing ethical. Nothing more...

---

quote:

---

Nothing is absolute

---

What strikes me as particularly odd is that PA is making claims for a populist art, except that the kind of art he's making claims for (infringement festival-ish stuff) isn't actually populist. It's independent, and cheap to produce, but its audience is a sparse elite--not a monetary elite, but certainly an educational, cooler-and-artsier-than-thou elite. Real-world populist art is garage-band rock and/or hip-hop. In Nova Scotia, kitchen-band Celtic.

Which doesn't necessarily mean fringe-y stuff can't be good--some elite-ish stuff I like, some I despise, and some actual populist art I hate, some I like. Kitchen-band Celtic, now that's my kind of music. But if PA imagines that art funding for every individual in Canada would result in everyone doing too-cool-for-school experimental fringe stuff, he/she is dreaming in technicolour.