posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 07:37 PM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
Well, if you read my post correctly, it was the way Harper tried to sell his new way of funding the arts.
In the tabled legislation if the "Art" does not get past the "ART CENSORS" then the film, book, music will not be funded.
In my opinion because of the size of Canada, the way the population is dispersed as well as the sizable element of the population living in poverty we
need funding to the artists.
Our close proximity to the USA and Canadians love of "Hollywood" also tends to bring funding true Canadian art to the foreground.
We would never have been able to listen to groups like the Guess Who, BTO, Edward Bear, Neil Young, April Wine, Lighthouse, Crowbar,Rush, Gordon
Lightfoot, Hank Snow, Stompin Tom, without funding by the Canadian goverment to encourage radio play etc against the huge American Music Empire.
The newer acts can thank the legislation put forth by Pierre Elliott Trudeau that allowed those "crazy hippies" of the 1960's and 1970's to record
and become a Canadian success.
The definitions of art, culture and cultural industry are one key to the current debate about cultural funding in Canada. The Conservative government
claims that it has actually increased spending on the arts. This claim rests on a purposeful obfuscation of the meaning of culture and cultural
industries, and the arts subset of culture. In the September 20 issue of The Globe and Mail, James Bradshaw exposed this obfuscation with a fine piece
of investigative journalism. He documents how the Conservative claims of increased arts funding are based on fudging definitions and robbing Peter to