Yule Heibel's Library tagged cultural_support → View Popular

Filter:
All
Annotated

29 Aug 08

reportonbusiness.com: Harper defends cuts to arts programs

G&M article on recent announcement of cuts in arts funding, which co-incided with the Conference Board of Canada's report on the significance of the arts to Canada's economy.

www.reportonbusiness.com/...Business - Preview

globeandmail steven_harper canada cultural_support funding conference_board_canada arts_funding

Prime Minister Stephen Harper defended $44.8-million in planned cuts to arts-and-culture programs for the first time yesterday. At the same time, the Conference Board of Canada released a report attesting to the economic benefits of investing in Canadian culture
echoed recent assertions by his communications director, Kory Teneycke, and Canadian Heritage Minister Josée Verner that the government has managed to walk a tightrope, trimming the fat from its culture portfolio while simultaneously increasing overall spending.
- - this article is unclear: is it a cut of nearly $45m or is there an overall increase in spending?? - on 2008-08-29
Add Sticky Note
2 more annotations...
- “Some programs in arts and culture have increased in funding, others have gone down – in total it's gone up.” Federal investment in culture for the 2007-08 fiscal year was $3.4-billion, up from $3.2-billion in 2006-07.
- The Prime Minister's comments come in the wake of a recently released report from the Conference Board of Canada, in collaboration with the federal government, that confirms high economic returns on cultural investment. The report, entitled Valuing Culture: Measuring and Understanding Canada's Creative Economy, calls the cultural sector's role “as a magnet for talent, an enhancer of economic performance, and a catalyst for prosperity” a universal phenomenon.
  
  The Conference Board estimates Canada's cultural sector generated $46-billion, or 3.8 per cent of Canada's GDP, in 2007. The sector's total impact including “indirect and induced effects” on other sectors leaves an economic footprint of $84.6-billion, or 7.4 per cent of GDP, the report states. Those revelations paint a picture of industry stability: Statistics Canada reported culture accounting for an identical 3.8 per cent of GDP in 2006.
  
  The report put 2003 employment in the cultural sector at 616,000 jobs.
  
  Including direct and indirect contributions to employment, the report estimates that culture accounted for 1.1 million jobs in 2007.
  
  Canada's culture sector is being driven by growth in digital technology and expanding Internet use, the report states.

Valuing Culture: Measuring and Understanding Canada’s Creative Economy

The Conference Board of Canada's July 2008 report on the value of culture to the Canadian economy.

www.conferenceboard.ca/documents.asp - Preview

canada cultural_support funding conference_board_canada

Document Highlights:
Valuing Culture: Measuring and Understanding Canada’s Creative Economy examines the culture sector as a cornerstone of the creative economy.
5 more annotations...
- Arts and culture industries play a vital role in attracting people, business, and investment, and in distinguishing Canada as a dynamic and exciting place to live and work.
- The Conference Board estimates that the economic footprint of Canada’s culture sector was $84.6 billion in 2007, or 7.4 per cent of Canada’s total real GDP, including direct, indirect, and induced contributions. Culture sector employment exceeded 1.1 million jobs in 2007.
- Technology is revolutionizing business models in the creative economy, altering the way culture is created and consumed. Consumers are becoming “prosumers” who actively create and customize content.
  - The Conference Board gets it... - on 2008-08-29
  Add Sticky Note
- The “long tail” business model of many niche markets is altering how arts and culture industries sell their products and services.
- The culture sector bridges geographical distances and creates greatly expanded social networks.

22 Apr 08

» The ROM CAN… well, pretend to be accessible • Spacing Toronto • understanding the urban landscape

Great (short) article by Leah Sandals on Spacing Toronto re. Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) and its admissions pricing/ policies. Best of all is the comments thread, where several people really let T.O. have it in terms of pointing out how dreadfully expensive it is, especially compared to places like New York City, where even private museums have policies that allow the less-well-off to have free (or pay what you can) admission to museums/ institutions on a regular basis.

Canada has a democracy deficit, and this article (plus comments) shows how and where it plays out.

spacing.ca/...-well-pretend-to-be-accessible - Preview

spacing.ca museums access toronto rom free cultural_support democracy_deficit canada

you’ll still have to fork over the usual $20 on Tuesdays. Oh, and on Sunday, Monday, Thursday, Saturday and most of Wednesdays and Fridays too. If you can plan your week around getting a look at the stuff your own taxes pay for, you might want to save up for $10 Friday evenings or try the one hour of completely gratis access on Wednesdays from 4:30 to 5:30.
While I think the United Way and so many other hardworking Toronto organizations rock, this still in no way addresses the bulk of the ROM’s mandate, which is to provide equitable access to all Ontarians to their own heritage.
10 more annotations...
- Second, all this “access outsourcing” the ROM is doing is a bit worrisome. It started with the Museum Arts Pass Program, launched in June of last year, which is essentially administrated by the Toronto Public Library. Now, they’ve passed some more access responsibilities along to the United Way and the Institute for Canadian Citizenship. Essentially it’s the arts-and-culture version of Mike Harris’s social services downloading of the 1990s.
  - Holy smokes! (She's right.) - on 2008-04-22
  Add Sticky Note
- There are so many other very reasonable access options the ROM has effectively decided against: Free access to the permanent collection. Free access for a day or an evening. Keeping all admission fees at $10 or under. Having concession fees for the underemployed. Admission by donation. The list goes on. Almost every museum in Canada has some combination of these strategies–and has to, in order to keep their funding and their reputation.
  
  By throwing more money at the ROM without keeping them to a truly equitable public mandate, McGuinty is basically encouraging bad behavior in their museum management. Maybe he can abide by that. But I certainly can’t.
- Shame there was no mention of museum access in other cities. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Toronto the single most expensive city on the planet Earth for visiting the centrepiece museum? Isn’t there something wrong with that? Something that letting a few students in for free will not exactly address? Just as Pearson is the world’s most expensive airport (landing fees), but no one seems to care, there is a surprising tolerance for this gouging.
  
  Cities, TTC, museums, airports - exactly how poor a country is Canada when it comes to government funding of anything other than health care? Think about that while you pay the world’s highest prices (plus GST!) for transit fares, airline tickets, ROM admission….
- They don’t call it the “Royal” Ontario Museum for nothing.
- They have also canceled the free access for teachers to preview exhibits for field trips which is a drag.
- I agree that TO is not the most expensive city in the world. But the ROM fees are still far from reasonable and fair. This is particularly so for their permanent collection, which are the objects the public in effect owns. That’s why in MTL at the fine arts museum it’s free to see the permanent collection, extra for special exhibitions. Same at the Tate in London.
  
  Also, the Louvre (9 euro daytime admission) has a variety of access strategies that the ROM does not: Discounts every day after 6pm. Free for all the first Sunday of every month. Free for those under 18 all the time. Free for those under 26 on Friday evenings. Free for those with disabilities, and their companions. Free for the unemployed. Free for those on social benefits. And these are obtained right at the gate, no need to get in line for rationed passes.
  
  And the American Museum of Natural History permanent collection access is always by donation. They suggest certain donations, but ultimately all visitors regardless of income, can, yes, see the dinosaurs. Temporary exhibits require payment, as with the Tate and other museums.
- uSkyscraper, there is a tolerance for price gouging in TO. Partly it has to do with a generally higher cost of living compared to other Canadian cities. And partly it has to do with costs downloaded from the province. But partly I think it also has to do with the idea that we can’t be “big time” until our cultural events are expensive. It’s really ridiculous. The MoMA in NYC charges $20, but it is a private museum, a rather different situation. Oh, and one more potential reason: many museums of late have mistaken “press coverage” and “tourist draw” for “quality museum management.” Not the same thing.
- A London monthly card for zone 1-2 is 93 pounds but that is also good for rail. A Twin Pass for GO/TTC is no longer available but for a comparable region it would cost far more than $185.
  
  Based on purchasing power (relative to salaries, etc.) I still stand by my statement. Toronto is a bargain when it comes to skating rinks or housing or cost of living in general, but anything civic or infrastructure-related tends to be very, very expensive. To add to my list of “most expensive” — per-km toll highway, commuter train fares, observation decks…(ok, that last one is private and not civic but I still find it annoying.)
  
  Leah is quite correct — all museums in New York that receive any city funding must use pay-what-you-wish admission or lose city funds. A noble principle that should apply to the ROM. MoMA is private and costs $20, but even that museum is free on Friday nights (4-8 pm).
- Admission to the ROM, what with all the public funding it receives, should be based on suggested donation, along with possibly an admission ticket required for special exhibitions and the such. This way, let the clueless tourists shell out the suggested admission and everyone else get in for whatever they want to pay.
  
  I am a New Yorker, and one of my favorite things about growing up there was how I could go to the Museum of Natural History and the Metropolitan Museum of Art on the same day for, well, 5 cents each, with a stroll through Central Park thrown in. My high school was a short walk away from the Met, and we would go there to hang out after-school (dorky? yes. awesome? yes)
  
  And as a UofT student, I would love to go to ROM on a regular basis - and now I will be able to. But it would be ultimately better for everyone if that were the case for all of us. Toronto would do well to create a stronger sense of civic pride and belonging, and cultural institutions of course play a huge part in that.
  
  But the ROM does not at all feel like it is a public institution. I remember being annoyed when I heard about how they were having a ’special’ opening for the rich (or whoever) before the ‘official’ opening of the crystal last year - and really, wtf was that? Sure, throw a ball for those that contributed money - but to have it before the public opening just told me that they did not want to have them in there after us common folk contaminated the place.
  
  But really, everything, and I mean everything, in Toronto seems to be more expensive than what I experienced in NYC - and the quality is worse - and there is no reason why it should be that way.
- Do working poor people really have time to spend at any museum or gallery? I recall freebie nights at the AGO attracting mostly middle class but cheap Torontonians and some students–most of whom come from middleclass backgrounds.
  
  But yeah, make the ROM free from midnight to six AM!:)

08 Jan 08

Arts study a culture shock (Toronto Star)

I read something about this study last week, can't recall where, and generally think it's a bit silly anyway. But what catches my attention in this Toronto Star article by Peter Goddard is how it brings out that visual art is currently at the very bottom of the totem pole. I see that in my own habits, too, and wonder why it's so. Is it because too much of the art being produced is uninteresting?, can't compete with other media or arts (like theatre, music, etc.)? Has visual art become somehow irrelevant, and if so, when did this happen and why? Does it have to do with time, with speed? Or simply relevance -- and format?

www.thestar.com/...290794 - Preview

arts cultural_support culture popular_opinion socialtheory studies surveys trends

Forget class versus trash, the elite versus the masses.
Divide culture consumers into four new groups, says an international study Oxford University researchers released late last month that will have far-reaching results for arts support everywhere.
"Univores," "Omnivores," "Paucivores" and "Inactives" are the new categories we can all find ourselves in. Which one depends on whether we believe Britney is a huge tabloid star or an area in northwestern France where Impressionist painters spent their summers.
But no matter what group is discussed, the visual arts do not figure very high on anyone's to-do list.
"When it comes to the visual arts, you find there's a sizeable part of the adult population that doesn't participate at all."
9 more annotations...
- "Univores," the largest of the four groups, consume great quantities of pop culture – TV, pop music and Hollywood flicks – and little else. "But there are no truly popular forms in the visual arts that have as wide a media exposure as does pop music," says Goldthorpe. Tak Wing Chan was his colleague in the study for the Economic and Social Research Council in England.
- "Omnivores," the next biggest group, includes people who go to the ballet, symphony or opera on occasion while still buying lots of pop culture.
  For purposes of the study, cultural consumption was split into three basic categories: theatre, dance and the movies; music of all sorts; and the visual arts.
- Only "Paucivores," a decidedly small group, may be found at a blockbuster museum opening. But that's about the extent of it. Paucivores don't care much for contemporary art.
- The "Inactives," are the Goldthorpe-Chan version of couch potatoes, hunkered down in front of the television day and night. They're found in every culture. Along with the U.K., data was assembled in France, the Netherlands, Hungary, Israel, Chile and the United States and analyzed by 13 researchers.
- In England, the report has caused something of a stir because it blew holes in the idea of an upper class forming a cultural elite.
- "We are unable to identify any numerically significant group of cultural consumers whose consumption is essentially confined to high cultural forms and who reject, or at least do not participate in, more popular forms," says the report.
  Status counts, not class. And status is defined by income not by culture.
  In short, the very idea of "pop culture" is a misnomer.
  There is no pop culture. Pop is culture.
- "Status is now attached to material consumption, not cultural consumption," Goldthorpe tells me. "People with status show who they are though expensive cars and houses rather than by going to museums and the like."
  Indeed, the report itself hammers home the blunt truth that "income has no effect on determining" the kind of culture being consumed. The bottom line? People who could help symphonies survive or back the arts don't want to.
  They are "self-excluded," says the report, "rather than socially excluded."
  - - sounds grim (for arts).... - on 2008-01-08
  Add Sticky Note
- Better education does little to change this bleak picture. "There is a sizeable number of people in this group who don't participate" in the elite arts, Goldthorpe says
  Why?
  "The short answer is, I don't know," says Goldthorpe.
- Unfortunately, the Chan-Goldthorpe report will play into the hands of reactionary politicians who question whether the arts should be funded at all, since no one gives a hoot about them.
  Already the Labour government in Britain is showing signs of cutting back its cultural support as a way of funneling money to "the demands of the Olympic Games," Goldthorpe says.
  - - yes, the old libertarian argument, in action again... - on 2008-01-08
  Add Sticky Note

14 Nov 07

$120 million for culture is money well spent

www.canada.com/...story.html - Preview

canada cities creative_cities cultural_support cultural_tourism municipal_funding richard_florida

If culture really is a driving force behind the economic development of Montreal, as Premier Jean Charest claimed yesterday, it is about time the city, province and federal government put real money into it.
The news that Montreal's Quartier des spectacles is to receive $120 million from the three levels of government should be applauded.
Montreal has been diligently trying to fashion a cultural identity that will set it apart on the world stage. Such an ambitious plan cannot be accomplished without help from outside.
4 more annotations...
- Montreal is hardly alone in seeking to make the most of its cultural attractions and sense of creativity. Cities around the world are in brisk competition with each other for the kind of well-heeled tourist who travels for cultural experiences, whether art, sculpture, music or architecture.
- Investment in culture can reap enormous dividends for a city. Bilbao was largely unknown outside northern Spain until the Guggenheim Museum built its extraordinary stone, glass and titanium museum in the Basque city. Within three years of its 1997 inauguration, the museum had prompted a 54-per-cent growth in tourism.
- Similarly, the Eden Project, an environmental complex in Cornwall in Britain, has added more than $1.5 billion to the local economy and attracted more than 7.5 million tourists in five years of operation.
- For a city's own residents, investment in culture offers what are often considered intangible benefits, a heightened sense of pride and the feeling of living in a stimulating environment. A city that enjoys the support and esteem of its residents and politicians becomes a place able to attract investment and boost employment. Success engenders success and in the end there is nothing intangible about additional investment and more jobs.

1 - 5 of 5

Showing 20▼ items per page

Selected Tags

cultural_support