I went to this thing yesterday at noon - this forum for the radio. CBC, our national radio station, holds this series of forums called "Learning @ Lunch", where they discuss "topics that concern Albertans". Yesterday's topic was government funding of the arts. So I went.

There were two men on the panel, one a local high profile arts guy (CEO of the big performing arts centre), who speaks at all these kinds of things, and the other guy this idiot who was the president or vice-president or something of some investment firm. He's one of those "less government" kind of guys. A neo-conservative. Yuck. He's just published some book on how to take back city hall.

Surprise, surprise, his take was that government shouldn't fund the arts at all. That they have no business using tax payers money to pay for art and the solution he presented was that arts organizations all become registered charities and then lobby the government to increase the tax deduction for charitable donations and let individuals decide where they want to put their money. He seemed to believe that thousands of people would come streaming out of the wood-work clutching large cheques just because they got a bigger tax deduction.

His arguments were so incredibly flawed. I just couldn't resist opening my big mouth to argue a couple of times. The crappy part was that, because they were recording this to play on the radio, when you had a comment to make they brought to microphone around, so my hot-headed comments were on the radio this morning.

But I couldn't resist. First he said how the US was doing this so much better than us (encouraging support of the arts through individual philanthropy) and we should take a page from them. I had to point out that I don't believe the arts community in the US is better funded or healthier than the one in Canada. Regionally, I still think we're better off. If you want to look at countries with really healthy arts communities, you should look to some European countries where their arts organizations are almost 100% funded by government. Idiot.

I also pointed out the ludicracy of arts organizations as "charities" out there competing with other charities like health and education. Who would most people give their money too - Cancer research? Sick children? Better eduction for poor kids? Or a ballet? No-brainer there folks.

Next he went on about the "great age of art", when rich philanthropists, Kings, Dukes, Popes, etc., funded great works of art. Like the Cistine Chaple (how the $%#@# do you spell that??). Anyhow, first point (okay, not mine but raised by some other smart and irate person) was what made him think funding from the Vatican or a King wasn't basically government funding? Money taken from the peasants, and spent on art. And in those days the peasants didn't even get to debate it with the government. Plus, it's not like it was all big old generous pure philanthropy. You think the Pope didn't know that putting great works of art into cathedrals wasn't going to make the people come in, wonder at the great art, feel closer to God and fork over more of their money?

And how many of those great artists died penny-less?

It just made me cranky for the rest of the day, having to listen to that uninformed crap. Don't we (theoretically) elect governments to work on our behalf to make our lives better? Isn't supporting art that's accessable for everyone part of making our lives better?

I could go on and on. But I won't. That's my rant for today.