Arts censorship by the Federal government?

[fuji]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...that-presented-terrorist-play/article2077044/

Out of 41 plays presented by "SummerWorks" last year ONE of the plays upset the Prime Minister, and now the funding has been cancelled.

The one play which upset the prime minister was "homegrown", a play recounting the experience its author had knowing on of the members of the "Toronto 18", on other words, the play dealt with home grown terrorism. The PM accused the play of "glorifying" terrorism.

This raises two questions:

-- Is there a line that should not be crossed here? Is it simply unacceptable to create plays that deal with controversial topics, or present controversial views?

-- Assuming the play did "cross the line", is it reasonable to cancel funding for the entire event because 1 out of its 41 plays turned out to be controversial?

It looks like if you want money from the "Harper Government" for your arts program, that your arts program better have a "G" rating and stick to non-controversial topics.

I would then question the value of having an arts program, as I have always understood the arts to be the mechanism by which society probes and explores alternative ways of looking at things. Non-controversial art would seem to be pointless. Not saying it has to be politically controversial--modern art certainly creates controversy simply by being so abstract, but contoversy of some form seems to be necessary to push the limits of our understanding.

 

[Aardvark154]

It looks like if you want money from the "Harper Government" for your arts program, that your arts program better have a "G" rating and stick to non-controversial topics.

This has been discussed before on other threads. Needless to say the government has the right not to find things which it finds offensive.

The alternative is to have a giant government funded feeding trough where every tax payer in the country gets to give a forced "donation" to every "artist" in the country no matter how offensive.

If one wishes to support art which offends the vast majority in suposedly "probing and exploring alternative ways of looking at things" that is where private funding of the arts should come into play

It should also be pointed out that failure to support with public funds is a very long way from using the government's police power to shut down a exibition or play.

 

[fuji]

This has been discussed before on other threads. Needless to say the government has the right not to find things which it finds offensive.

Sorry, can you explain why the government has that right? I certainly can think of good reasons why funding of the arts should not be political. Should the government also be able to step in to Universities and tell them what they can or cannot teach, if they want to receive public funding? Should the government be able to vet every story run by the CBC, and have only government approved news aired? I think most people would object to that! Why is it different with the arts?

I take your point that you can't just fund everything, you have to limit your budget and spend within your means, of course. But you can agree to non-political funding formulas, say, by having a panel of arts experts decide what to fund, rather than making it a political decision.

 

[Aardvark154]

Sorry, can you explain why the government has that right?

Because the Government has it's own right to governmental speech and should/can not be forced "speak" against its will. Is the most basic reason.

I see you have subsequently added Universities, Canada is of course in a pecular situation where almost all (and all major) privately founded Universities are in effect public Universities, this is a slightly different situation where power is devolved from the government to the University's governing body and then of course one also has the tenure which evolved to protect faculty from administrations which disagreed with their opinions. However, again there is no guarantee of a certain level of funding the Province can certainly reduce funding (although it cannot reduce funding to a certain department, that is a responsiblity of the governing body of the University).

 

[Mervyn]

Refusing funding is not censorship.

Thread over.

 

[fuji]

Because the Government has it's own right to governmental speech and should/can not be forced "speak" against its will. Is the most basic reason.

Sorry, but I don't see arts funding as "governmental speech". I am strongly opposed to the idea that media, arts, or university education should ever be considered "governmental speech".

You can take an extreme libertarian view and assert that the government shouldn't fund these things at all, and that has its own moral and political implications, but if you step up and say that there is a place for the government to fund these things (and the Harper government has clearly allocated budget to funding such things) then I think it should operate on the same model as the university, or the CBC: There should be an independent, non-political board that determines what is, or isn't worthy of funding, based on its merits as art, and not based on whether it promotes the appropriate ideology.

I do not want to live in a country where the government meddles in public discourse.

Plainly the government is entitled to have its own voice in public discourse, but it has that voice through its press releases, public events, communications campaigns, advertising, and so on. I don't see that it needs to meddle in the arts, or in university curriculums, or in the editorial content of the news in order to have a voice.

 

[LancsLad]

Refusing funding is not censorship.

Thread over.

+1

Agree

 

[5hummer]

I'm sorry to say this but......
There shouldn't be funding for the arts PERIOD.

So I guess all those kids with nothing to do can toilet-paper your home and play baseball with your mailbox?

 

[Aardvark154]

Sorry, but I don't see arts funding as "governmental speech". I am strongly opposed to the idea that media, arts, or university education should ever be considered "governmental speech".

That's fine, and perhaps precident is on your side in Canada, I haven't bothered to reseach it. However, I can assure you that in the U.S. indeed it is "governmental speech."

 

[Hangman]

There should not be any government funding for the arts.

If they were any good, people would pay to see it.

 

[Hangman]

Refusing funding is not censorship.

Thread over.

Fully agreed.

 

[fuji]

That's fine, and perhaps precident is on your side in Canada, I haven't bothered to reseach it. However, I can assure you that in the U.S. indeed it is "governmental speech."

Do you also consider lectures at public universities to be "government speech" then?

 

[Aardvark154]

Do you also consider lectures at public universities to be "government speech" then?

No, unless it was the Administration of the University - in an official capacity making the statement. Even then Public Universities are quasi-governmental.

Although the Head (whatever the title) of a Public University certainly has certain speech rights.

 

[fuji]

No, unless it was the Administration of the University - in an official capacity making the statement. Even then Public Universities are quasi-governmental.

I feel the arts should be treated the same way. Which books will be taught and which plays will be performed should be left to the experts, such as panels of professors and others who decide curriculum and organize art festivals.

Government meddling in such things is dangerous, the sort of thing you expect from the CPC in Beijing, rather than CPC in Ottawa.

 

[Aardvark154]

Which books will be taught and which plays will be performed. . .

Now, you are changing your line of argument. I haven't heard anyone say that the Government is saying not this play - that play, not that book - this book rather we are not going to fund this theatre series.

I am always warry of those who say leave it to the experts

 

[LancsLad]

Now, you are changing your line of argument. I haven't heard anyone say that the Government is saying not this play - that play, not that book - this book rather we are not going to fund this theatre series.

I am always warry of those who say leave it to the experts

Fuji strikes me as the kind of person who would love to be an Obamaoczar. He knows so much about soooooooooooooooooo many things.


.

 

[Aardvark154]

Governmental Speech? WTF is that, the government is and must be a reflection of its people.

You misunderstand; yes democratic governments are responsible to the electorate. At the same time when the government says we don't like those paintings in government office building we are putting them into storage - they don't have to hold a referendum on what they should do.

 

[basketcase]

So I guess all those kids with nothing to do can toilet-paper your home and play baseball with your mailbox?

That art should be funded too. T-P-ing is art highlighting the interplay between nature and urban environments in a post-consumerist environment while mailbox baseball is a performance piece based on teenaged angst (and yes, it's been proven that performances of opera music reduce teenaged delinquency).

As to the original post, without knowing the answers to fuji's two questions how can anyone knowledgeably comment ?

 

[fuji]

Now, you are changing your line of argument. I haven't heard anyone say that the Government is saying not this play - that play, not that book - this book rather we are not going to fund this theatre series.

Yes, but it amounts the same thing: The message is that if you want government funding, you have to adhere to their "curriculum". It would be like the governments going to Universities and saying that if they teach a course on socialism that the University will be entirely defunded. At the end of the day it's meddling where they ought not to meddle.

Again, it's the sort of thing I'd expect from the CPC in Beijing, rather than the CPC in Ottawa.