Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Commentary

To be creative is, in fact, Canadian

MARGARET ATWOOD

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 6:43 AM EST 25/09/08

Mr. Harper is wrong: There's more to the arts than a bunch of rich people at galas whining about their grants ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Grey Griffin from Ottawa, Canada writes: Oh puhleeeeese, Ms Atwood. The average Canadian loves the arts. It is just that the average Canadian does not want to subsidize the arts with taxpayer dollars. Frankly, it's outrageous that 'artists' would demand a place at the teat of government as if it were their god-given birthright. The arrogance of 'artists' and their condescending disregard for the taxpayer is truly breathtaking. Ironically, it merely affirms Harper's actions in the minds of most average Canadians.
  2. Kim Feraday from Vancouver, Canada writes: I'm sorry Ms. Atwood you're wrong -- at least according to Harper. We're a country that wants to support more jails and throwing alot more people in them including kids. That's a much better way to spend billions of taxpayer dollars.
  3. Moe Unting from Calgary, Canada writes: I think someone won the Nobel prize for economics for demonstrating that funding arts and culture and tax-breaks for churches and all that are profitable for the society that makes the investment and that the return is lasting year after year.
    Of course, those who arent religious or dont like aesthetic experiences or dont get out much dont want to fund it, and that's their choice, so this economist set out to show that it was also a profitable investment.
    There are also values that are hard to quantify, how do you measure the economic value of a person who watches a stage adaptation of Pride and Prejudice and in doing so feels relieved from the tensions that may have alternatively cost a days wages or a trip to a therapist?
  4. spicydoc of the spring from Canada writes:

    The Federal Government should get out of the 'Arts' business altogether. Let the provinces and municipalities do the funding and support.

    Harper should shave another point off the GST, then suggest that the provinces to raise their own funds for arts. ie Jack their PST up a point with the 'tax room' created.

    This way, Quebec can do what it likes, Ontario, etc without having to play these silly games at the fed level.

    But then again, I doubt Ms. Atwood cares about shifting revenue streams and giving provinces more autonomy. Most of her article sounds like the typical 'Harper is a neanderthal' guff everybody's been reporting.

    She does a prettier job than the media scribes tho....
  5. Mike Baker from Iqaluit, Canada writes:
    'Mr. Harper's idea of an ordinary person is that of an envious hater without a scrap of artistic talent or creativity or curiosity, and no appreciation for anything that's attractive or beautiful.'

    I've spent my adult life, through exposure to the higher artistic achievements of others, gathering a profound appreciation of the greater world that surrounds me. With each passing day, the compounding effect of the interest I've taken in the arts has returned a voraciously inquisitive dividend. It ought to sustain me richly long after my rambling days are done.

    I dread the impoverished views of the people who squandered their opportunities; lives lived entirely for the profit of inhuman corporations.

    Dostoyevsky - and Solzhenitsyn after him - said, 'Beauty will save the world.'

    That is all I ask.
  6. Liz McEachern from Canada writes: The point Ms. Atwood is trying to make is that art is everywhere. It's not just going to an art gallery or seeing a play, although these are important. Who writes the newspaper that you're reading, takes the photographs in the paper, and design this web page? Who plays the music that you're listening to on your iPod? Who writes, directs, and performs in the TV shows you watch? Who are making the commercials, which are important so that there are TV shows to watch? Who designs the graphics in your video games? How did these artists get their start? How did the learn? How did they get better? Yes, artists at the top make good money, but the average salary of an artist is under $20 000 dollars a year. And most don't make it to the top.

    Why do people visit and live in London, Paris, and New York? For the nice weather? No. Because of the arts, whether art galleries, architecture, theatre, music, museums, and so on. Shouldn't we be a country that people want to visit and live in? Aren't we already suffering a brain drain to other countries? People want to live where there's interesting things to do. And what happens in a few years, as the population ages, when we are desperate for immigration because we don't have enough people. Don't we want to attract people to our country? Our economy depends on it now and in the future.

    And lastly, who are going to be our servers-our waiters, waitresses and so on if we don't have artists? No one else is going to want to work those jobs. Imagine. 'Yeah, I have my medical degree, but I have to wait tables first until somebody realizes what a great doctor I am!' :)
  7. Ron Pacific from Victoria, Canada writes: Van Gough, Monet, Chopin . . . all famous artists after they died were fairly impecunious while they lived. Very few artists/musicians are wealthy while they are alive. I don't understand Mr. Harper's obsession with the 'ordinary'. Why not strive to be 'extraordinary'? As for the actual dollars, Mr. Harper is having us spend hundreds of millions in Afghanistan promoting education and the rights to artistic expression but here in Canada, Harper and his wrecking crew are beating up on artists and imposing censorship of art forms. Have we become such 'ordinary' people as a nation that we must put up with this hypocrisy and anti-intellectualism?
  8. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Van Gogh, Monet, Chopin....

    Yes, I wonder how many Federal grants that those artists received.

    spicy doc of the spring from Canada has already hit all of the points that I was going to make, but to add that the private sector funds the arts as well ...

    The Government of Canada should not be in the entertainment business ... Question period, notwithstanding....

    Nicely written rhetoric by this authour, nevertheless ...

    Cheers
  9. Ron Pacific from Victoria, Canada writes: Sad to say it . . . . but two years of a Harper minority government and right wing talk radio appears to be changing our country for the worse. Now, apparently 'extraordinary' is a dirty word in the New Canada as are the words 'art and beauty'. The new mantra is guns, tanks and jails. I believe it is a sad day when our country's leaders see spending hundreds of millions of dollars on jails in Afghanistan as a priority to nurturing culture and art in our own communities. Again, while we spend blood and money in Afghanistan to fight for artists to express their freedom, we have a government censuring films and trashing whole art forms (witness the attack on Classical artists on the CBC).
  10. Jesu Pifco from Canada writes: Some pretty strong words from Ms Atwood on the muzzling of artists and the cult of personality. Let's hope she doesn't feel compelled to write a sequel to 'A Handmaid's Tale'.
  11. Joshua Gardiner from tauranga, New Zealand writes: fight the power, margaret. and to all you whiners complaining about how art gets subsidized, guess what, so does oil. so does agriculture. so does forestry. and a whole hell of lot more than the arts. yet, as atwood demonstrated, these industries employ less people combined than the arts does. national geographic ran an article recently about logging in tongass national forest that showed that the federal budget allowed thirty million dollars in subsidies for the forestry in that forest, and it's return was about 750 000 dollars. it's one of the richest logging ecosystems on earth and it lost almost its entire budget, 29 million dollars plus. the article showed that they could have paid everyone involved over six figures to stay home and do nothing and still save money on what the taxpayers were shelling out for the operation to fail abysmally and lay waste to sections of the great bear rainforest. this is just an example of how government subsidy of other industries fails, wastes and benefits no one. but throw up a roadblock and people cry 'foul!' and 'jobs not owls!' and so forth. its highway robbery and it happens in every major 'industry' we have. then along come the arts with modest subsidies, high returns and large employment figures and people start whining and complaining. it may surprise some of you to learn that in some countries where they actually invest in art, they make a whole lot of money off of it. far more than they put in. that is in fact true here in canada, even now. so think of it like stocks. what would you rather your taxpayer's dollars be spent on, considering it's inevitable that they will be spent: on the floundering resource extraction that yields poor returns and demands massive cash infusions to be kept from being revealed for the fraudulent failure that it is, or the low investment, high yield and return arts. its a no brainer.
  12. canadian forideas from Canada writes: Margaret, there is not enough artists to throw out the Conservatives from power, but there are a vast majority of Canadian art lovers who can.
    If this PM is so devoid of any passion to encourage artists, so removed from what it takes to create art, he should not be Prime Minister. After all, imagination is a leadership asset. Please continue writing about this, it may mobilize the dreaded flat minds into a singing frenzy completely out of tune with most Canadians.........
  13. Joshua Gardiner from tauranga, New Zealand writes: and another thing: i think atwood hits it on the head when she says that harper's a hater. i think all you people whining and moaning about the arts really have a problem with people living and working a job that satisfies them when you all are caught up in something that you'd rather not have to spend eight hours a day at. so take off. i'm living my dream, just because you're not is no reason to call me down. if you don't like your job or your life, change it, don't take it out on someone else. because frankly, i pay more taxpayer's dollars for you to rape the oilsands than you do for me to paint. but you don't hear me complaining. well, actually, you do, you just have big brother stevie to hide behind.
  14. spicydoc of the spring from Canada writes:

    There has to be a trap--no way uber-wonk Harper would allow 45 million in cuts create this much noise without a reason.

    Playing to his 'base' makes no sense. He has a bigger reason for drawing all of this attention to arts funding.

    I expect him to announce that huge part of the Heritage and Arts stuff is to be passed down to the provinces. He will provide fed funding for a while, but this will taper while he cuts income taxes a bit.

    The provinces will then be allowed to run their 'arts' stuff without interference, and maintain some revenue streams. Of course, the provinces will have to up their revenues as the fed funding tapers, but such is life.

    I suspect that Dalton and Charest already know this is coming, and are okay with it. Quebec should be thrilled with this arrangement.
  15. Ron Pacific from Victoria, Canada writes: Jesu, the sequal to the Handmaid's Tale will be acted out once Harper gets his majority and all the bible thumping petty dictators come out of the woodwork and start 'reshaping' us for our own good.
  16. siren call from Canada writes: Mr. Harper's idea of an ordinary person is that of an envious hater without a scrap of artistic talent or creativity or curiosity, and no appreciation for anything that's attractive or beautiful.

    Frankly, I think that's not only true of how Mr. Harper sees the Canadians who will vote for him, but also of Mr. Harper's frame of mind.

    For all the opportunities that have landed in his lap, Harper still seems an angry, vengeful man. A poor winner. Maybe he thinks he doesn't deserve his successes.

    How else to explain a PM of Canada who inherited billions in surplus, at a relatively safe and stable time in Canadian history -- campaigning for re-election on a few pennies off diesel fuel and punishing 14 year olds -- and artists.

    I wonder what kind of people we really are . . .
  17. Gossipy Busybody from Canada writes: Jesu Pifco from Canada writes: Some pretty strong words from Ms Atwood on the muzzling of artists and the cult of personality. Let's hope she doesn't feel compelled to write a sequel to 'A Handmaid's Tale'.

    ------------------ That was a completely terrific book, inspired, in part, by the treatment of women in Afghanistan.

    I've been a fan of Ms. Atwood's since high school, and I doubt she would write a sequel, but I'd buy it in a heartbeat if she would!

    For Harper to claim he hasn't cut arts funding because he's including sports funding in that calcualtion is just BS.

    Go, Peggy, go.
  18. Patricia F. from Berlin, Germany writes: Bravo, Ms Atwood!!!

    Finally someone has summed up all the reasons why I cannot bear the sight of our present Prime Minister!

    As a Canadian artist living abroad who, by the way, never received funding from Canada (though I did get a healthy scholarship from a German organization which helped me to finish my Masters degree here...interesting, nicht wahr?!), I deeply resent Mr. Harper's image of art and artists!

    I work damned hard (at 4 jobs, in fact) to maintain my art!

    Whining and moaning about grants, my backside!
  19. Linda Dial from Calgary, Canada writes: This must be the first time you have ever told a Prime Minister off in public, Margaret Atwood, and I applaud you for it. The Personality Cult Party and its Dear Leader aims to pare down everything you stand for and squeeze the rest into the crawl space of the low, common and mean. As you pointed out, he has excelled at destruction since his youth. Dismantle, destroy and rebuild in his image. That is his plan for the ordinary Canadian.
  20. Robin Hannah from Canada writes: Yayy! To all us artists and all of us who love art, even when we don't 'get it'.

    I'm just waiting for Atwood to be called an 'elitist'.
  21. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Without going into the usual 'Harper is Hitler' schtick, can anyone here actually say why it is the Federal Government (and not the Provincial Governments, Municipal Governments, or Private Sectors) that should be funding the arts in our Provinces ?

    If not, I doubt that you are really convincing anyone on the other side of this argument which is far more complex than those in the C of the U (which includes Atwood) would want to admit...

    Most of the latter posters are simply venting...

    Please vent away.

    Cheers
  22. The Bubble from Canada writes: I read this novel once. It's a futuristic novel set in the USA where Right Wing Religious nuts have taken over the government in a theocracy. The women were forced to wear veils over their heads and the men ruled the roost. Only young women were allowed to have babies and they were sent around to the older men of power who were to impregnate these girls. Can't remember who wrote it, I think it became a Hollywood movie with some famous movie stars, I think it was called The Handmaids Tale, Tail? anyway, it seems to be coming true about the theocracy. The hero escapes to Canada.
    Harper will not be deterred, he's very much focused, he's really a little Hitler in a lot of ways.
  23. The Bubble from Canada writes: R Miller, because the arts funding creates more wealth in general for the country than the government gives, ie the collect it back in taxes and most countries support culture, tell us why they shouldn't?
  24. The Bubble from Canada writes: Shutting down culture is only good for the American interests who want unfettered access to Canadian markets. We are next to the biggest abuser of media in the world and we need to be protected from it.
  25. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: You go girl! The reason Mr. Harper is so concerned about 'ordinary people' is that they are an easy and undemanding audience.
  26. Reality Check from Canada writes: Listen... If something is important... then society will see it grow...

    If it is not... then why prop it up...

    The argument that 'Arts' is a critical key-stone of society is correct...

    Given that the 'Arts' has been around since the DAWN OF TIME... suggests that it will carry on... DESPITE MY TAX DOLLARS being wasted on hanging tampoons in trees or massive three striped paintings being non-funded

    as foe ms. attwood... just how many canadians would even reconize a title of yours...

    get over yourselves... live... create... and they will fund!!!!!!!
  27. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: The arts even flourish in remote Arctic communities in Canada amongst populations that don't receive these types of government grants...

    The Bubble - The greatest contributor to the Arts in North America is the private sector in the USA... It's not even really a fair fight.

    Cheers
  28. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: BTW The Bubble...

    Nice evasion of the question which I'll now repost...

    Can anyone here actually say why it is the Federal Government (and not the Provincial Governments, Municipal Governments, or Private Sectors) that should be funding the arts in our Provinces ?

    Cheers
  29. William Hanlon from London, Canada writes: This is how we make good things grow in our society: We invest in them.

    We show people who are doing good things that what they are doing is valuable and worthwile, and we support them in these endeavours. Every country on the planet invests in its arts. Ordinary people know that the sounds of their own stories, told in their own voices, make them stronger, smarter, better able to understand who they are, to remember their shared histories, and thus better able to withstand the difficulties of living in an unforgiving world.

    (I also wonder why those who advocate for the elimination of public funding for the arts do not advocate for the elimination of public funding of agriculture, mining, oil extraction, forestry, fishing, and manufacturing. Because all of these things receive funding and tax breaks. What makes the arts industry any different? It's also made up of ordinary people who do things with their hands and heads.)
  30. Jim Cohoon from Chilliwack, Canada writes: The late Neil Postman gave a famous graduation address in which he coined the term 'modern Visigoth', a term which seems increasingly applicable to the 'New Right', of which Mr.Harper is apparently a graduate 'summa cum laude'. It is a term used in contradistinction to 'Athenian'. Postman said: 'To be Athenian is to esteem the discipline, skill, and taste that are required to produce enduring art. In approaching a work of art, Athenians prepare their imagination through learning and experience. To a Visigoth, there is no measure of artistic excellence except popularity. What catches the fancy of the multitude is good. No other standard is respected or even acknowledged by the Visigoth.... To be Athenian is to understand that the thread which holds civilized society together is thin and vulnerable.... The modern Visigoth cares very little about any of this. The Visigoths think of themselves as the center of the universe. Tradition exists for their own convenience and history is merely what is in yesterday's newspaper.... To be Athenian is to hold knowledge and, especially the quest for knowledge, in high esteem. To contemplate, to reason, to question -- these are to an Athenian the most exalted activities a person can perform. To a Visigoth, the quest for knowledge is useless unless it can help you to earn money or to gain power over other people.' Whether wittingly or unwittingly, in their increasingly unprincipled pursuit of power, the 'New Right' are becoming the 'new Visigoths'. It is not just the cultural, but also the ethical and intellectual 'dumbing-down' of our civilization that is at the implicit core of their 'new crusade'. Dumbing-down is both an end and a means. We need many more courageous 'Athenians' such as Ms. Atwood to valiantly stand up for our civilization and protect it from the internal threats looming ahead.
  31. Concerned Person from Canada writes: I guess we can each pick examples of 'art' that we don't like (music, painting, museums, literature, films, etc.) and ask why the government (i.e. ourselves and our neighbours) should pay for 'that kind of stuff'. Equally we should question why GM, Ford, the auto industry generally, Bombardier, AECL, Pratt & Whitney, etc. should receive handouts. I don't like some of the stuff they produce.
    Oh, it's because they 'create jobs' is it? Furthermore they're 'real jobs'. I see. Doesn't the arts community create jobs? Don't these people pay taxes? Think of all the accountants straining away figuring ways that their employers can avoid paying taxes. Now that's creative work.
  32. Mike Donovan from Canada writes: Oh please Ms Atwood dry your eyes. So true to the Liberal theme of entitlement to your entitlement's - how pathetically sad. It's about time we had a PM bold enough to prune the fat off the Art's tree. Avery Lewis et al do not need tax payers money to promote their wacko political agenda's or sexual deviant ideas to the World. I mean how embarrassed was I to learn of what and whom this money was wasted on by the Liberal Gov. Really you should be applauding this move as it free's up more $ for real creative Canadians born with natural talent to write, paint, sing, play an instrument, act etc. Go PM Harper Go!
  33. G. Veneta from Calgary, Canada writes: Mike Baker,
    Thank you for your most thoughtful posts. In a way it gives me hope that some Canadians are still civilized and connected to their humanity while we are under constant assault by the barbarians.

    Thank you for some light in this dark tunnel we peer into. I honestly don't know how I'll get out of bed and go to work with a necon republican majority and know the end of Canada is near.

    How did we become such a callous country? ....and such imbeciles.
  34. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: No one has answered the question yet so I will repost it...

    Can anyone here actually say why it is the Federal Government (and not the Provincial Governments, Municipal Governments, or Private Sectors) that should be funding the arts in our Provinces ?

    Cheers
  35. eff island from Vancouver, Canada writes: I was taught that the practice of forestry is both and art and a science.

    Such also could be said for marketing, economics, medicine, law....politics?

    I propose voting some other direction...not that it would necessarily revolutionize the country, though this directive would not be executed of course if 'ordinary people' mobilized and heaved these ilk out of office.

    One thing to be said about artists....albeit 'easy and undemanding', we have little to lose and don't mind the odd dust up.

    Break out the bourbon! Anyone else out there a bit pissed off?
  36. G. Veneta from Calgary, Canada writes: Ron Pacific,

    This big belly of a dictator is obsessed with 'ordinary' because he isn't even that. He has never fit in, never played sports, never had a tribe to hang out with. He's always been on the fringes without friends and never liked so he is revenging his miserable childhood and teenage years on Canadians that do strive to be extraordinary. It is bald faced jealousy and hatred.

    Art and culture are what give us our joy beyond our work lives. They inspire us and challenge us to think and sometimes just fill us with a sense of the sublime that is beyond words. The arts reach in and touch us on a visceral level.

    In Harper world he would only find satisfaction as it is obvious he has never experienced a joyful moment ever --in Canadians misery. For that he will be satisfied. He is the most inhuman person this country has ever had to suffer.

    God help us and I'm not a god person but could sure use some divine intervention now.

    Heavy sigh. Thank you Ms. Atwood you are a gem and a revered Canadian icon and we are so proud of you. I shudder at your next book which won't have to be imagined but documented on this nightmare that is about to be unleashed upon us.

    Please please keep up the writing. We only have 2 weeks to save Canada from the abyss.
  37. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: The other point that those calling fellow Canadian citizens, 'Barbarians,' don't really understand is that it should be the citizens' right to spend their money as they see fit...

    If one wants to contribute to Belinda's 'Spread the Net' campaign (on the other editorial) instead of giving it to the National Art Gallery's 'Suit of Meat' display, that should be their right as a Canadian citizen to decide...

    If the Art is good and people like it, they will likely buy it...

    A lot of artists here are merely protecting their subsidized empires, but we don't really need a Federal Government meddling in the Arts ...

    Cheers
  38. G. Veneta from Calgary, Canada writes: Artists are generally the underdogs. NO money thus no real power. Who but a bully picks on an underdog? Make no mistake there is no real courage under all that excess nutrition. We all know what 'strong leaders' went after the artists and intellectuals first. There are at least a dozen famous ones. Here we are back to the future.
  39. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: G. Veneta from Calgary, Canada:

    Of course, the 'Harper is Hitler' schtick...

    I should have known that it was coming sooner or later...

    Anyone no one seems able to answer the question that I have asked three times and I sincerely doubt that Atwood would address it so I am off to bed...

    Mordecai Richler was the only one who would address it ....

    Unfortunately, he is dead now.

    Cheers
  40. Katherine R from Canada writes: National Film Board of Canada is an example of why grants need to exist. They are not making blockbuster action movies for 12 year old boys. They are making classy, challenging, and internationally-reknowned documentaries that would not otherwise be made.

    For all you simpletons who think that anything that requires some government assistance should be thrown out, please bid adieu to Canadian agriculture, the TransCanada Highway, the oil industry, our universities and colleges, our health care system....

    Thank you Margaret Atwood for an excellent piece.

    And while I'm sure everyone knows this by now, it's worth stating again: Stephen Harper has publicly said that his favourite book is the Guinness Book of World Records.
  41. Robin Hannah from Canada writes: R Miller, my Federal Government (and every other level of government) should support Canadian arts because they believe in the arts. Does that answer your question?

    As for Stronach's 'Spread the Net', that's about saving lives in another way, and I support that too.
  42. Stewart Mawdsley from Canada writes: Um, R Miller, I believe Atwood addressed your point about 'why fund the arts?' when she detailed how many jobs in Canada they account for. Forestry and other industries are subsidized as well. Several other posters have directly answered your question, but you seem to be deliberately ignoring them.

    Katherine R has it right:

    For all you simpletons who think that anything that requires some government assistance should be thrown out, please bid adieu to Canadian agriculture, the TransCanada Highway, the oil industry, our universities and colleges, our health care system....

    What a great piece by Atwood, scathing and witty while staying rooted in fact. Couldn't agree more.
  43. mike sty - from Canada writes:

    Why does Harper hate Canada????

    Why does Harper Hate ordinary Canadians????
  44. Shawn W from Toronto, Canada writes: Thank-you Ms. Atwood for weighing in on this troubling issue. The mean-spirited attack on arts and culture from Stephen Harper is inexcusable.
  45. C Mudle from Canada writes: Excellent piece, talk about hitting the nail on the head.
  46. yves couture from montreal, Canada writes: One of the main aspect of the so-called cultural war, in the US, was the neo-conservative effort to present themselves closer to ordinary people than the 'latte-drinking-liberals' were.

    While I applaud most of what Ms Atwood wrote in this piece, I think she's no match against Harper on that battleground. She tries hard to be on the side of ordinary people, with the 'we're all creative' line of argument. But the very nature of art probably tends to a view of human nature where the 'extraordinary', the 'high' and the 'sacred' are distinguished from the 'ordinary', the 'low' and the 'mundane'.

    This is why there will probably always have a tension between art and artists, on one side, and the concerns of the 'demos', of democracy, on the other.

    European countries have a long tradition of State backed elitism. To this day, Britain and France heavily finance high minded media like the BBC or France Culture (Who can even imagine a radio like France Culture in Canada !) The US have a more populist tradition, at least when the State is concerned. But even in the US, there are huge federal grants for the arts.

    Canada used to follow the European model of generous public money for the arts. And it was conservative governments, was it not, who initiated many initiatives like the CBC in the mid- 20 th century.

    But the old Tory mentality seems to have been replaced by prairie populism. The cultural war now seems irresistible to gain ground with ordinary people against 'liberal elitists'.

    The paradox is that right wing governments are often very bad, economically, for 'ordinary people'. But they have success with symbols, flattering 'ordinary needs' against the fancy stuff of the literacy crowd.

    Poor Margaret Atwood ! She may be right, but she's is the very embodiment of an artistic elite. Her sophisticated disdain for the barbarians is surely self-pleasing, but it is precisely the role Harper wants her to perform.
  47. john may from writes: Having sat through numerous boring, preachy Canadian plays often thinking 'Our money at work' it is long past time part of the $3 billion was redirected towards funding out of school arts programmes, particularly music, for children. The whining and moaning from highly paid union members such as Pinsent, Feore featured on TV yesterday really does grate when I go to my local elementary school music performance and the only faces I see playing an instrument are those of white middle class kids. Most of my music education was the result of parents and my own curiousity. Somehow we must engage the young minds and support them and give them a grounding in culture rather than tossing money around in haphazard fashion.
    Air Farce received subsidies for 25 years - why ?
  48. Henry Allen from East Bank, Don River, Canada writes:
    This arts grant tizzy would make sense to most Canadians if we saw something tangible being impacted. But, we don't. For example, when was the last time we saw a made-in-Canada movie about Canada that knocked our socks off. I can't remember one that hit the top and made money. I understand that movies made in Quebec are popular, but those don't play outside Quebec. Let's face it, movies are a tangible example of the arts to most Canadians, not an Atwood novel which, while precious to Atwood fans, goes unnoticed by most Canadians. So, if we're not seeing tangible evidence of Canadian arts in something as visible as made-in-Canada movies about Canada that are highly entertaining and make money, most Canadians won't spend a second worrying about $45 million, a tiny percentage, being diverted from arts grants. For most Canadians, there is no sense of loss, especially in toughening economic times when every increase in the price of gas hurts and worries about a worldwide recession.
  49. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: One of my favorite singers is Mary Jane Lamond.She sings only songs composed in Gaelic, the language spoken by Canadian pioneers from Scotland .She has recorded five CDs , and each bears a tiny Canadian flag, attesting to the contribution of our government to the costs of producing a CD in the language of Canada's first Prime Ministers .It is unlikely that a bank would have loaned Mary Jane money to put out a CD in a language few Canadians can still speak, without the government funding, Mary Jane would probably not be putting new life in old songs.
  50. bethany middleton from Canada writes: Bravo, Ms. Atwood: art and creative activity lie at the core of our humanity. We are all involved, and in that sense, art is 'ordinary'. But at the same time, the instinct to create is what makes life extraordinary.

    And if we're going to talk subsidy, then we should be talking about how much more subsidy is going to the oil industry, to forestry....to corporations of all sorts. Are they, too, 'elitist whiners', Mr. Harper?
  51. ginette olivier from oakville, Canada writes: With all Mr. Harper's cuts to the Arts and culture, ordinary canadians may be forced to watch Conservative galas instead. We may end up in a society where some people are more equal than others.
  52. ByB ImYmI from Canada writes: ..//

    Margaret Atwood is a tired old feminist who doesn't speak for me.

    Art and creativity is in all of us and is not a profession, it is a past time. If you want to paint, write, sculpt, or dance around... have at it, but not on my dime. Loft off all you want... but I'm not paying for it.

    If [your art] is truly worthwhile someone will pay for it.

    Harper is correct to stop funding the lazy poison in our society.

    ..//
  53. Martha K. from Canada writes: I totally disagree with the premise of this article, or rather its absolutist tone. Mr. Harper is not putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work and Ms. Atwood knows this.

    While the arts budget is being modestly cut, it's NOT being cancelled as this article would have you believe. Only the superfluous grants are being skimmed off. I'm sorry but I don't want already wealthy people to be getting grants to go off and make their own personal documentaries on the back of taxpayers. This has happened on several occasions as other papers pointed out.

    I left 2 art schools in my 20's to try to make it as an artist - and never applied for any grants. I just kept painting and working my two jobs all the while.

    Now I've got the typical job that everyone else has - it doesn't satisfy me on many levels, but hey, that's life. But when I see some of the degenerate performance pieces and hear about those small films made that literally verge on hard porn, I think sometimes those grants -- many times in fact -- go to the wrong places. I'm happy for more oversight and accountability in this area.
  54. Frank Godfrey from Canada writes: A wedge issue for Harper, nothing more. Interesting that some posters are asking why the Federal level is involved in arts promotion at all. Why not hand the whole thing over to the provinces ? An interesting line of thought. And while they're at it, they might as well download as many useless ' national ' programs as they can on environmental, health, education.... while keeping and bolstering the essential ones like defence. With Canada whittled down to it's barest of essentials, you might ask what ' national ' there is left to defend. Millions of so-called ' ordinary ' Canadians in this ' home and native land ' of ours have some far-reaching choices to make come election day, thanks to S.H.
  55. c rob from Canada writes: ByB ImYmI from Canada Now tell me Bib, Bob, Bub, or whatever you go by these days, what is your definition of 'lazy'. Is it someone who pursues a path that you disagree with? Is that it? I am fundamentally sick to my very soul of the mean spirited, self-righteous, pig headed crap that I read here each day. Who does anyone think he or she is to pass judgment on others and the work they do in such a way? Seriously, who do you think you are? What is it with some of you people. Do you think that the jobs that you do are somehow more worthy than that of others? Do you think that the lives that you live and the codes you live by are somehow better??? Don't give me that crap about you being the taxpayer. We are all taxpayers here, EVEN members of the artistic community. Or is that fact easy to overlook in your quest to ignorantly pass judgment on an entire group of YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS? This is not the Canada I know, this is not the people I love, and I will tell you right now, it will be a cold, bitter day in a hot place before mean spirited ignorance becomes the prevailing wind in this land. Let me put it to you bluntly, insulting Atwood is going a step too far and if this represents what this country has spiralled down to, then I am deeply and fundamentally ashamed of what I as a citizen have allowed to occur, via my vote, in my name.
  56. Erik Sorenson from Canada writes: Everyone has missed the point. The government is not eliminating funding to the Arts. It is cutting back during a time of economic uncertainty and shrinking revenues, jobs, etc. So Ms. Atwood's diatribe is inaccuate, wasted, and dull as usual.

    And if 'artists' who are 'entitled to their entitlements' cannot accept a reduction of .003% in the total handout money available to them at the trough each year, then they aren't realists or anyone that the Canadian taxpayer should deal with.

    And, by the way, it is YOU artists shrilling (inaccurately and maliciously) that our Prime Minister hates the Arts. In fact, what he said that was when ordinary Canadians come home at night after a hard day at work, arts and culture isn't anywhere top of mind for them ... saving their jobs, their families, making ends meet, the next mortgage or car payment ... all that is more important to them. That's why a (piddly) reduction in Arts funding is necessary.

    Lastly, this whole greedy and demeaning campaign has been dominated by lies, omitted facts, and downright mean behaviour by all those 'outraged' artists. Mr. Harper doesn't hate artists, the number of Canadian TV productions has NOT decreased from 11 to 2 during the CPC government (it's actually increased to 13 if you count the two new progs coming onstream this year), and you artists seem to be forgetting to mention the 8% raise at the public trough that you had over the past 2 years. Lost of auto and parts worker now/facing out of work would jump at 8% and be very grateful.

    The majority of posters here and on other threads are right. This 'entitled to my entitlements' attitude of the Arts Community is downright sickening to the ordinary Canadian.
  57. Tough Camper from Squamish, Canada writes:
    Harpy is just cutting the arts to distract a distractable population from the now-on-display disasters of capitalism in excess. Oooh, what's that over there? The arts! Get 'em!!

    The US is imploding with its own capitalist greed gone wild. Lest Harpy's electorate notice the similarities between his policies and Bushie's, he's diverting the spending issue to the arts.

    :)

    Are we so simple as to take that bait?

    The fact that Harpy the Hater so desperately wants our attention away from his disasterous economic policies should really tell us something.

    Frankly, the arts is the biggest and most successful industry in Canada, as others have noted, despite minimal investment. It's a tribute to Canadians! It's not going away.

    The arts will outlive and outshine Harpy's inane right-wing rhetoric. He's an ignorant gnat that history will ignore.

    The electorate should be thinking about how far down the right-wing toilet we want to follow the US. Harper would take us there.

    That's the real issue.

    Nice touch of Harpy's to always refer to the Arts as subsidized, whereas failed oilsand projects are invested in. If I were an investor, I'd certainly choose the investment that I and my community were to get back with interest...

  58. ByB ImYmI from Canada writes: ..//

    c rob,

    lazy:

    1. averse or disinclined to work, activity, or exertion; indolent.
    2. causing idleness or indolence: a hot, lazy afternoon.
    3. slow-moving; sluggish: a lazy stream.

    Money taken from me at gunpoint in the form of taxes ostensibly for feeding starving natives, or for health care to the disabled, or education of the illiterate, then green-shifted to the extreme left who do not respect the people who earn the money in the first place and deny the intended use of the money and its initial tax justification, is abuse.

    No if I want to fund the arts, I'll write a poem on my spare time, and sell it on eBay.

    ..//
  59. Michael Crowell from Halifax, Canada writes: Margaret I would sooner have my tax dollars in my pocket and be able to choose what arts and culture events and causes I want to support. I do not need the State to pick and choose one over another on my behalf. Typically; as in many causes, the loudest and most vocal tend to get the spoils of grants. I resent the fact that most liberals view those on the Right as anti culture. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do not require the CBC or some local drama club as necessary to define me as a Canadian. I am capable of thinking on my own. Carry on PM Harper.
  60. Tough Camper from Squamish, Canada writes: John Stuart Mill had it dead to rights when he made the following observation: 'While it is true that not all conservatives are stupid, it is also true that most stupid people are conservative.'
  61. And Staurt Margolan as 'Angel' from Canada writes: How much do you Con. trolls get paid anyway?
  62. Ryan Ginger from Canada writes: I'm an ordinary, working-class Canadian.
    I want my tax dollars spent on arts. I don't want my tax dollars spent on a war in Afghanistan.
  63. Jeff S from Canada writes: I'm with everyone else, I'd sooner have my tax dollars.
  64. Michael Crowell from Halifax, Canada writes: Geoffrey May from Canada writes: One of my favorite singers is Mary Jane Lamond. It is unlikely that a bank would have loaned Mary Jane money to put out a CD in a language few Canadians can still speak, without the government funding, Mary Jane would probably not be putting new life in old songs. Geoffrey: if you are so passionate about Mary Jane then you gather together a group of investors to financially back her. Please put your capital at risk not that of others. If she is viable and in demand then you and your group will be both rich and have her to listen to at your leisure.
  65. c rob from Canada writes: ByB ImYmI from Canada

    Nice one Bib, Bob, Bub. Screaming about your tax dollars being used for health care for the disabled. Well done. Goes to your true colours. As a result of that comment, you have my sincere promise that I will never point out anything you write ever again on these forums. You inhabit a very sad world, one that I could never be a part of.
    ta
  66. Quebecer in NOTL from Canada writes: Interesting that now with all of those 'Entertainment Tonite' clones on TV every night, we are bombarded with celebrities of the arts doing their thing...posing. Interesting also that they rarely focus on anything Canadian, save for boasting about actors in US made films. Rarely is their any highlighting of the other arts (art, writing, dance etc.)...why is that? Guess they provide product Canadians are supposed to be interested in...so, Ms Atwood seems to be whining about a Canadian identity that seems to be stuck in her mind. It's an interesting study in a dichotomy in the elite and national perspective on the Arts. By the way, it looks like she played right into Harper's playbook wih her retort and potentially distances her position further from mainstream Canadian perspective.
  67. boz dobbs from toronto, Canada writes: Let,s copy England and have a Licence fee on every home with a Tv,we could also hire every unemployed actor,writer or painter to deliver these bills directly to the common folk.
  68. jeff from the cheap seats from Malmo, Sweden writes: R Miller, You're a very good poster on sports. And more to the point you're polite, like just about all the Maritimers I've been fortunate enough to meet over the years, so I enjoy your contributions. I'm not with you, however, on this issue. The arts should always be a nationalistic endeavor, even if they may be municipally, regionally, or provincially inspired. Art can bring local and regional talents like Maritimers Alex Colville, Sloan, or George Elliot Clarke to a broader national and even international audience. Do you think we would have the same national appreciation for Inuit soapstone carvings, East Coast Celtic music, writings about the plight of Jewish Montrealers, or the artwork of the group of 7 and their protogees if the responsibility to foster and nuture their talents fell on the laps of the provinces, or even the municipalities, most of whom can't get enough funds to build effective transportation systems or shelter the homeless. Living internationally I take great comfort in knowing it's many of our famous artists like Leonard Cohen, Neil Young, Bill Reid, JP Riopelle, Yann Martel, Sarah Polley, Joni Mitchell, Frank Ghery, and countless others help distinguish who I am to the international folks I meet everyday. It's always fun to point out the number of famous and excellent Canadians in various cultural fields and get the reaction 'she's Canadian? I had no idea.' But artists don't always become artists on their own. Talent needs to be nurtured. And it's a nations' responsibility to do that. Art can serve as a unifying force for a country. Surely in Mr. Harpers nationalistic view he can understand the importance good nationalistic feelings around culture can help override the pettiness of regionalism. Finally to quote the late Ken Danby, a name I'm sure even Mr. Harper, the hockey guy he is, would recognize: 'We cannot, as a species, as a civilized society - regard ourselves as being enlightened without the arts.'
  69. Michael B from Canada writes: Reality Check from Canada writes: Listen... If something is important... then society will see it grow... If it is not... then why prop it up...
    ---------------
    I am EXTREMELY tired of hearing this argument. Are you suggesting that the government should pull subsidies and funding from every single sector of Canadian life? The auto sector would die. The resource sectors would die. The arts sectors would die. EVERYTHING would die. And do you want to know why? Because we live in a globalized world, and every single facet of our way of life is threatened by international competition.

    To suggest that if it is important it will grow on its own is either willfully ignorant or worse... Almost nothing in the global marketplace can EVER grow on its own. Somewhere along the way it received a 'new entrepreneur' subsidy or some such. I think something like 3/4 start-up companies fail. Should the government pull all support from entrepreneurs as well? NO, idiot, because then healthy home-grown companies wouldn't exist, and we'd be further beholden to the companies that grew in countries that were less short-sighted, companies that didn't really care about helping Canadians.
  70. James Ford from Hamilton, Canada writes: What a tired old woman. For all this hysterical foaming on about 'cutting' our soul or supposed censorship. I don't recall any of Maggy's books being banned?
    Maggy has managed to get a large enough following of readers to buy her books so she does not need grants, well good for her! These grants should be used only as seed money anyway I would think. Get people off the ground and let them prosper if they can. If not, then they will have to figure something else to do with their life.
    People seem to be missing the fact that arts funding has actually increased during Harper's leadership. So spare me Hitler crap people.
    I'll still go to my local art gallery infrequently and scratch my head at those odd conceptual art installations and wonder if my tax dollars are in there somewhere.
  71. David Simon from Canada writes: 1/ 'Every budding dictatorship begins by muzzling the arts?' No, every budding dictatorship gets lots of support from artists, Strauss for the Nazis and Gorky for the Soviets as examples.

    2/ 'doesn't give a toss'? Certainly we ordinary people talk like that all the time.
  72. Richer fairer greener stupider from Toronto, Canada writes: Margaret Atwood is definitely one of the elite. So many bow down to her as an unquestionable icon of Canadian culture. Yes, ordinary Canadians are the ones who imbue their lives with culture. They create it, and they take part in others creating it. They work at jobs or find a way to earn a living while taking part in cultural pursuits. They do not scream bloody murder that someone might take away a government subsidy.

  73. Overtaxed Taxpayer from Canada writes: ' And, according to the Canada Council, in 2003-2004, the sector accounted for an “estimated 600,000 jobs (roughly the same as agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, oil & gas and utilities combined).”
    Does anyone see something wrong with the above numbers? The art sector accounts for 600,000 jobs more than any of the other sectors combine????? Guess there are alot of people on welfare and unemployment.
  74. Blazing Catfur from Ottawa, Canada writes: Yes indeed Ms. Atwood “ordinary people” are participants. They form book clubs and join classes of all kinds - painting, dancing, drawing, pottery, photography ...'

    And they manage to do it without government subsidy - How Creative is that!
  75. Quebecer in NOTL from Canada writes: David Simon from Canada writes: 1/ 'Every budding dictatorship begins by muzzling the arts?' No, every budding dictatorship gets lots of support from artists, Strauss for the Nazis and Gorky for the Soviets as examples.
    ........................................
    Your beginning to sound like a fascist yourself...'artis fascistis'.
  76. ByB ImYmI from Canada writes: ..//

    Quebecer, 'By the way, it looks like she played right into Harper's playbook wih her retort and potentially distances her position further from mainstream Canadian perspective.'

    Well I'd say!!

    The left extreme... don't know how far from the norm they have oozed.

    The left liars, roll their idol out, to brow beat mainstream Canadians into diverting tax dollars from motherhood and apple pie projects to the self-sustaining propagandists like the CBC and Atwood.

    Close the CBC.

    Forget Atwood... move on.

    ..//
  77. john chuckman from Canada writes: Steve, perpetual American wannabe, took his words directly from the Newt Gingrich Playbook.

    Newt used to run around the U.S. calling Public Broadcasting a sandbox for yuppies.

    Any Canadian leader who deliberately chooses this way of expressing himself deserves only our contempt.

    Newt Gingrich is a forgotten nasty lump.

    Harper should be consigned to exactly the same fate.
  78. James Ford from Hamilton, Canada writes: If ten commenter can post as to the last 10 Canadian TV programs they have watched in the last year, I would be VERY surprised!
    The last 5 movies in the last year? Well?

    I bet there were a lot more Canadians interested in the news that HBO is coming to Canada soon. Yes, the average Canadian supports Canadian arts. Show me.
  79. Elizabeth MacDonald from Antigonish N.S., Canada writes: Margaret Atwood just impaled Stephen Harper on her pen!
  80. Quebecer in NOTL from Canada writes: Elizabeth MacDonald from Antigonish N.S., Canada writes: Margaret Atwood just impaled Stephen Harper on her pen!
    .................................
    Even if you are correct...consider what she has given him in votes...seems like a 2-sided pen to me.
  81. F Qureshi from Toronto, Canada writes: Art makes life meaningful, drilling oil does not. Art also enables self-reflection and social critique, which are essential for any progressive and successful society. Art typically is the first victim of a society in decline. Funding for the arts should be among our priorities as a society.
  82. canadian forideas from Canada writes: Tax dollars!..... Yes the Neo-con bankrupt cry of utter failure. Who will be bailing out those investment firms financing the neo-con machine?... Tax dollars. There is such a thing as well directed investments into an industry, by tax dollars. Who has ever heard of a Canadian film industry before the 50's. Those who want to keep tax dollars in your pockets and let the 'free market' decide your future, invest in Fannie Mae... Those who want no tax money in Canadian culture surely miss the 50's, happy days, all American music, movies, culture, way to go......
  83. Cra Os from land'o'shining waters, Canada writes:
    Just another example from a government that seems to know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
  84. ByB ImYmI from Canada writes: ..//

    F Qureshi,

    'Funding for the arts should be among our priorities as a society.'

    It should be at the bottom of our priorities, beneath, Northern sovereignty, allowing people to heating their homes, allowing people to feed themselves, allowing people to get the health care they desire, allowing people to educate themselves, to get a job, have children, etc etc...

    When all these other things are obtained, then the people can choose to buy art if they wish.

    ..//
  85. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Stephen Harper said he doesn't care if Canada winds up one country or ten. Apparently, he spoke truth. It only took this long for his mouth to heal up enough to launch this attack on Canadians of sensibility and creativity, guts and love.

    Canadians not like Harper = fair game and open season. Taxpayer-paid, of course.

    Question: Will Mrs. Harper still be the Honourary Chair at the National Arts rich gala next month? And will she wear the vintage-Clinton pantsuit as is her style? A home-made number? Surely she will not be wearing any designer fashion... designers are soooo gone. Closet artists they are.
    .
  86. Pamphleteer . from Canada writes: Can we have a debate between Mr. Harper and Ms. Atwood? She'd chew his balls and spit them out.
  87. Private Person from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm nervous. There's WAY too much attention being paid to this issue in this election. And the reason? Because Harper decided. We've all taken the bait and changed channels at his command.

    Why does Harper want the election to be about arts funding?

    1. Because it's a very easy sell to his core.
    2. Because if it were about his wacko feakshow caucus (remember the last election Chretien won?) he would be more vulnerable.

    I get that awful feeling that we've been distracted by the shiny thing in Harper's right hand, while the really important thing is in his left, behind his back.

    And his majority is in the bag. How did that happen?

    The conversation should be about specific Conservative candidates and what they have said in the past, even in past elections. That's where the ideological skeletons are. All this ranting about sweaters and galas will lead us to the slaughter.

    Duh.
  88. Mike Tigg from Canada writes: I am an ordinary Canadian who happens to share an intense loathing with many other ordinary Canadians of everything Stephen Harper and his Reform goons stand for. Hopefully I shall not become 'extraordinary' after the election for not having voted for him or God forbid I might have to become an 'elitist'!
  89. Don Lounder from Canada writes: Our Prime Minister does not like disobedient Canadian citizens; notice how often he uses the word 'obviously'; he sees himself as our saviour; soon it will become the 'achtung' as he slides further to the right.
  90. Liz B from Ottawa, Canada writes: I am a working writer who has never received money from any government for my own work. But what I have received from the arts--some of it publicly funded--has been invaluable. I grew up in a rural area, and my first exposure to arts was a privately and publicly funded Shakespeare festival. My first exposure to creative writing was through visiting writers in the public schools (this was in the US, where public funding is even harder to come by than in Canada). On the farm where I grew up, public television was a lifeline to the rest of the world.

    Why should the Canadian government fund the arts? For the same reason that it funds national parks. Art does provide a service for people--it can be an inspiration, or a release valve, or simply a good way to pass time.
  91. Bryan Gotch from Canada writes: According to Atwood, 'Mr. Harper's idea of an ordinary person is that of an envious hater.' An envious hater? Please. Typical, baseless left-wing trash. Grow up Margaret.
  92. Jane Hamilton from Penetanguishene, ON, Canada writes: Dear margaret -

    You are as thorough and elequent as always. You said it all.

    I would like to add one thing: on the one hand, Harper is talking about battling rising youth crime while he campaigns around the country, but what better way to tackle the problems of confused and disenfranchised youth (and disempower the media-driven role models they try to emulate) than to EXPAND the arts and make thenm available to everyone?

    Kids who are encouraged to participate in creative practices are healthier and have higher self esteem - and they tend to grow up to be valuable contributors to society.

    It would be a grave mistake, indeed, to deny them the opportunities for developing in healthy ways, instead of knowing they are frying their brains out in front of computer games and mindless 'Reality' television shows.
  93. canadian forideas from Canada writes: Private Person, I dont think so, The Canadian Neo-cons are getting a drubbing in Quebec right now... Bye bye majority...
  94. Pamphleteer . from Canada writes: Elizabeth MacDonald from Antigonish N.S., Canada writes: Margaret Atwood just impaled Stephen Harper on her pen!

    ---

    pwned i'd say.

    'ordinary' people don't give a crap about arts funding because they don't understand the arts. How could they? They don't read books, they watch survivor and dancing with the stars.
  95. Les Caine from Canada writes: Somethings are hard to hang a price tag on and hence logic dictates must be worthless.
  96. Marian Morgan from Mississauga, Canada writes: I hope the 'ordinary' people read your article, and vote accordingly.
  97. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: That reminds me. Harper's stylist/astrologer/makeup ARTIST. Is she being paid by taxpayers? Harper would never say. But really, if he cares so much about creative people paying their own way, why clam up about his own personal fluffer and the source of her income?

    Face it, she works hard for the money. Who's money, though?

    If Stephen Harper is going to make creative people go it alone, perhaps it is time he visits Ms. Muntean's shop and pays for services with his own money like ordinary Canadians do when they need a comb-over, insta-inch-loss treatment, or a day to night makeup job: with their own money!

    Who's money pays for Harper's personal artist? Does employing a personal makeup artist imply that Harper isn't one of them artist-hating ordinary people he's been making himself up errrr out to be? Seems likely. But is it true? Only Harper's hairdresser knows for sure. But can Harper trust her? Either Y or N, and show your work.

    Can we get a little explanation over here, with a side of good governance with just a whiff of openness, transparency and accountability?
    .
  98. F/A josquin from Canada writes: There will be those who think she has gone too far.

    SHE IS RIGHT ON THE MONEY, AND THERE HAVE BEEN A THOUSAND OF US ON THIS SITE, WHO SAY THE SAME THING EVERYDAY IN EVERYWAY.

    THIS GOVT NEEDS TO BE CURBED AND STOPPED.
  99. Andrew E from Canada writes: I read the title on the main page 'Atwood's arts offensive' and thought to myself 'Yeah, they are'.
  100. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Henry Allen wrote that 'The arts grants tizzy would make sense to most Canadians if we saw something tangible being impacted.'

    You can see it, if you look.

    This summer, for example, Edmonton held its latest, very successful, annual folk festival. Those festivals are subsidized by all levels of government; they would not exist without those subsidies. (The private sector also contributes.) The Edmonton folk fest gets rave reviews, especially from the business community here.

    Another example: Any time you pick up a Canadian book, you are looking at something that has been government-subsidized somewhere along the line. That includes Atwood's books, as well as the kids' books in the library.

  101. giles slade from Richmond, BC, Canada writes: I'm torn between my impulse to malign more of Mr. Harper's short-sighted foolishness (which I think is clearly based on his unpopularity with the intelligentsia of Canada including artists) and my long-standing impulse to disagree with most of Ms Atwood's imperious pronouncements.

    Arts solidify, and enlarge our notions of a national cultural identity which, presumably, all Canadians value. On the other hand, I as a writer, have never received a single dollar from the Canadian government and don't require such money to continue writing my books.

    It would be nice to be honored by my country by a little useful cash, and, if it ever happens I am the kind of guy who makes a point of saying thank