FleaInNYCbanner.jpg

? The Fish Movie | Main | Desiderii Marginis: My diamond in the rough ?

April 15, 2008

A quantum of solipsism

A camera toting curmudgeon calls it "Robbing Peter to pay Polley" as actress/activist/hot (let's face facts) Sarah Polley agitates against Bill C-10, a measure removing tax credits for Canadian film productions featuring violent or offensive content, whatever on earth that might be. I admit the idea some federal bureaucrat can make a this sort of call for we poor benighted members of the public is ludicrous; we need look no further than "human rights" commissions from coast to coast to doubt the wisdom of such a scheme. But I am equally opposed to the current scheme, favoured by Polley, of funding arts council parasites, hangers on and identity based vanity projects.

I much prefer Sean McCormick's solution to the problem, viz funding no film "whatsoever".

Look, I consider myself an artist as well, and I have my own creative vision that I pursue on a regular basis. Well, whenever I can afford to, which, with fuel at $1.17 a litre, is not so affordable these days. If I could get Ms. Polley’s hand out of my pocket, perhaps I could pursue my own vision just a bit farther. And not just myself, but all the others who quietly follow their own artistic vision in this country. I’m talking about grannies having a little extra dosh left in their pocket for buying yarn or needlepoint supplies. Or painters having money for buying better oils and acrylics and more of them. Or potters being able to buy, throw, and fire more clay. We’re the silent art majority and we manage just fine without having the government forcefully extract money from our fellow citizens on our behalf.

As an artist whose work is tax-payer supported to the tune of no dollars at all, I could not agree more. In fact, from what I can make out the musical genre I work in is ineligible for public funding of any kind be it municipal, provincial or federal. Perhaps as it should be.* But every cent I pay in taxes toward Polley's solipsistic vision is a cent I cannot put toward my own equally solipsistic - but I can assure you far more interesting - vision. I find it difficult to believe it has ever crossed her mind her subsidized work is in some sense stealing from those who have no interest in it. Still less that subsidizing her work is at the expense of other artists.

Here is a thought: Find a patron, build an audience or pay for it yourself. It was good enough for the Renaissance. And it is difficult to argue with the results then and now from the divine to the dire.** Though Sarah Polley really is very good in John Adams so props for that.

* Of course, I would be delighted should enterprising Flea-readers stumble across a martial industrial/neofolk fund to which I might apply. There are principles and then there is cash.
** That goes double for CBC television and publicly funded basketball stadiums. If we are going to throw money at sport it should at least be something gladiatorial.

Update: Quotulatiousness shares.

Friends of ours (many years ago, now that I think on it) who were active in trying to increase government funding for the arts were mortified at the very notion of going back to the days of private patrons. Apparently the need to satisfy the paymaster is utterly beneath contempt for a true artist. Artists are the "soul of the culture" and should be free to explore, create, and ponder art to their hearts' content, we were earnestly informed. Let's just say that the conversation didn't go well from that point onwards . . .

I assume that free to explore, create and ponder art uses free in the same sense as free health care. This word free, I do not think it means what they think it means.

Posted by Ghost of a flea at April 15, 2008 06:23 AM

Comments

The lady can act. It's just a shame that she seems to choose not to on so many occasions. She was marvelous in the Ramona vids and in Road to Avonlea. Same with John Adams.

In Dawn of the Dead, not so much. But as you pointed out, she is rather hot, and I'm willing to tolerate bad actresses when they're hot and getting some undead zombie action. I can't say the same for the third season of Slings and Arrows, which she desecrated with her presence.

If she could stomach a few years of film making down south, I'm quite sure that she could make the A-list and generate the funds to back whatever projects her little leftist heart desires. She DOES have the acting talent when she turns it on. Of course, that would mean debasing herself by submitting to a capitalistic system and that won't do. Better to pick the pockets of her fellow citizens.

Posted by: Sean M. [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 15, 2008 10:43 AM

Unfortunately I formed a bad opinion of her back in the Baron Munchausen days, and nothing I have seen since might convince me to change it.

Especially after seeing her inexplicable performance in Beowulf & Grendel. There was no point in having her tacked-on Selma character (complete with Canadian accent) anywhere in the story.

Don't mean to badmouth a Flea-crush in his own comments, mind you. She's just not my cup of tea, professionally or pulchritudinously.

Posted by: Chris Taylor [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 15, 2008 04:27 PM

Thing is... I agree in the sense that I refuse to accommodate commercial concerns in my work. I refuse to make it more "marketable" by steering it in the direction of "lifestyle" or "travel" photography. Which is fine. But the price I pay for this is that I fund everything out of my own pocket and I have to work a day job to do so.

He who pays the piper calls the tune, which is both fair and true. Which is why I am almost entirely self-supporting (I do sell the odd print).

Posted by: Sean M. [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 18, 2008 12:37 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in. Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?