11-11-2020, 10:31 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-11-2020, 10:34 AM by danbrotherston.)
(11-10-2020, 03:56 PM)jamincan Wrote:(11-10-2020, 03:07 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: *rolls eyes*...
If you folks aren't interested in a serious conversation, that's fine.
By the way, I never said fine art, capitalism has no problem creating wealthy people and corporations to commission or own their own pieces. Public art on the other hand is what the discussion was actually about.
I get your hypothesis, but it just doesn't seem to be supported by evidence.
Fair enough, you're welcome to have a differing opinion, mine is not...well researched, although I do still feel it is valid. I was mainly put off by the sarcastic retort.
(11-10-2020, 11:31 PM)plam Wrote:(11-10-2020, 03:56 PM)jamincan Wrote: I get your hypothesis, but it just doesn't seem to be supported by evidence.
More seriously, City of Waterloo has had a one percent for public art policy since 1996. City will reserve up to 1% for projects over $1M, up to a max of $300k. I guess developer contributions can help with bonusing ("Section 37 of the Planning Act") and private sector/community donations are "encouraged".
(11-11-2020, 12:14 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Kitchener, Cambridge, and RofW also have public art policies, iinm.
These things are clearly anti-free-market-capitalism.
A central organization taking money and using central planning to decide to spend it on arts is not the free hand of the market. The fact that we do this, recognizes that it is important, but that the free market won't achieve it on it's own.
Of course, I did say before, we only pretend to be free-market-capitalist, in reality we contort the market all the time because we see how it fails.