3 ms·

First of all, funding arts/sports != livable wages for the artists/atheletes. There's an overlap but wage is just at the tip of the iceberg of funding. Provide

First of all, funding arts/sports != livable wages for the artists/atheletes. There's an overlap but wage is just at the tip of the iceberg of funding. Provide livable wages to athletes and artists who represent your country (i.e., Olympians and national performers/artists). Fund development programs from as early as possible; this means grassroots efforts like summer camps, higher-level contests/tournaments, providing funds for national and international exposure, and providing for easy access to decent gear, among others. A lot of the participants in these programs wouldn't do this for life---won't make it to the Olympics or to the National Opera---but it will do a lot of other things like keep children off the streets and, not to mention, develop other skills/connections that could still come in useful later in life. If anything, sports could give them a love for exercise which, I heard recently, is the most potent medical intervention. And yes, your son is an artist as long as he imagines himself to be. Ideally he has access to these development programs that could pave the way for him to a professional art career if he's so determined. Your garage band is an artist group; what you may not be is a professional artist group. Same goes for the subway busker. Speaking of which, when you went to the flip side, you kinda went from oranges to, not quite apples but lemons. Professionals like Swift and Brady should be far far less the taxpayer's concern compared to Olympians and other amateurs.

reshlo 2y ago
> national performers/artists Who is in this group?
- chii 2y ago
  So you hold a competition to see who is the best...
  - reshlo 2y ago
    Is this trumpet player better than that painter? Is this sculptor better than that beat poet?
themaninthedark 2y ago
My discussion of funding, was not in reference to development programs but in reference to the top of the thread: >On one hand you want to provide livable wages to your athletes, but Canada just registered a deficit of 62 billions. Cuts are coming and more money to Olympians will be put up against funding for healthcare, education, etc... At some point you have to make hard decisions. and my question of where this money will come from. The initial discussion did not specify a set of "Athletes and artists who represent your country (i.e., Olympians and national performers/artists)" although it cold be argued it was inferred due to the topic being Olympians. However, since Artists are part of the thread and I am not aware of any Olympic medals for things traditional considered art i.e. painting, sculpture, I decided it would be a good topic of discussion. I like a lot of your answer but you ran into the same obstacle that I did when considering this: >Provide livable wages to athletes and artists who represent your country (i.e., Olympians and national performers/artists). >Professionals like Swift and Brady should be far far less the taxpayer's concern Swift and Brady are athletes who represent the country; Swift explicitly when she does international tours, while Brady has international appeal as well bringing the NFL outside of the USA(if you disagree, substitute Brady with Micheal Jordan or Babe Ruth)(https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33007604/my-michael-jordan-how-tom-brady-became-nfl-first-true-global-icon https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33007604/my-michael-jord...). >compared to Olympians and other amateurs. This is where I was having the most trouble, as I can not find a way to draw a distinction between say Brady and Michael Phelps; both have a large amount of natural talent but they both had to train intensively every day. The only difference is the sport that Brady engaged in is a national league that who's bidding process drives up the athlete's pay. It gets even harder when you try to do the analysis for artists, Maurizio Cattelan(famous conceptualist, who's works include a golden toilet and banana taped to the wall)(net worth 5 million) or Phillip Glass(composer)(net worth 35 million) >“While working, I suddenly heard a noise and looked up to find Robert Hughes, the art critic of Time magazine, staring at me in disbelief. ‘But you’re Philip Glass! What are you doing here?’ It was obvious that I was installing his dishwasher and I told him I would soon be finished. ‘But you are an artist,’ he protested. I explained that I was an artist but that I was sometimes a plumber as well and that he should go away and let me finish.”. We want to support these people when they need it but that is before they rise to fame. Once they do, they generally don't need the support. But sometimes they do...take the number of "professional" NBA, NFL, etc that spend their money unwisely and are bankrupt as soon as they are unable to play sports.

reshlo 2y ago

> national performers/artists Who is in this group?

chii 2y ago
So you hold a competition to see who is the best...
- reshlo 2y ago
  Is this trumpet player better than that painter? Is this sculptor better than that beat poet?

themaninthedark 2y ago

My discussion of funding, was not in reference to development programs but in reference to the top of the thread: >On one hand you want to provide livable wages to your athletes, but Canada just registered a deficit of 62 billions. Cuts are coming and more money to Olympians will be put up against funding for healthcare, education, etc... At some point you have to make hard decisions. and my question of where this money will come from. The initial discussion did not specify a set of "Athletes and artists who represent your country (i.e., Olympians and national performers/artists)" although it cold be argued it was inferred due to the topic being Olympians. However, since Artists are part of the thread and I am not aware of any Olympic medals for things traditional considered art i.e. painting, sculpture, I decided it would be a good topic of discussion. I like a lot of your answer but you ran into the same obstacle that I did when considering this: >Provide livable wages to athletes and artists who represent your country (i.e., Olympians and national performers/artists). >Professionals like Swift and Brady should be far far less the taxpayer's concern Swift and Brady are athletes who represent the country; Swift explicitly when she does international tours, while Brady has international appeal as well bringing the NFL outside of the USA(if you disagree, substitute Brady with Micheal Jordan or Babe Ruth)(https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33007604/my-michael-jordan-how-tom-brady-became-nfl-first-true-global-icon https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33007604/my-michael-jord...). >compared to Olympians and other amateurs. This is where I was having the most trouble, as I can not find a way to draw a distinction between say Brady and Michael Phelps; both have a large amount of natural talent but they both had to train intensively every day. The only difference is the sport that Brady engaged in is a national league that who's bidding process drives up the athlete's pay. It gets even harder when you try to do the analysis for artists, Maurizio Cattelan(famous conceptualist, who's works include a golden toilet and banana taped to the wall)(net worth 5 million) or Phillip Glass(composer)(net worth 35 million) >“While working, I suddenly heard a noise and looked up to find Robert Hughes, the art critic of Time magazine, staring at me in disbelief. ‘But you’re Philip Glass! What are you doing here?’ It was obvious that I was installing his dishwasher and I told him I would soon be finished. ‘But you are an artist,’ he protested. I explained that I was an artist but that I was sometimes a plumber as well and that he should go away and let me finish.”. We want to support these people when they need it but that is before they rise to fame. Once they do, they generally don't need the support. But sometimes they do...take the number of "professional" NBA, NFL, etc that spend their money unwisely and are bankrupt as soon as they are unable to play sports.