Cuts the Conservative government made to programs that helped Canadian artists export their work now threatens Canadian jobs and puts the nation's international cultural influence in peril, several artists told MPs Monday.
Last summer, the Conservatives quietly cancelled two programs, PromArt and Trade Routes, which contributed about $12 million a year to help Canadian performers reach international audiences.
At the time the cuts were made, a senior government official told Canwest News Service the programs were being axed because some grant recipients included “a general radical,” “a left-wing and anti-globalization think-tank” and a rock band that uses an expletive as part of its name.
But on Monday, representatives of several mainstream arts organizations argued for the restoration of the programs on economic and cultural grounds.
“The impact of these cuts means cancelled tours, stalled contract negotiations, lost work weeks for artists, and the ultimate disappearance of Canadian art from the world stage,” said Shannon Litzenberger, executive director of the Canadian Dance Assembly, a group that represents about 500 professional dance troupes in Canada . . . [Read the rest of the story]
Naming a band “Holy Fuck” is not only offensive but really stupid. It's not “cute”, like “Bare Naked Ladies.” The band should have been careful what it wished for. If it wanted to piss people off and get attention for all the wrong reasons, it sure succeeded.
That said, the Government was wrong to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Sure – nix the bad and frivolous projects and screen out undeserving applicants. Base the grants on merit and need, not politics.
What bothers me most about the Conservative's attitude in this whole matter is that it's so cavalier. As if you can just cut programs that people count on without any notice, throw the money at something completely different – like museums, or the Olympics – and pretend that it's all the same because it's in the same department.
That, and the fact that they just sort of 'let slip' that nonsense about commies and degenerates using the fund, then claim that no, of course that's not the real reason, I don't know why anybody would ever say that. But meanwhile their base has dutifully responded to the dog whistle with a howling chorus of “myy taaax dolllerrrrs!!” and contentedly gone back to watching hockey. Followed at nine by “Extreme Cop Beatdowns” and “America's Greatest Three-Legged Dog Videos”.
A few points on this:
1. Some valuable corporate sponsors have been eliminated from the scene thanks to the do-gooders that thought cigarette companies, for instance, should not be visible in such venues because they might corrupt the vulnerable audience into using their noxious products. “Cutting off your nose …” would apply here.
2. Artists who have “made it” here and elsewhere are very vocal in their defense of government funding, but how much have THEY personally contributed to a fund to help upcoming artists? Does a fund like that even exist? Where are the contributions, other than recriminations, from Margaret Atwood, Margie Gillis, Michel Rivard, et compagnie?
3. Since when is Avi Lewis considered an “artiste” in need of government funding? Couldn’t his wife – journalist, polemicist, documentarist – Naomi Klein spot him a few for his travels?
4. It is precisely because of supercilious comments such as “But meanwhile their base has dutifully responded to the dog whistle with a howling chorus of “myy taaax dolllerrrrs!!” and contentedly gone back to watching hockey. Followed at nine by “Extreme Cop Beatdowns” and “America's Greatest Three-Legged Dog Videos” that people like me rebel at the thought of subsidizing anything that moves and calls itself ART.
5. Culture vultures already support the arts by buying tickets to performances and perhaps making donations to foundations supporting them.
6. Obtaining easy tax dollars for a questionable product may only help to kill initiative.
1) Agreed. Bad move.
3) Avi Lewis is a documentary film maker, and writers – even ones like Naomi Klein – aren't exactly independently wealthy (right, Dave?). Also, Klein has only done as well as she has because her publisher pays for her to travel to the U.S. and elsewhere to promote her books. There is no such mechanism for independent filmmakers or performing groups.
4) Yeah, I had the snark in overdrive. Sorry. It was unfair to characterize the Conservative base as being entirely made up of reality TV-watching hockey fans. I left out the top tax bracket professionals and business execs who buy $1,000+ subscriptions to the opera and the National Ballet and don't understand why those who want to 'support the arts' don't just do the same.
6) And there's your problem right there. Art is not a commodity, and treating it like one almost invariably produces bad art. Or reality TV.
Anyway, I already made most of my arguments on this subject back in August. Go read, if you like.
Then could it be that the Opera and the National Ballet have placed themselves out of reach of Joe Average? It's that kind of elitism that offends many people who are critics of the Art World.
I think a lot of people look at the 'arts' as a luxury, which by and large is a definition I can agree with.
Going out to a movie: luxury. Going to see a play: luxury. Spending a day at the ROM (or other museum): luxury. Getting tickets to a concert: luxury. Buying certain artistic products: luxury item. Cable TV (reality or not): luxury. etc etc
The point is, none of these kind of things are necessary things to survive. They are not priorities for average Canadians. When times are hard, these are the first things that Canadians cut out of their personal budgets. There are more important things like putting food on the table, heating the home and otherwise providing the life essentials for one's self and family. Why is it such a crime for these people to expect the same from the Government when the Government has to adjust it's budget in difficult times?
It used to be that an artist needed a patron in order to devote their life and occupation to their “art” or “craft”. That in itself was a whole industry and economy with prestige and commensurate worth added to the work. Now it's far easier to ride on government subsidy than to have to rely on the good graces of the art-interested community.
jsmith and I have already had a brief discussion on this here
I also recognize that you've mentioned this before. However, I have to say that if art reflects society, then it likely shouldn't be unpalatable to the majority. Indifference does far more damage to the art world than criticism. Art should provoke discussion, not apathy or disinterest. Artists in the past who offended the masses weren't likely to be heard from again.
Re: #3. “There is no such mechanism for independent filmmakers or performing groups.”
I beg to differ.
http://www.telefilm.gc.ca/01/11.asp
“Our mandate
Telefilm Canada is a federal cultural agency dedicated to the development and promotion of the Canadian audiovisual industry. …
Telefilm's role is to foster the production of films, television programs and cultural products that reflect Canadian society, with its linguistic duality and cultural diversity, and to encourage their dissemination at home and abroad.”
I don’t know exactly how Avi Lewis’ s work reflected “Canadian society, with its linguistic duality and cultural diversity.” Having watched his stint on the CBC's Counterpoint for a few years, I would say his opus dealt primarily with anti-American diatribes. He seems to have found his niche in Al-Jazeera.
And please allow me to repeat, Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein are not exactly indigent. If Ms. Klein could not slip him a few dollars, I'm sure Mr. Lewis' parents could.
From Wiki: “He is the son of diplomat and former Ontario New Democratic Party Leader Stephen Lewis and journalist Michele Landsberg, the grandson of former New Democratic Party leader David Lewis, and the nephew of architect Daniel Libeskind.”
Anyway, isn’t “independent” filmmaker a misnomer? If one is “independent” why the need for subsidies?
Re: #4 “I left out the top tax bracket professionals …”
You also left out mid-income culture vultures who also enjoy the opera, the ballet, pop/rock concerts, jazz festivals, museum exhibitions, etc. and who pay for their tickets if and when they can afford them.
There’s plenty of regular, average folk who fit in that demographic, not necessarily at either end of the extremes you have portrayed.
Re: #6 “Art is not a commodity …”
Then, that suggests that no artist should demand being “paid” through subsidies for his/her work by the faceless taxpayer, who may not even be aware of that artist's work.
“Telefilm Canada is a federal cultural agency dedicated to the development and promotion of the Canadian audiovisual industry. …
I should have said, there is no private sector equivalent – i.e. independent film producers and ballet companies simply do not have the same resources as major book publishers or large film studios to send their performers abroad to display or promote their work.
As I said, I made most of my arguments for the benefits of this type of cultural exportation in the blog post I mentioned, but as far as Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein not being 'indigent', I think you are missing the point. This is not charity. They are not just promoting their own work – they are promoting Canada to the world. How many industries receive government funding to send their corporate execs abroad to promote Canadian business? I'm sure they aren't hurting either.
“Then could it be that the Opera and the National Ballet have placed themselves out of reach of Joe Average?”
Placed themselves out of reach? Do you imagine these people are making a profit? You are talking about productions that employ dozens and dozens of people on and off stage, plus the cost of the venue, promotion, etc., etc. Ticket prices, as high as they are, only cover a fraction of the costs. Donations cover some of the rest, but without state funding you'd probably be looking at a few hundred dollars a seat.
Hell, I sing in a community choir that barely breaks even from ticket sales and program advertising – and we don't even get paid!
As far as culture being expendable during hard times, I beg to differ. During hard times, people look to cultural activities as an escape from their troubles and sometimes as their only source of pleasure. In fact, movie theatres are already reporting a significant increase in ticket sales.
And as for wealthy patrons – historically, they WERE the state. They collected taxes from their vassals and spent it on castles, armies and big statues of naked guys (at least our state pays for schools). In more modern times, most of the best artists starved.
I'll say one more thing before I leave it to y'all. Culture is how we know who we are. If we do not have a strong culture of our own – by which I mean telling our own stories to ourselves through whatever medium – we are by default allowing someone else to tell us who we are. One direct result is the sorry spectacle of so many Canadians believing that we elect our Prime Minister directly or that he is our head of state – not because of some failing in our educational system, but because that's how it works on 'The West Wing'.
That, to me, is a profoundly dangerous situation.
Agreed that subsidies are not “charity.” However, that funding should be directed to those who don't have the means to travel abroad to showcase their work. Ms. Klein and her husband are not in that category, IMO.
And in any event, does their work really qualify as “art”? Perhaps those who decided to “de-fund” people like Avi Lewis and Gwynne Dyer dispute their work being classified as “art.” They would not be the first nor the last to question what constitutes “art.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classificatory_disputes_about_art#Theories_of_art
“They are not just promoting their own work – they are promoting Canada to the world.”
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how their work promotes Canada to the world.
I concede your point about corporate execs not “hurting,” and yet receiving government funding – albeit for trade missions. But remember, the Liberals have been complaining on that front, telling the government it hasn't kept up the same pace of trade missions to China that they used to keep.
So they and you, since you seem to be in their camp, can't have it both ways on that score.
You mean, kind of what like the Multiculturalism farce we're living in is doing? And please, don't try to tell me that 'Multiculturalism' is our culture, the 'unifying force of diversity' is likewise a joke.
Can you honestly tell me what defines a Canadian from the rest of the world? Seriously, because that's something I've been trying to hunt down for years. It just seems like a thousand little things trying to elbow their way into some kind of incoherent patchwork quilt that we try to call the Canadian 'culture', whatever that means.