Media Round-Up: Arcade Fire & Karkwa at Place des festivals

Aside

While managing the State of the Arts event last week, we didn’t have time to highlight the countless interesting discussions generated by last Thursday’s Pop Montreal concert with Arcade Fire and Karkwa in the Place des festivals.

The event united two of Quebec’s most significant bands of the decade on a free outdoor stage in front of a hometown crowd for one night, and set the local media ablaze with chatter of the event’s broader significance.

Little remains that has not been said by others.
Here’s a brief round up of some of the online & print media coverage:

Jason Bajada profile raises subtle questions of Canada-Quebec differences

Aside

Jason Bajada, The Sound Your Life Makes

Jason Bajada, The Sound Your Life Makes

There’s a quietly surprising profile of Jason Bajada cycling through Western papers today.

The article comes as Bajada launches a new album, The Sound Your Life Makes. But it is worth singling out for the subtlety with which Postmedia’s John P. McLaughlin handles Quebec culture and the fact of English-speaking artists for whom Canada is something of a mystery, but Quebec is home.

It has appeared under several titles:

On SunTV and Margie Gillis, BackoftheBook.ca

Aside

Context: A video of Sun Media’s Krista Erickson browbeating dance legend Margie Gillis went viral last week. For posts about the ensuing debate, click here and here. For posts on a similar debate in the French media last month, see herehere and here.

 —–

On SunTV and Margie Gillis (excerpts), by Louis Laberge-Côté

Canadian dancer Louis Laberge-Côté, currently a teacher at Nationaltheatre Manheim in Germany, offered this assessment.

[...] And by the way, culture sector workers (including artists) are taxpayers just like any other worker in Canada, something Miss Erickson seems to easily forget.

[...] Each time an artist like Margie Gillis receives a grant, Canadians are hired: dancers, actors, musicians, composers, rehearsal directors, lighting/costume/set designers, photographers, administrative and marketing staff, to name a few. Rehearsal and performing space are rented. Eventually, posters, flyers, ads and programs are designed, printed and distributed. Many audience members go to a restaurant before or after the performance traveling by car, taxi, or public transportation. Previews and reviews are written in newspapers and magazines. Tourists come to a city or decide to stay longer to see a specific show or exhibition. Touring artists fly and travel all around the world on commercial airlines. The list goes on and on.

[...] Looking at it proportionally, it is easy to see that cultural funding doesn’t represent that much money in the big picture. In fact, wanting to cut these amounts to help the economy is somewhat similar to wanting to cut the toenails of an obese man, just so he could lose some weight. Somewhat ridiculous, don’t you think? Especially since by comparing these numbers with the ones from the Conference Board, we can also see that this “small” collective investment is actually quite a profitable one; the Conference Board estimates that in 2007, the expenses related to culture on all levels of government together (federal, provincial and local) reached $7.9 billion. This $7.9 billion generated $84.6 globally, something we all benefit from, and not only the “cultural elites” as Miss Erickson likes to believe.

[...] But let’s use a more contemporary example; Cirque du Soleil started from nothing and is now worth around $2 billion. In the early ‘80s, the founders were a few unknown artists living in Baie-Saint-Paul with no rehearsal space. I am pretty sure Miss Erickson would have gladly described them as “walk like an Egyptian” “artsy fartsy” “cultural elites”, to use more of the colourful language she enjoys so much. But luckily, Guy Laliberté didn’t meet with Miss Erickson when he needed public support. He met with Québec Premier René Lévesque who took the time to listen. Thanks to a politician who had faith in culture, this little circus with no audience at the time became a highly successful international enterprise. But this didn’t happen in one day. It took many years of research, development, and trial and error which were at first not profitable.

[...] In fact, many artistic movements and creators were at first not appreciated by their contemporaries. For the longest time, jazz music had a very limited audience. Artists such as Van Gogh and Stravinsky, whose work is greatly appreciated nowadays, had very difficult beginnings. Many of the things we can enjoy today as “normal entertainment” would have been completely misunderstood just a hundred years ago. And that’s normal, as this is how humanity evolves. Should we stop artistic evolution just because it requires effort and personal exploration to fully appreciate it, especially knowing that this pattern (avant-garde works not being mainstream) has existed for centuries? Obviously no.

And of course, this pattern also exists in other fields. Take science for example. There is practical science which has clear direct function. And there is leading-edge research, which doesn’t necessarily have immediate results. But leading-edge research is the reason why diabetes treatments, X-rays and supersonic planes exist today. I don’t understand why artists are being publicly described as spoiled elitists when the government also supports the pharmaceutical industry, high-caliber sports or higher education. Everything is financed by the state. And everybody benefits from it. When an athlete competes on an international level, we’re all winners. When an artist like Margie Gillis presents her work internationally, the effect is the same. [...]

La Presse and Rue Frontenac respond to aggressive Margie Gillis interview on Sun TV News

Aside

Canada Live with Krista Erikson, June 1 2011

A video of Sun Media’s Krista Erickson browbeating dance legend Margie Gillis went viral last week. For context and a link to the video, click here. We have yet to notice discussion in Canada’s English papers, but journalists for La Presse and RueFrontenac.com have filed responses this week.

Translated excerpts and links to the complete original articles are available below.
(Translations by ELAN).

*****

Marc Cassivi, La Presse

La compassion de Sun TV News / The Compassion of Sun TV News
Marc Cassivi, La Presse (June  7)

“Why do you need grants for this?” asks the journalist, falsely earnest, mockingly miming Margie Gillis’ hand gestures [from the video clip]. “Because art in our country is not profitable,” the dancer responds, calm despite multiple provocations. “Why would taxpayers pay for something that isn’t profitable?” exclaims the journalist, as if revealing a self-evident fact.

She says this with clear disdain. With the short-term fiscal logic of those who can see no reason for art: Why would you get $1.2M in taxpayers’ money to make silly gestures with your arms?

Why, you ask? Because without public financing not only would there be no contemporary dance, but no theatre, literature, music or television as we know them in Canada. Even private television, which benefits from tax credits and other public supports, would be unrecognizable.

[...] At that moment I found myself wondering if Krista Erickson, in her frenzy of sophistry, would lead the same style of interview with Don Cherry, who never misses a chance to recall his support for the war. Don Cherry who, for his frequently contemptuous commentary between two periods of hockey on public television, takes home a salary estimated at more than $700,000  (and refuses to reveal the actual total of his contract).

[..] These details don’t interest Sun TV News. But an average $100,000 per year to support the activities of one of the most respected dancers in the country and the members of her troupe, well, that is fodder for a scandal.

[Click here to read the complete original article on www.cyberpresse.ca]

*****

Patrick Gauthier, Rue Frontenac

La maison de verre / The Glass House
Patrick Gauthier, RueFrontenac.com

In short, the two Quebecor commentators [Krista Erickson and Nathalie Elgrably-Levy] feel taxpayers’ money should stay in the taxpayers’ pockets and the free market will take care of the rest.

Here, we face a superb example of “Do as I say, not as I do.” As reported in Rue Frontenac two years ago, Quebecor pockets its fair share of grants every year.

A simple click on the Canadian Heritage site reveals that for the year 2009-10 alone, eight magazines by TVA Publications (a Quebecor property) pocketed $2,108,657 in grants under the Publications Assistance Program.

The same empire that denounces $1.2M given to one of the greatest dancers in history and her company over [13 years] pockets, with out laughing, more than $2M a year for MAGAZINES that sell ads and often do little more than publicize the empire’s own products.

For example, TV Hebdo alone received more than three-quarters of a millions dollars last year. Whereas 7 Jours (which just won the prize for best selling edition at newsstands, for the one with Celine’s twins on the cover) collected $48,380.

[Click here to read the complete original article on RueFrontenac.com]

Can you explain why we give public money to artists?

Aside

A video of Sun Media’s Krista Erickson browbeating dance legend Margie Gillis is making the rounds on Facebook today.

To watch a national cultural icon treated with such open disrespect is angering. However the question ‘Why are Canadian taxpayers obliged to contribute to the arts?’ is perfectly legtimate and deserves a clear response.

We in the arts community take it for granted that the value of public arts funding is self-evident. But it has been 50 years since the value of cultural investment was agreed upon after public debate. Do taxpayers remember why arts funding mattered then? Do the arguments still hold?

Coming so tightly on the heels of a similar debate in the French media (see herehere and here), we should invest some time and effort into examining our assumptions and ensuring that they still resonate with the Canadian public.

Canada Live with Krista Erickson, 1 June 2011

(Click above to watch the interview)

Other links to recent anti-arts funding clips from Sun Media:

La Presse on Agenda 21C initiative: ‘Culture is not the responsibility of a single ministry’

Aside

(Translation by ELAN. Original text below)

Culture should extend beyond the Ministry of Culture to become integrated in the decisions of other ministries—Health, Education and Economic Development for example. This is the vision of the members of Agenda 21C – pour la culture au XXIe siècle, a working group formed last year. Its members met yesteday in Quebec for a final discussion before submitted its report to the Minister of Culture, Christine St-Pierre.

The day’s debates remained abstract, circling around questions of Ministry of Culture budgets and the manner in which these moneys are spent. Among the few concrete ideas: putting art in hospitals. Although Minister St-Pierre will await the final repot before taking positions, she did express interest in this idea. “It’s interesting to allow patients to look at paintings instead of a dull wall!” she said. “The Agenda 21C process should bring us to new places,” she continued. “It shouldn’t just be a discussion of money for culture.”

Since the Charest government came to power in 2003, investment in culture has increased by 35%, while other spending has increased by 5%. Simon Brault, founding president of Culture Montréal and member of the Agenda 21C liaison committee, salutes this funding.

“This is good. We won’t cry wolf when there is need to do so. Now culture must be integrated in the overall decision-making of our society. One example, among many: in France art is offered in prisons, not only sports. That is an interesting idea.”

Read the original article on www.cyberpresse.ca/…/

- – - – - -

La culture n’est pas l’affaire d’un seul ministère

Paul Journet, La Presse

La culture devrait déborder du ministère de la Culture et être intégrée aux décisions des autres ministères, de la Santé à l’Éducation en passant par le Développement économique. C’est la vision des membres d’Agenda 21C – pour la culture au XXIe siècle -, chantier de réflexion lancé l’année dernière. Ses membres se sont réunis hier à Québec pour les discussions finales avant la remise de leur rapport à la ministre de la Culture, Christine St-Pierre.

Les débats de la rencontre sont restés abstraits, contournant la question des budgets du ministère de la Culture et de sa façon de les dépenser. Parmi la pincée d’idées concrètes: faire entrer l’art dans les hôpitaux. Même si elle attend de recevoir le rapport avant de prendre position, la ministre St-Pierre se montre ouverte à l’idée. «C’est intéressant de permettre aux patients de regarder un tableau au lieu d’un mur terne!» lance-t-elle. «La démarche d’Agenda 21C doit nous amener ailleurs, poursuit-elle. Il ne faut pas seulement parler d’argent en culture.»

Depuis l’arrivée du gouvernement Charest en 2003, les investissements en culture ont augmenté de 35%, alors que les autres dépenses ont augmenté de 5%. Simon Brault, président-fondateur de Culture Montréal et membre du comité de liaison d’Agenda 21C, salue ce financement.

«C’est bien. On ne criera pas au loup quand on n’a pas besoin de le faire. Maintenant, il faut intégrer la culture dans l’ensemble des décisions de notre société. Un exemple parmi plusieurs autres: en France, ils offrent de l’art, et pas seulement des sports, dans les prisons. C’est une idée intéressante.»

Lizez l’article original sur www.cyberpresse.ca/…/

French radio host asks Anglo filmmaker ‘La question qui tue’

Aside

Excerpt from French radio host fires loaded question at Jacob Tierney, by Brendan Kelly for The Gazette

Jacob Tierney's new movie, Good Neighbours, is based on Quebec writer Chrystine Brouillet's novel Chère voisine. Photograph by: Dave Sidaway, The Gazette

To steal a line from Tout le monde en parle, it was most definitely La question qui tue.

It came a few minutes into Jacob Tierney’s interview on top-rated radio morning show C’est bien meilleur le matin on La Première Chaine of Radio-Canada a few days back. The anglo Montreal filmmaker was there to talk about his new movie, Good Neighbours, a darkly comic Hitchockian murder mystery that opens Friday, and host René Homier-Roy asked Tierney why his N.D.G.-set movie – which stars Jay Baruchel, Scott Speedman and Emily Hampshire – didn’t better represent the cultural diversity of this west-end borough.

It was, to put it mildly, one heckuva a loaded question. You don’t need to be a film critic to understand why Homier-Roy was taking Tierney to task on this point. I’ve never heard a radio or TV host ever ask a Québécois filmmaker why his or her movie wasn’t representative enough of Montreal’s multicultural mosaic.

But Tierney faces this hot-button question – and probably always will in Montreal – because he is the guy who dared to say publicly last summer that francophone Québécois cinema has not done enough to represent anglos and other minority groups.

He’s absolutely right, and he’s not the first person to say this. But he was the first anglophone filmmaker to say it and that’s why he was roundly lambasted on radio call-in shows and in no small number of newspaper columns.

A couple of hours later the same morning, in a café just up the street from the Radio-Canada tower, Tierney talked about La question qui tue.

“That’s a very particular way of looking at diversity,” Tierney said.

“I think a movie where you have native actors, Jewish characters, Chinese people … look it’s a small movie and I’m not going to try to list off all the nationalities that exist in it. I don’t want to get into this stuff again, but I think it’s plenty diverse. To tell me that Good Neighbours is not diverse. I call a huge bullish– on that.”

Continue reading on www.montrealgazette.com/…/

“L’art est le ferment du nouveau capitalisme/Art is the yeast of new capitalism…”: HEC prof responds to Elgrably-Levy questioning of public investment in the arts

Aside

In today’s Devoir, we find another interesting response to Nathalie Elgrably-Levy’s columns denouncing public patronage of the arts and  the validity of economic impact numbers to quantify the value of public investments.

Jean-Jacques Stréliski (associate professor at the École des hautes études commerciales de Montréal)  plumbs the depth of Elgrably-Levy’s positions by talking to professionals in economics, creative economy and communications:

L’inacceptable raisonnement
(Scroll down for translation)  Source: www.ledevoir.com

(…)Pour Pierre Ballofet, professeur agrégé et responsable pédagogique du DESS en communication marketing, «il faudrait dire un mot sur la pensée “économiste”, et non économique, qui sous-tend le raisonnement de la chroniqueuse. En fait, c’est une pensée inerte qui émane surtout d’une pure spéculation intellectuelle. Partir de quelques principes présentés comme lois ou vérités premières, puis se laisser dériver au fil d’un raisonnement qui relève du sophisme conduit à la barbarie ou au ridicule, ce qui est plutôt le cas ici»

«Les cyniques, disait Oscar Wilde, sont ceux qui connaissent le prix de tout et la valeur de rien.»

Il existe d’autres modes de décision que ceux des marchés dans nos sociétés. Les choix de politiques faites en matière de culture, comme de santé ou d’éducation sont de cet ordre.

«Après tout, conclut-il, le terme économie ne désigne-t-il pas, dans son étymologie, la règle de la maison? Comprendre ceci, c’est aussi comprendre que tout ne peut se réduire à cette dimension. Aucun économiste sérieux ne l’affirmerait au demeurant. Il ne s’agit donc pas tant d’argumenter sur le caractère “rentable” ou non de la culture. Le domaine culturel comporte certaines dimensions économiques, le réduire à celles-ci est non seulement réducteur, mais conduit à des non-sens tout à fait étrangers à une discipline économique bien comprise.»

(…)Il nous faut aller là où le propos de Mme Elgrably-Lévy ne s’est jamais rendu: au centre du savoir et de la connaissance de la nouvelle économie, dite économie créative, celle qui, précisément, hybride la créativité des artistes aux innovations technologiques de l’heure, pour créer des entreprises et des managements de type nouveau et fécond.

(…)Laurent Simon, quant à lui, conclut que «le monde qui vient fait peur aux traditionalistes, car ses modèles sont moins maîtrisables que l’analyse d’une économie centrée sur les schémas classiques de production et de rendement». Et, se référant à son tour à l’étude d’un autre réputé chercheur français, Pierre-Michel Menger, Portrait de l’artiste en travailleur, il affirme que «l’art est le ferment du nouveau capitalisme»(…)
Continuez votre lecture sur www.ledevoir.com 

Unacceptable reasoning
(Excerpts, translated)

(…)For Pierre Ballofet, professor and head of pedagogy in the communication and marketing program, “a few words must be said about ‘economist’ as opposed to economic thinking, because this underpins the columnist’s thinking. In fact, this thinking is stale and derives from purely intellectual speculation. To begin from the few principles presented as if they were law or primal truths and then follow a thread of reasoning based on sophistry leads to barbarism or silliness. The latter is more likely the case here.”

“As Oscar Wilde said, ‘What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.’”

In our society, realms of decisions exist beyond those of the market.  Political choices related to culture, like choices on matters of health and eduction, are of this nature.

“After all,” Ballofet concludes, “doesn’t the etymology of the word economy derive from management of the home? To comprehend this, is to also understand that not everything reduces to that single dimension. Moreover, no serious economist would argue as much. It is not a question of debating the ‘profitability’ of culture. The cultural domain does comprise some economic facets, but to limit it to that alone is not only reductive but leads to nonsensical conclusions completely foreign to any accepted economic discipline.”

(…)We need to go where Ms Elgrably-Levy has not gone: to the centre of knowledge and an understanding of the new economy, a.k.a. the creative economy, the one that hybridizes artistic creativity and cutting-edge technological innovation to create new and fecund businesses and management models.

(…) Laurent Simon, for his part, concludes that “we’re moving into a world that frightens traditionalists, because its models are less easily analysed than the classical production and yield matrix.” And, referring to Portrait de l’artiste en travailleur (Portrait of the artist as a labourer) by Pierre-Michel Menger another respected French researcher, Simon affirms that “Art is the yeast of new capitalism…”

Read the complete article in its original language on www.ledevoir.com
Read Google Translate’s treatment here: translate.google.com

For further context, read Nathalie Elgrably-Levy’s columns:

Or, read our Sampler of print and online responses here (includes translated excerpts with links to Google Translate versions too).

L’art de tromper/The Art of Deception: Journal de MTL columnists continues debate on on validity of public investment in the arts

Picking up on last week’s denouncement of public patronage for the arts, today Nathalie Elgrably-Levy’s questions the validity of citing economic impact numbers to justify public investment in the arts:

NATHALIE ELGRABLY-LEVY

Mon dernier texte dénonçant le mécénat public a visiblement déplu à plusieurs artistes. L’indispensable débat sur les dépenses publiques est alimenté. Mission accomplie !

Pour défendre les largesses de l’État à leur égard, les artistes ont été nombreux à invoquer l’étude du Conference Board affirmant que le milieu culturel génère des retombées économiques de 85 G$ annuellement. Selon eux, ce chiffre serait suffisant pour clore la polémique. Erreur !

La méthode de calcul à la base des études de retombées économiques est loin de constituer une preuve «scientifique» irréfutable. En vérité, cette méthode est la risée des économistes. Non seulement n’est-elle pas enseignée dans les cours d’économie, mais elle est dénoncée comme étant une fraude intellectuelle.

La raison est simple (…)

Continuez votre lecture

My last text denouncing public arts patronage has clearly perturbed many artists. This has provoked an indispensable debate on public spending. Mission accomplished!

To defend the government’s largesse to their benefit, numerous artists have cited a Conference Board study that affirms the cultural milieu generates an economic impact of $85 billion annually. They believe this number is enough to close the argument. Error!

Economic impact studies are based on a calculation method that offers far less that an irrefutable ‘scientific’ proof. In truth, for economists this method is a laughing stock. Not only is it not taught in economics courses, it is denounced as an intellectual fraud.

The reason is simple (…)

Continue reading this week’s column here: L’art de tromper (i.e. The Art of Deception, Google Translate version here)
Read the original editorial here: Non au mécénat public (i.e. No to Public Arts Patronage, Google Translate version here)

Read our sampling of print and online responses here.
(Includes translated excerpts and links to admittedly atrocious Google Translate versions).

(Update I & II) Non au mécénat public: Journal de Montréal columnist sparks debate about public funding of culture

In the wake of last week’s election, a Journal de Montréal columnist penned an editorial  titled Non au mécénat public (No to public arts patronage) questioning the public interest of funding for the arts.

A number of interesting responses have cropped up online and in other papers since.

If you haven’t been following this debate, we’ve collected a few highlight links for you. Below you will find excerpts from the original editorial, plus a sampling of responses from Nathalie Petrowski (La Presse), Simon Jodoin (Voir, Bang Bang Blogue), and one of many to appear on Facebook.

We’ve including links to the original articles and to Google Translations to help those for whom written French is a challenge, but with this caveat: Automated translations are abominable and are often a challenge to understand in themselves.

——————————————–

Nathalie Elgrably-Lévy

Original Editorial
Non au mécénat public, Nathalie Elgrably-Levy (Journal de Montréal, 5 mai)

“Je serai franche, au risque d’être politiquement incorrecte. Il n’existe que deux raisons pour lesquelles un artiste vit dans la misère. La première est que son talent n’est peut-être pas en demande. La deuxième est qu’il est peut-être tout simplement dépourvu de talent. Dans un cas comme dans l’autre, le public n’est pas disposé à consacrer son argent à l’achat du produit culturel.” (Original article)

No to public arts patronage: “I’ll be honest, at the risk of not being politically correct. There can only be two reasons why an artist lives in poverty. Either their talent is not in demand, or they are simply devoid of talent. In both cases, the public is not in a position to devote our money to purchasing their cultural product.” (Google Translate version)

Continue reading