CBC: Does the Canadian government invest enough in arts and culture funding?: Q interview with James Moore


James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages,

(Source: CBC.ca) Heritage Minister James Moore paid a visit to Q Tuesday morning to discuss arts funding and defend recent decisions by the Conservative government to deny grants to certain organizations.

A well-spoken Moore spoke with host Jian Ghomeshi for just over half an hour – slightly longer than scheduled – and touched on the current cultural climate in Canada.

“Culture in Canada is so widespread, so diverse, so impressive … One of the things we do best in Canada is intellectual property, that’s to say arts, culture, movies, television,” he raved.

The interview later turned to indie theatre festival SummerWorks, who lost federal funding, in part some speculate because of its decision to put on a play about a Toronto 18 member.

Moore said the decision was not in response to the controversy generated by that particular play but rather that money had gone to other worthy organizations.

He invited SummerWorks to apply next year.

Moore went on to address the CBC’s funding, saying that while there will be no privatization of the public broadcaster anytime soon, he expects all corporations to trim costs.

Massey Commission 2.0: Is it time to hit refresh on Canada’s ‘Magna Carta of arts and culture’?

This Magazine‘s Hilary Beaumont posted an excellent editorial today, rewinding 67 years to the Massey Commission report, the very origin of Canada’s cultural policies.

A great read for culture-lovers and skeptics alike, Beaumont reminds why Canada originally chose to fund culture and asks whether it is time for a Massey Commission for the 21st century — one which can lay the groundwork for the next 67 years of cultural policy.

In light of recent debates in English and French media (see here, here, here, and here), it is important to re-examine our understanding of why funding culture is good policy.

Below, we’ve pulled some salient excerpts. Still, do take a moment to read the complete article on www.this.org/…/massey-commission. Or if you’re feeling particularly motivated, dive directly into the original 1951 Massey Commission report.


How to save arts and culture in Canada: a Massey Commission 2.0
by Hilary Beaumont for This Magazine

(…)

Jeff Melanson, currently co-CEO the National Ballet School, and soon to be president of The Banff Centre, made a provocative suggestion at a talk in late May hosted by the Literary Review of Canada: a new Massey Commission.

Canada’s “Magna Carta of arts and culture,” as the commission’s report was nicknamed, was released in 1951. The detailed document gave advice on the state of Canada’s arts, sciences, humanities, and media based on three premises:

  1. Canadians should know as much as possible about their country’s culture, history and traditions
  2. We have a national interest to encourage institutions that add to the richness of Canadian life
  3. Federal agencies that promote these ends should be supported
(…)

Rewind 67 years. Canada was nearing the end of the Second World War, a key part of which was fought using propaganda. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia needed to keep their populations confused and complacent; the U.S. and Canada wanted their citizens to buy liberty bonds and join the army. Information and creative expression were deployed against the masses.

Before the war, Canada’s government had no real investment in the arts. The turning point came when arts groups began calling on their government to support culture as a way of protecting democracy.

As a negative argument, stifling creativity is censorship’s equal. As a positive argument, the arts play a role in driving democracy through freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. (Thank you section 2(b) of the Charter.) Citizens who think critically and express their ideas creatively are a basic part of any healthy democracy — they hold government accountable.

(…)

Today many of the report’s recommendations are dated. (…) But technology is far from the report’s only concern. As Tom Perlmutter, chair of the National Film Board of Canada, told the Toronto Star:

What we need now is not one particular policy patchwork fix but the new Massey-Levesque for the 21st century. We need to rethink the fundamental conceptual framework that can give rise to the cultural policies that will serve us for the next 60 years.”

Whether it is updated or started again from scratch, this not-yet-conceived report should be the brainchild of Canadian artists. They should review those ever-important premises about promoting the historical and cultural richness of our country. They should reassess how creative minds are using technology. They should research how Canada’s cultural policies compare to those abroad. And, most importantly, they must underline the fundamental reason that Canadians support the arts financially: the health and vibrancy of our democracy.

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/…/

“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