Maybe we need to develop an Arts Advocacy Think Tank that is similar in structure to the Fraser Institute and over time, slowly develop “research” and become an authoritative voice on arts that government will listen to.
Just a thought.
Check out this Tyee article about the Fraser Institute.
By John McLachlan: This is a response to the idea of Cultural Democracy. discussed in the previous post on this site.
I wonder, do we really want cultural democracy? What would it look like?
I am conflicted on this issue.
We can talk in abstract terms but there comes a time when we have to narrow this down to actual examples of how the arts funding scene would change if a different model were developed.
Let’s look at a real example and how changing from this curatorial model could work. I co-ordinate the Community Presenters Assistance which is a program of the BC Arts Council and administered by the BC Touring Council.
The program provides funding to community presenters throughout the province who book touring artists as part of a season in their community. It includes both volunteer and professional presenters.
Once per year these presenters apply for a grant to assist with fees they pay professional artists. Only performances of professional artists are able to be supported through the program.
There are two levels of “curatorial” work done here. One is at the grants level itself where a peer review committee looks at each application to ensure it meets the requirements of the program and makes recommendations on funding level. In my opinion, the primary purpose of this committee is to be oversight of public funds. There is very little “artistic” meddling which frankly, is a good thing.
The other level of curatorial work is done by the presenters themselves when they choose who to book to perform in their communities.
The benefits of the current system are that you have people in each community choosing who will come and perform. I highly favour this method. If you didn’t do it this way, you’d have organizations like the BC Arts Council deciding which artists would work and where. Or, heaven forbid, you’d have governments telling you what you’d be doing. In some ways, the Canada Council, in choosing which artists to support is also saying who will thrive/who will die. It is always done with the best intentions as in “your heart is in the right place but your head is up your @%%”
Is the program perfect? Does it address everyone’s needs? Is it truly democratic? No, but… if we were to remove the curatorial aspect of this, what would we be left with? The program I’ve just described would be gone. And with it, a whole lot of small concert series and a whole lot less work for emerging artists who wish to tour. Is that a good thing? I don’t think so.
Perhaps, if we want to be democratic about this, we should just remove all funding for professional artists, companies and organizations. Let’s just give all the money to the arts councils around the province to set up programs for people to do art. But wait, isn’t that curatorial?
Let’s get really democratic and just give each citizen a cheque to spend on arts as they see fit. Based on how much our government spends now per capita on arts funding, I could buy a new set of guitar strings and a paintbrush.
I guess my point is, I think we still need both types of support.
We often talk of democracy as if it’s the height of a civilized world but since when is democracy perfect? We have elections now where fewer people voted for the party in power than didn’t. Is that democratic and fair? No, it’s messy.
I think we need the messy system we have but be open to making changes and adjustments.
What are your thoughts?
AABC board member Lynn Curtis sends us the following. We’d be interested in hearing your thoughts.
Subject: AFC Lecture: Cultural Democracy in a Time of Diminished Resources
The American Folklife Center presents a lecture in the 2010 Benjamin
Botkin Folklife Lecture Series
Cultural Democracy in a Time of Diminished Resources
presented by Bau Graves, Old Town School of Folk Music, Chicago
July 22, 2010, 12:00 noon – 1:00 pm
Mary Pickford Theater, 3rd Floor, James Madison Building, Library of
Congress
Simply stated, “Cultural Democracy” is the notion that everybody’s
heritage and cultural expression is worthwhile and deserving of an
equitable share of whatever resources are available. In recent years,
Cultural Democracy has also gained traction as a descriptor for the
whole realm of participatory, community-centered arts activities,
practiced by millions of Americans everyday in their homes,
backyards, public parks, places of worship, schools – pretty much
everywhere except in the designated art spaces of our museums and
concert halls, where they happen infrequently.
The mechanisms that we have inherited for the support of public
culture were inspired by the practices of the fine arts economy of
the first half of the 20th century, and were designed to validate
curatorial authority.
This is the top-down version of culture.
Financial and programmatic decision-making is vested in highly-
trained, credentialed individuals who are positioned to determine
what the entire community should see, hear and experience.
Cultural Democracy requires a paradigm shift away from this curatorial model,
and towards a process of continuous and intense community engagement,
using culture as a catalyst for addressing social issues: art of the
people, made by the people, and presented for the people.
James Bau Graves is Executive Director of the Old Town School of Folk
Music, in Chicago, Illinois, the largest community school of the arts
in the United States.
His work is focused on exploration of the personal, political, aesthetic and
ethical issues embedded in the concept and practice of public culture.
He is the past Director of the Jefferson Center Foundation, in Roanoke, Virginia,
and co-founder of the Center for Cultural Exchange in Maine, where he facilitated
the creation of an extended series of programs, in close
collaboration with community groups and artists, addressing grass
roots cultural aspirations, questions of identity and social/
financial power relations.
Bau’s work as a field researcher, arts presenter, community organizer,
project manager and tour director has been prolific, winning numerous
awards from the National Endowment for the Arts, the Wallace Foundation,
Americans for the Arts’ Animating Democracy program, the Rockefeller Foundation,
and many others.
Bau has performed and recorded with several jazz and
traditional music ensembles, and composed original scores for two
collaborative projects with dancer/director Ann Carlson. He holds a
Masters degree in ethnomusicology from Tufts University, has
published essays concerning cultural issues in both the academic and
popular press, and has appeared on and/or produced numerous
recordings.
Bau Graves’ first book, Cultural Democracy, was published
in 2005 by the University of Illinois Press.
For more information, please visit http://www.loc.gov/folklife/events/
botkin-lectures.html#july22 or call 202-707-5510.
Jo Rasi
American Folklife Center
Library of Congress
jrasi@loc.gov
I came across this very interesting study about effective advocacy. I know it’s a fairly long read–complete with charts and tables–but it’s worth taking the trouble to download and read. This link will get you there:
What Makes an Effective Advocacy Organization
“This analysis and framework can be useful to any kind of organization interested in increasing its effectiveness related to advocacy…”
One point that I found especially resonant is the importance they place on leadership. Where is the leadership we need to advocate for the arts–with the public as well as with government? In fact, why should government pay any attention to our voices unless we have the support and following of a large public. I am reminded again of the environment movement.
Where is our David Suzuki?
Guest post by Dr. Charles Barber
| Who was the Mayor of Vienna when Mozart lived there?
No one knows. No one cares. All that matters is that genius created, explored, and achieved there. So too for a thousand artists in a thousand cities. Artists write our name in vivid letters, and always have. We were incredibly proud of Canadian artists at the Winter Olympics. They were our shining, best face. Together with our equally superb athletes, they spoke the name CANADA to the world. What government in its right mind kills support for Canadian artists? From studios to festivals, from recitals to arenas, from first lessons to master classes, Canadian artists speak our name. We are the land of Glenn Gould and Nickelback, Jon Vickers and kd lang, Margaret Atwood and Doug Coupland, Luminato and The Fringe — and every kind of art in between. Where does the government imagine these artists come from? Do they wander in off the street, fully-prepared to perform? Of course not. They are trained, educated, given apprenticeships and innumerable opportunities to perform. They are given forums like festivals and films and much more, and they are given the means to make art. Some philistines argue that the arts should pay their own way. This is aberrant nonsense. Canadian art is more than arenas full of visiting American rockers. Canadian art is who we are as a people. Money is NOT the measure of merit. It is a means of supporting merit. Only those who want our nation to be overwhelmed by foreign pop and commercial culture can possibly support these ridiculous cuts. Canada is so much more worthy than philistines will ever understand. Marsha Lederman has written an excellent piece about a terrible policy. Canadians deserve so much better. Canada IS so much better. |
A brief story first, then I’ll get to my point…
A friend of mine who worked in an elementary school told me a story about a 7th grade student who was somewhat problematic and was often getting into trouble.
One day he was found misbehaving in the hallway so my friend told him he would have to go see Mr. St. Pierre (the principal), to which the student replied “Who the hell is Mr. St. Pierre?”
What does this have to do with arts advocacy? I’ll get there, but one more story…
Yesterday, a friend of mine who is a chartered accountant (and my landlord at the moment) was dropping by as we were having some painting done by a man who once worked as a CGA, but had chosen to do house repair and general contracting. In other words, both, educated people
We were speaking about various options for changing the blinds on our windows to get better blockage from the sun. One of them said, “you want to make sure they are opaque.” True enough, and I remarked that we didn’t want them to be like one of Margaret Atwood’s favourite words “diaphanous.”
I’m not surprised they didn’t know what diaphanous meant (I didn’t until I’d heard Margaret Atwood refer to it) but I was surprised that neither of them had ever heard who Margaret Atwood was!
I’m not laughing at them or feeling superior because I knew who Margaret Atwood was and they didn’t. I’m thankful for the exchange because it was a good reminder that we make incredible assumptions in our own little worlds about everything else. In the case of our student earlier on, one would automatically assume he would have known the name of the principal.
I thought about some of the amazing things Margaret Atwood has said about the arts and how we (in the arts world) copy and paste her comments everywhere and send them to our politicians and the general public as evidence that even big names support the arts and so they should, too. We essentially say, “Isn’t it obvious?
We forget that many people don’t even know who Margaret Atwood is and so don’t even register the same significance that we see.
If we want to tip the needle of support for the arts, we’re going to have go a lot further afield than our own world.
I believe this comes about by having people in other fields getting on board as spokesmen in a similar way that boards of arts organizations often have business people on them. We also need members of the public telling their politicians directly why the arts matters to them.
Sitting around in circles of arts-only people talking about this is not going to go far. Haven’t we learned this yet?
John McLachlan
PS – Who the hell is Lady Gaga?
HOW TO SAVE THE WORLD
It all started in a parking garage with 15 kids and one music teacher in 1975 in Caracas, Venezuela. The teacher was musician José Abreu, who thought it would be a good idea to give kids living in the poorest and most crime-ridden areas of the city something to do other than to get involved in drugs and crime. Now, 35 years later, the entire country has bee transformed; 350,000 kids are studying and playing music—classical music. The Simon Bolivar Youth Orchestra in Caracas is now world famous, young musician “graduates” of the program are playing in major symphony orchestras around the world, and 28-year-old Gustavo Dudamel is Music Director of the Los Angeles Philharmonic. No wonder the country is rightly proud of El Sistema or The System, as the now government-supported program is called.
Toronto music critic William Littler wrote about his visit to Caracas. A Google of El Sistema will take you to many other articles.
Needless to say, other countries and cities have taken up the challenge and started similar programs. There are the New Brunswick Youth Orchestra, El Sistema USA, and The Big Noise in Scotland, and this is only the beginning.
Here in Vancouver, we are already well ahead with the Saint James Music Academy, founded three years ago by downtown eastside resident Kathy Walker. When she first engaged a few music teachers, offered free instruction to local kids, and used space donated by Saint James Anglican Church, she had never heard of El Sistema. Now, with 75 kids from early elementary school to high school age, the Academy has just presented its Spring Recital (June 11, 2010). A wildly enthusiastic and deeply moved audience filled Saint James Church to the rafters to see the Academy’s orchestra, choir, chamber ensemble, and soloists. What these young people have accomplished in a mere three years is astounding. But that’s not all; individual lives have been transformed by the experience of learning and playing together. It’s all about the power of music and music making to give meaning and direction to young lives.
We are seeing this as a seed that has been planted and fertilized and that will grow and spread. Let’s start El Sistema BC; let’s transform the youth of our society; let’s look forward to a citizenry of enlightened and creative people who will change the world.
This is the real road to arts advocacy!!
Tom Durrie, president
Saint James Music Academy Board of Directors
The Alliance for Arts and Culture, with the support of 2010 Legacies Now and the City of Surrey, is presenting Arts Summit 2010, Thursday, June 24 and Friday, June 25 at Surrey’s Chuck Bailey Recreation Centre.
Arts Summit 2010 will bring together a diverse group of artists, arts organizations, presenters, facility managers, students, businesses and government representatives and create opportunities for dialogue, networking and professional development.
GUEST POST BY BUSINESS OF THE ARTS
Why do we want cultural tourism development in our communities?
When you ask that question of a tourism promoter, the answer is: to generate revenue for the municipality/region, to create jobs, to provide economic opportunity, to support a host of activities that we couldn’t support just with our own local population.
That’s all true but that’s not the root of the answer.
The root of the answer is: We encourage tourism development to improve the quality of life for our local community. And it’s against that measuring stick that everything we do to promote tourism in our communities must be measured. If you’re not generating a means for improving the quality of life in your community that is equal to or greater than any adverse impact you may be having on your community, you’re not stepping forward.
Stakeholders
Local Entrepreneurs:
Cultural heritage has a strong human dimension and only becomes authentic if it’s owned and driven by locals and integrated in their everyday life. Getting locals involved and encouraging them to promote “their own” cultural tourism oriented business can contribute to the economic development of the region and to better standards of living for the locals, as it can reduce unemployment and create additional income.
Furthermore, it increases the likelihood of sustainable tourism initiatives, because the benefits of tourism will be reaped by the local population rather than by big tourism operators.
Potentials of the stakeholders involved:
Small local entrepreneurs make “their” tourism offer more appealing, as they create the framework for building a cultural tourist destination atmosphere.
They offer the infrastructure in accommodation, crafting, traditional cooking and local customs, which personalizes and enriches the region’s tourism offer with coherence and strengthens identity.
This raises the potential of the town/region for selling its cultural offering on the tourism market.
My current involvement in Cultural Tourism initiatives:
This is a beginning – or, if I may so bold, a “re-beginning” of an initiative that garnered a deal great support in the 1980’s – worth a “re-visit”, no doubt.
I am currently involved in 3 Cultural Tourism Events in 3 different locations around the world that engage many different and diverse cultures.
A picture is worth “1000” words.
Being professionally involved in the arts for over 25 years as an artist and as an arts administrator I’ve noticed a common refrain, “Why aren’t we better organized?”. The feeling is that if we were, we’d have more clout with policy makers and an increased awareness in the general population.
My opinion on this is: Hogwash!
We look at groups that are very well organized and that speak with one voice such as teachers, nurses, business councils, trade unions, civic employees and wonder if this is something that would work for artists.
People in these groups may disagree with me, but when they speak, Government listens, the public listens and action is usually taken.
What they all have in common is, a unified voice, well-paid jobs (yes, they are, compared to artists), large numbers and most of all, they represent a significant amount of dollars in the economy and they let everybody know that.
Has this ever happened with artists? Have we (all artists) ever been organized? NO!
The most we’ve been organized is when arts organizations like arts councils or alliances of arts organizations try to form groups and create campaigns to unite with a common voice. Who joins in on these? A handful of artists and people who work for arts organizations.
This would all be fine except that it is not seen as being significant. The fact that many of the organizations that take part in these campaigns represent hundreds or even thousands of members goes completely unnoticed. It ends up looking like a few whining organizations are complaining and it’s a blip in the media and in the eyes of Government.
What would it take to go from being a blip to being spark that ignites action? Two options to consider:
1. The Public
The public will only react if it hurts them in carrying out their daily lives. When the teachers are on strike, parents have to find ways of looking after their kids. When nurses are on strike, health care suffers. When the garbage isn’t picked up, lots of people suffer. In other words, the impact of their actions is noticed and draws passion from the public (which gets well reported in the media because it’s entertainment and it sells advertising).
If artists went on strike, very few people would notice or care. In other words, this is not an effective way to advocate.
I think it’s naive to think that artists will ever unite. The very nature of their work is not inclined to this approach, not to mention the various disciplines they are in. I think we are dreaming to think this will ever happen.
2. The Government
Government will only react if it hurts them where it counts: at the ballot box. The problem is, even if artists could unite—more on that later—the numbers are still low. We can’t really talk about the whole “cultural sector” here because people employed in industries such as movies, are well-paid and have no interest and see no need to rise up and be heard.
We’re left with ad hoc groups, individual artists, arts organizations (volunteer and paid) and the members of these organizations. Members of arts organizations could include artists or members of the public in organizations such as a local concert society, gallery or community theatre society.
When you start adding all those people up, you now have significant numbers and a very broad reach geographically. You now have enough people who would have a significant voice that would be heard by Government.
The hard part is motivating those people to take action so their voices will be heard. I’ll use an example of a provincial organization I know something about, the BC Touring Council. Ideally, the BCTC expects when it speaks for its members and all the members of its members (the patrons of the hundreds of performances that take place every year) that they are representing tens of thousands of people who participate and benefit from the arts that are presented in BC.
The diagram shows how when you get down a few levels, the number of people increases significantly (I’m only showing a representation of them – in fact there are probably tens of thousands of people).
The problem is, this is not what the Government hears. The message they hear is: “Here’s an organization with a few hundred members clamoring for more money for the arts.” What’s a few hundred voters spread out over the province?
The people the government needs to hear from are those down the line. It needs to hear from the people who are members of the sub-organizations. If their voices were heard, you’d truly have a significant impact because those voices vote.
How do you this? The smaller organizations in communities all over BC need to take the lead and motivate their members and patrons to take action. A gallery attendee in Terrace is not going to be motivated to do anything by messages sent from provincial organizations. They will take action because a human being in the gallery itself talked to them and inspired them to take action.
Every arts organization, artist or enthusiastic arts participant in every community in BC needs to start motivating others at that level to do something such as call their MLA, write to the local paper, talk to the mayor, talk to the local chamber of commerce.
I truly believe that the initiative has to come from this grass-roots level. It’s why I support the idea of ArtsAdvocacyBC.
Yes, we desperately need our larger arts organizations to be taking a lead on this as they have been, but somehow, the message of action from them needs to get filtered down to the level where there will be real impact: individual voters.
Reality Check
Is any of this possible? Truthfully, I don’t think so, but it’s worth trying.
