Guest post by Dr. Charles Barber

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

We are posting the following exchange between Councillor Deal and AABC. While it clarifies some issues, there are still many questions to be asked. Ultimately, the real question is should we have an arts council or not. To us, it is similarly spurious to make the economic argument for this as it is to make the economic argument for the arts. An fully arm’s length arts council is, in our opinion, the only sensible and practical way to manage arts funding and policy  in the city.

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the link.  We continue to look seriously at the advantages and disadvantages of an independent arts council – there will be a memo from staff on this in June.  They will bring us results of related consultation.

In the meantime I have to clarify a few numbers from your blog.  The City hands out $10.1 million in grants each year (276 grants) - a very high number for a city our size.  The staff in the granting stream of cultural services consists of 3.5 FTE’s – giving us a 5.7% admin cost.  Other cultural services staff are dedicated to public art, partnerships, civic theatre operations and the planning for Hastings Park.

I look forward to this next phase of our work as we look to the future of how we manage and expand our cultural mandate at the city.

Cheers,

Heather

Hi Tom,

Here is a link to the grants web page – all of that information is available.  There have been significant changes in the granting streams in recent years.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/cultural/gasp/index.htm

Cheers,

Heather

Hi Heather,

I do appreciate your response. Regarding the Cultural Services budget, I took the information from this article in the Georgia Straight http://bit.ly/6OmUrM and I’m sure that this refers only to certain types of grants. It would be really interesting to see how the $10.1 million is distributed and used by the various sections in Cultural Services. I’m sure a goodly portion goes to civic theatres, but just how much to this and that? I’m sure you will appreciate that individual artists and arts organizations are mostly concerned with the degree of support they receive and how it is adjudicated and delivered.

I’m happy to hear that the arts council is not dead in the water. To me, personally, it is the only sensible way to deal with public funding for the arts.

Many thanks again, and I hope we can talk one day soon.
All the best,
Tom

DOES VANCOUVER NEED A CITY ARTS COUNCIL?

What do we have now?

The Cultural Services Division of Vancouver City government currently administers a fund of just under $1.5 million, devoted to grants, operations, and awards for Vancouver artists and arts organizations. (Georgia Straight, Apr. 9, 2009)  Cultural Services maintains a staff of 24, costing just over $1.5 million in salaries alone. Applications for funding are received and adjudicated by Cultural Services staff. Though the City has recently introduced a policy of appointing peer committees to advise on grant allocations, ultimate decisions, as well as policy directions, are determined by staff. The addition of advisory committees is euphoniously (you phoney us ly?) referred to as a “partial arms length” process. How can anything be “partially” arms length? It’s either arms length or it isn’t.

What is arms length?

Arms length simply means that decisions and policies about supporting arts and culture are made by a volunteer council that is free from political and bureaucratic influence. Good ol’ Wikipedia puts it like this: “An arts council is a government or private, non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the arts mainly by funding local artists, awarding prizes, and organizing events at home and abroad. They are often arms length from the government to prevent political interference in their decisions.” Arts councils are augmented by committees, or juries, also volunteer, who review grant applications and advise council on the activities and needs within various artistic disciplines. This rather large volunteer organization, made up of people actually working in the arts, is supported by a small staff.

How do the other guys do it? Three examples

Here’s a notable example: The Toronto Arts Council, distributing $10.3 million in grants and operational funding, is run by a volunteer board, volunteer committees and a small complement of professional staff—15 to be exact! An advisory panel of distinguished artists and managers further assist with this work. Toronto Arts Council’s volunteer board and committees are made up of artists, other arts professionals, and arts supporters. To guarantee accountability, City Council appoints five of its members to Toronto Arts Council’s 29-member Board of Directors.

As we have pointed out earlier, the British Columbia Arts Council, based on the same model as the Toronto Arts Council and the Canada Council, operates with a staff of eleven. Back in Vancouver isn’t it a bit off kilter when staff salaries add up to more than the all the support money being distributed?

Vancouver is even way behind Winnipeg: In 1984, Winnipeg established the Winnipeg Arts Advisory Council, just what Vancouver is doing now—26 years later—to assist the City in determining funding to arts and cultural organizations, and to provide advice on cultural policy development. However, in 2002, at the direction of City Council, the Winnipeg Arts Council was incorporated as an independent arm’s length agency.

Vancouver’s Cultural Services continues to be in the grip of a large well-paid unionized bureaucracy.

What’s good about an arts council?

Two major advantages immediately come to mind. First of all a Vancouver City Arts Council would save money. Staff could be reduced and, as promised earlier by Geoff Meggs and Heather Deal, that could free up money to be delivered to artists. Second, and maybe even more important, arts council members would be well-known leaders in the community who can speak to the press, to the public, and to council members on behalf of the arts. They are, in short, our advocates. The public can see that they speak out of passion and belief, nothing to do with tax-supported salaries.

Where is Vancouver?

The more you look around at what other cities are doing the more you realize how far behind Vancouver is. And, to top it off, before the 2008 election, Vision Vancouver candidates Geoff Meggs and Heather Deal were promising the formation of an Arts Council as a major part of their arts platform. Their statements were seconded by soon-to-be-mayor Gregor Robertson. Since being elected Council has taken a number of bold steps in re-organizing City Hall, establishing bike lanes, and providing leadership in the greening of the city. Why this wait and see attitude about the Vancouver City Arts Council? It’s time the community spoke up, demanding that Councillor Deal, Councillor Meggs, and Mayor Robertson fulfill their promises. No more half-way measures that change nothing.

Does Vancouver need a city arts council? Yes!

Write:

mayorandcouncil@vancouver.ca

clrdeal@vancouver.ca

clrmeggs@vancouver.ca

Read more:

The Cost of Cultural Services
http://bit.ly/b1S7G4

Where is the Vancouver Arts Council?
http://bit.ly/9Wj669

CULTURAL SERVICES—HOW MUCH DOES IT COST?
Would an arts council require a smaller staff? (BC Ats Arts Council has 11.)

Annual Salaries

Administration

Public Art

Grants, Awards & Support Programs

Cultural Facility Development

Policy, Planning & Research

Cultural Projects

Total Annual Salaries

*We note that Civic Theatres has an adminstrative staff of 16, not listed here.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE VANCOUVER CITY ARTS COUNCIL?
Our forgetful politicians

Promises, promises

Some of us remember that  back in October 2008 when Vision Vancouver candidate Geoff Meggs, supported by present and former executive directors of the Vancouver East Cultural Centre Heather Redfern and Duncan Low, was rhapsodizing about the beauty of administering arts funding by means of an arms-length arts council. “There’s a lot of paperwork and bureaucratic oversight of arts-granting processes that is gumming up the works, and it’s causing a lot of frustration to people in the arts community. By putting it [arts funding] with the arts council, we think that we would be able to create a peer-reviewed process or a juried process that would be respected by the arts community and produce better results,” Meggs was quoted in the Georgia Straight (October 9, 2008) as saying.

Councillor Heather Deal, who had just been re-elected in the Vision Vancouver sweep in the November 15, 2008 election, was quick to jump on the bandwagon, saying that “Vision Vancouver was committed to creating an independent arts council for the city.” (Georgia Straight, November 20, 2008)  She also was quoted as saying, “My goal will be to get as much of the money that we spend on arts in the city into the hands of artists as possible.” In December 2008, sounding positive and determined, Deal was quoted as saying, “It will probably take at least a couple of months [emphasis ours] to do … research and then go out a do consultation.” (Georgia Straight, December 11, 2008)

Her statements were, no doubt, encouraged, by election promises made by Gregor Robertson. Referring to Robertson’s platform, Catherine Rolfe, reporting d in the Vancouver Sun, October 27, 2008, said, “Robertson would support the arts through a new Vancouver arts council.” Though ending street homeless was, and presumably still is, Robertson’s principal goal, he “has expanded his focus to include community safety, the environment, business and the arts.” [emphasis added] At least we can thank Mayor Robertson and the Vision Vancouver dominated council for maintaining the city’s budget for arts support and not following the cut and slash leadership of the provincial Liberals. http://bit.ly/d4uuy0 They have also made some staffing changes in the Cultural Services department as well as axing a proposal to hire seven (yes, seven) additional “Cultural Planners.” But talk of creating an arts council seems to have dried up.

Then what happened?

According to the Georgia Straight (February 12, 2009) Councillor Heather Deal “locked horns” with NPA Councillor Suzanne Anton about the need for an arts council. Anton claimed that “there was no demand for an arts council” emerging from “a lot of public consultations over the last two years, coming up with the new cultural plan for the city of Vancouver.” Councillor Deal responded to Anton’s parry with the following riposte: “I guess Councillor Anton doesn’t have the same contacts in the community that I do, because I hear nothing but a cry for this, and I have since I got elected over three years ago for the first time.” During this exchange Deal announced that city staff was researching different arts council models to determine which might be best for Vancouver. “What we’re doing is research to find out if in fact it is the right move,” she said, “And if it is, then we’ll talk about why.”

The “talk about why” apparently took place at the Vancouver Arts Summit (what is a “summit” anyway?) at the Vancouver Public Library on June 26 2009. At this event, consultants Rob Egan and Liz Shorten explained how they had studied granting systems in nine different cities, each exhibiting varying forms of adjudication and delivery of public funds in support of arts. The requisite PowerPoint presentation showed the various blends of city-staff and independent councils. Interesting but not surprising. Curiously enough, when asked if they had consulted any of the individuals or groups applying for and receiving funds, they said that was not part of their mandate. I would have thought that to be one of most revealing questions. But then, according to Sue Harvey, they were paid only $7,000 for their work.

After the consultants’ presentation, the participants were asked to break up into small groups to discuss such topics as “accountability, infrastructure, and transparency”. Flip charts were duly employed and results were promised to be delivered at some later time. Perhaps these results have been delivered somewhere, but I am unable to find them. Maybe it doesn’t matter anyway, because it seems that the end results rarely have anything to do with workshops, “summits,”(summits?) and “dialogues.”

An interesting sidebar to the consultants’ report claimed that “Vancouver’s cultural services administration-to-grant-funding ratio of 5.7 percent compares to a high of 16 percent at the Office of Arts and Cultural Affairs in Seattle (based on 2008 figures).” (Georgia Straight March 8, 2009) What is not clear, however, is just what portion of administrative staff was included in the ratio. The Seattle Office of Arts and Cultural Affairs has a total staff of 24, and Vancouver’s Cultural Services has 21: http://bit.ly/97tkKa (BC Arts Council has a staff of 11.) However, if you were to consider only the 5-person staff of the Grants, Awards & Support Program, you could make the ratio look very good indeed.  AABC has requested, through Freedom of Information, a complete accounting of all current staff salaries. We’ll report this on these pages as soon as we receive it. Meanwhile, it is interesting to note that 2008 key salaries went something like this:  Sue Harvey $138,605; Margaret Specht $108, 935; Jacquie Gijssen $86,419, and so on. (This information is available on the City’s website. http://bit.ly/ddzdgG )

Where are we now?

Heather Deal told me the other day that she thought interest in the notion of an arms-length arts council had “waned,” and that people were interested to see how things would develop with the absence of Sue Harvey and under Acting Managing Director Richard Newirth. (I don’t think his position is yet officially recognized.) This didn’t surprise me because councillors can really only go on what they are hearing from their constituents. There hasn’t been a lot of talk about the arts council since, let’s see, last June. In other words, following the Vancouver Arts Summit (I’m still wondering why it’s a “summit”) when people were left reeling from the many alternatives proposed as well as the earnest flip-charted input from the various small groups. To my knowledge, no final report has yet emerged. I can only say that it has been my experience that events like this leave people in a state a confused elation, hoping that somehow something will happen. Of course one could cynically suggest that it’s an effective way to diffuse and defuse any possible direct action on the part of participants. Anyway, as far as I know, that’s what happened: Nothing. Well, nothing other than that there has been a group of four non-government types appointed to “advise” Cultural Services on infrastructure grants. This is known as “partial arms length funding”–whatever that could be. (“partial arms length,” “summit,” I’m confused.)  See Charlie Smith’s article in the Georgia Straight, April 4, 2010 http://bit.ly/acFpJF

I chatted with Nini Baird at lunchtime on June 26th, and I asked her how the provincial Cultural Services was transformed into the BC Arts Council in 1996. Well, she told me, Richard (Brownsey) Jeremy (Long) and she talked about it, thought it was a good idea, so they formed it. What? No consultancies, no feasibility studies, no flipcharts, no “summits”? Maybe it wasn’t exactly that simple, but this confirms my observation that things get done by active individuals, not by government bureaucrats however well-intended. And, if there is going to be a Vancouver Arts Council, people in the arts world will have to start pressuring City Council to stop dithering and get on with it.

We encourage you to write to mayorandcouncil@vancouver.ca asking for action on the promised formation of a Vancouver Arts Council. (See below, too.)

What does an arts council look like?

First of all, the arms-length definition of an arts council is crucial. The so-called “partial arms length funding model” still leaves the final decisions in the hands of well-paid city staff who are, whether they know it or not, beholden to City Council for the continuance of their jobs. An independent arts council is just that: Independent. Just as the Canada Council funds projects that no doubt infuriate Stephen Harper, a Vancouver Arts Council would not have to concern itself with the approval of the mayor or any member of City Council, or even of City staff.

Most arts councils, like the Canada Council and the BC Arts Council, have three components:

(1) The actual “council” is made up of a number of appointed volunteer representatives of the city’s arts and culture community. It’s like a board of directors. All sectors and all levels must be represented. The council, meeting regularly, determines policy, sets budgets, and advocates with government and with the public.

(2) The paid staff manages the affairs of council, advises on budgets, reviews funding applications for presenting to juries, and generally carries out the policies set by council.

(3) Juries, or committees, are appointed by council to review grant applications and make recommendations. There are juries for each of various disciplines: theatre, music, visual arts, etc., and members generally serve, also on a volunteer basis, for one round of applications, though they may be re-appointed by council. Committee members are recommended by the public, generally people working in the arts.

If this sounds like a good idea to you, write letters, send emails, contact Councillor Heather Deal. After all, she’s the arts point person in Council. Let her know that you want her and Councillor Meggs to stand by their promises.

Mailing address:
Councillor Heather Deal
Vancouver City Hall
453 West 12th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V5Y1V4
E-mail: clrdeal@vancouver.ca
Phone: 604.873.7242

Art, who needs it anyway–finale
This is the last of the series.
Please see parts one, two, and three below.

Massive cuts to government funding to the arts are but one result of the alienation of the public. In other words, who cares? If people no longer respect or even know about what artists are doing, how can we expect them to care if their tax money no longer goes to support these arcane activities? As I said before, I would not expect the government to pay the faithful for their church attendance or for the priests and ministers who deliver the sacraments and sermons. Then why should expect taxpayers’ money to support the rarefied indulgences of an elite and aging population who want to attend the opera, the symphony, and the art gallery? Or even a cadre of younger artists, who, instead of giving people what they want, insist in striking out in new directions creating challenging new art?

Like the television and rock concert producers, governments know what people want and where their support lies. Hence you will soon be able to spend up to $9000 for a seat to watch two guys beat the stuffing out of each other in an Ultimate Fighting Championship event at GM Place (“could generate millions for the local economy”). If violence of that sort is not your dish of tea, you could stroll over the new $500 million (and counting) casino at BC Place and relieve yourself of your excess cash. (Be careful, on your way, not to step on any of the homeless people trying to sleep on the street.) Oh yes, the Vancouver School Board has just announced the virtual elimination, “due to cutbacks,” of art and music programs. One or two parents have lamented this loss, but ultimately, who cares?

In case you haven’t noticed, our governments have become followers, not leaders. Look, for example, at the Harper government’s “tough on crime” legislation. As we speak, $2 billion is being spent on building new prisons. Bill C-2, which will probably be supported by election-shy Liberals and the NDP, calls for tough minimum sentences and more invasive control of drug use with penalties that emphasize retribution as opposed to rehabilitation. This in spite of all scientific and sociological research demonstrating that tougher sentences do not reduce crime. This government can push its own agenda by playing on the belief that we are living in a dangerous society. To convince people otherwise and to take a sensible and humane view would mean assuming a leadership role. It’s easier to ignore the fact that the crime rate has been steadily descending since the 1970s.

Because the Prime Minister was embarrassed by his pre-election remarks about artists at fancy galas, he has had his picture taken with a boy with a cello and he even sang a Beatles tune to his own accompaniment at, imagine!, a fancy gala. Remembering that he didn’t bother to show up at the Canada Council’s Fiftieth Anniversary celebration, I am not convinced. But he got a lot more media coverage from his singing and playing than he ever did from his no-show for the Canada Council.

This might be a good time to remind the reader of the difference between “market driven” and “product driven.” As we’ve pointed out, most popular entertainment as seen on television, movies, and rock concerts is based upon what the public wants, often determined by polls or by market surveys. Art, on the other hand, is, or should be, created out of the compulsion and imagination of the artist. As we have seen, the public may be confused and feel somehow cheated. The artists are playing tricks on them—and getting paid for it. Remember the anger expressed by some people when the National Gallery paid nearly $2 million for Barnett Newman’s “Voice of Fire.”? This very large painting consists of a single red stripe on a blue background. “My four-year-old could have done that,” people were heard saying, somehow equating the value of the work with the amount of labour involved. A lady I was talking with at a concert recently, said, “I don’t trust the modern stuff.” She explained that she had attended a concert of contemporary music and heard only dissonance and not a single melody. In the essay cited above, Ortega y Gasset also wrote: “We then have an art which can be comprehended only by people possessed of the peculiar gift of artistic sensibility—an art for artists and not for the masses.” For the most part, the public is acquainted neither with the arts of the past or of the present. And what’s more, they don’t care. No one even let’s them know that it exists.

It doesn’t take long to realize that the media are devoting large amounts of time and energy to talk about sports. Sports have taken over the public imagination with regard to accomplishment and civic pride. We hold up our Olympic athletes as role models for the young, and we cheer wildly when “our” hockey team wins the series. (Even though the players are mostly from elsewhere.). There is nothing wrong with this, but it is happening in a vacuum of reporting about the accomplishments of our artists. We have not celebrated the achievements of our artists, writers, and musicians, many of whom are better known abroad than at home. Who knows that 22-year-old baritone from Toronto Elliott Madore was a winner of the Metropolitan Opera National Council Auditions? Who ever heard of Jan Lisiecki, the brilliant 15-year-old pianist from Calgary who has performed at Carnegie Hall and with major orchestras all over the world? He has recorded both Chopin piano concertos to great acclaim. He is International Youth Ambassador for UNICEF. Governor General Michaëlle Jean told him “You are an inspiration to children and adults across Canada.” Who knew? Why aren’t these artists and the many others, young and old, as well known as Sidney Crosby?

As long ago as 1948, José Ortega Y Gasset, in the essay cited above, wrote:

In these last few years we have seen almost all caravels of seriousness founder in the tidal wave of sports that floods the newspaper pages. Editorials threaten to be sucked into the abyss of their headlines, and across the surface victoriously sail the yachts of the regattas. Cult of the body is an infallible symptom of a leaning toward youth, for only the young body is lithe and beautiful. Whereas the cult of the mind betrays the resolve to accept old age, for the mind reaches plenitude only when the body begins to decline. The triumph of sport marks the victory of the values of youth over the values of age.

Arts groups have tried to lure back a bewildered public by trying some market-related tricks, pretending that they a “just folks” like everyone else. The Vancouver Symphony presents concerts of video game music, complete with large-screen video so you can see the musicians sweating it out. Vancouver Opera offers Manga versions of opera stories and a few young people “blogging” about the opera on opening night. The string quartet plays an arrangement of a Beatles tune. All this is well and good, but I’d wager that not one person has been moved to attend a regular symphony concert or an opera—or to come to believe that their taxes should support the arts—as a result of these slogans and condescending offerings. What we’re really saying is that we don’t believe that the product is good enough to sell itself on its own. We don’t expect you to sit and listen to an orchestra concert or a string quartet or to study up on an opera story.

If religious people can no longer persuade the wider public that church attendance will ensure a blissful afterlife, people who believe in Art have failed to make the case that participation in the arts guarantees a richer more fully-lived temporal life. We come up with flimsy slogans like “Creativity Counts” or “Don’t Torch the Arts” whilst flaunting grey squares to show how poverty-stricken a world we would have without Art. As if anyone cared.

We have failed to display a passion for and dedication to making Art. We have failed to engage the public with Art and artists. Our protests have been short-lived and insignificant. We have stood by while schools have eliminated arts programs. We have tuned out of the CBC’s erosion of music programming. We have failed to demand media attention for the arts at least equal to sports reporting.

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. It took years of hard and constant work to get the environment onto the public agenda. People risked their lives; people went to jail and endured ridicule and hardship. They asked who cares? and answered: We do! And environmental issues have made it into the media and into public awareness. The government is compelled to respond, like it or not. Until we have the same kind of courage and determination, Art will stay in the background, an unnecessary frill, an elite indulgence. Why should tax money go for that?

In her 1953 book “Feeling and Form,” the philosopher Susanne Langer wrote:

An enlightened society usually has some means, public or private, to support its artists, because their work is regarded as a spiritual triumph and claim to greatness for the whole tribe.

How will we answer the question Who cares?

Art, Who Needs It Anyway
Part Three
Parts One and Two are below

WHAT HAPPENED TO POPULAR MUSIC?

Meanwhile, the field of popular music has also undergone radical changes. Throughout most of history, the basic format of classical and popular music was the same. A sentimental ballad sung by Frank Sinatra would run a close parallel to a song by Schubert: vocal melody with accompaniment, poetic text, and basic song form. The difference being that the Schubert song would probably be more adventurous harmonically, have a more complex accompaniment (for piano), have a melody that might take unexpected turns, and be set to a poem of artistic merit. Nevertheless, the listener to the Sinatra song would have no problem engaging with the Schubert, if he or she so chose. What has happened over the past 40 or so years is that popular and classical music have taken widely divergent paths, and as these paths diverged, the public followed the pop music path and forgot about the classical or high art path.

In many ways, popular music has remained more traditional—relentlessly so, with its simple harmonies, repetitious rhythms, and rudimentary forms. The ubiquitous electric guitar has placed it inexorable stamp on virtually all popular music. Like television and the movies, popular music has become simpler and simpler, usually electronically engineered to sound like nothing that could happen in acoustic reality. Early Rap, with its street-smart, in-your-face vitality, soon morphed commercially (mostly by white guys) into a sullen pseudo-rebellious “product” so popular with boom-car drivers relying on dirty words for effect. A similar process transformed Rock ‘n’ Roll from its vigorous black-ghetto beginnings into the nice-English-white-boys style of the Beatles. For more on this, I recommend “How the Beatles Destroyed Rock ‘n’ Roll” by Elijah Wald (Oxford, 2009). What with sexually charged techno pop, glam rock, and teen and “tween” performers, popular music is now almost entirely the purview of the young and reflects the lack of sophistication, life experience, and technical expertise of maturity. Our young people are now immersed in a hyper sexualized, over glamorized, anti-intellectual milieu, their brains addled by drugs, cell phones, IPods, and social networking. YouTube sites popular with kids, including the very young, have titles like “Do I look like a slut?”, “Too drunk to fuck” and “Stick it in”.

Do we imagine that a symphony concert or an exhibition of cubist painting could possibly compete with the supercharged glitz and glamour of a Lady Gaga? Could I leave my Facebook page alone long enough to sit through an opera or a play? As someone once said, how can people who have grown up with the three-minute popular song comprehend a twenty-minute symphony, let alone a four-hour opera?

Along with this has come a widespread disdain for the output of the mature and intellectually developed adult. Classical music, literature, poetry, and art are dismissed as boring. Even politicians must now be careful not to betray any intellectual prowess or achievement. Better to be “just folks.” Remember how Stephane Dion was ridiculed, in the 2008 election, for being “the professor”? Notice how Michael Ignatieff adopts a “folksy way … when trying to be a man of the people, ‘What the heck are the facts?’” (Ron Graham in The Walrus, January/February 2010) Used to be that people looked up to leaders who were articulate, well-read, idealistic, and thoughtful. Louis St. Laurent, whose government founded the Canada Council, while known as a man of the people made no apologies for being a respected lawyer, a professor of law (Laval University), a humanitarian, and an articulate speaker.

When did artists start losing the public? My piano teacher used to refer to certain pieces of music as “musicians’ music”, in other words, music that only musicians could understand. In his 1948 essay “The Dehumanization of Art” José Ortega y Gasset cites “art for artists” as a reason why the public does not favour “the new art.” New art, in this case, being cubism, abstract expressionism, and performance art. As if that weren’t enough, the public was further alienated by the musical creations of composers like Arnold Schoenberg, Alban Berg, Igor Stravinsky, and, later, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Pierre Boulez et al. In the theatre, people were confused by plays by Luigi Pirandello, Samuel Beckett, Harold Pinter, and others. Arts and artists were breaking new ground, and the public was left in the dust.

I am not suggesting for a moment that artists should not be breaking new ground. This is the very nature of art. But at the same time that the above-mentioned ground was being broken, the public was being lured by new sources of entertainment: radio, movies, and, television. As soon as the television moguls discovered polls and ratings, the downward spiral began. After all, the more popular your show, the more advertising you can sell. Classical music, visual and plastic arts are now entombed in museums and concert halls where people behave and dress in ways that are foreign and off-putting to everyday people. Again, popular television, blockbuster movies, and rock concert producers, like McDonald’s restaurants, know what people want, and they deliver—entertainment (or food) that is fast, immediately recognizable, and easy to grasp—no surprises for the generally passive and uncritical consumer.

Read Bramwell Tovey’s speech to the Vancouver School Board:

Tovey on cuts to music programs

” … education without a significant musical component is no education at all.”

ART, WHO NEEDS IT ANYWAY
Part Two
(See Part One, below)

The government people were right. How many would you say wrote letters or marched in righteous outrage over cuts to arts funding? Several thousand, maybe—really nothing compared with the more than four million voters in the province, most of whom either didn’t care or didn’t know about arts funding in the first place. What they were excited about were the Olympics (Go, Canada, go!) and the latest three-D blockbuster. Our governments, it would seem, are following the procedures of television programming: Find out what they’re watching and give them more of it.

Some of us remember when radio and television devoted major programming hours to opera, serious theatre, symphony concerts, and provocative discussion. People used to tune in weekly to symphonic concerts like the Standard Hour, the Bell Telephone Hour, or the Firestone Hour. The American National Broadcasting Corporation, created and fully funded the NBC Symphony Orchestra, conducted by Arturo Toscanini in two-hour Sunday concerts from 1937 to 1954. The Ed Sullivan show regularly featured opera stars like Birgit Nilsson, Joan Sutherland, and Franco Corelli. Our public schools had lively music and art programs. (Until sometime in the late 1980s, each school district in the lower mainland had a full-time music supervisor.)

In 1949, the Massey Commission (Royal Commission on Development in the Arts, Letters, and Sciences) was created by the St. Laurent government (Try to imagine the current government creating such a royal commission). Upon the recommendation of the Commission, the Canada Council was created and funded in 1951. Support for the arts in Canada seemed guaranteed, until the mid 1980s when government appropriations began to fall In real terms (taking inflation into account), Canada Council’s resources had decreased by over 30% by 1992. Government claims to the contrary not withstanding, this decline has continued. The same is true for the British Columbia Arts Council.

So what happened? Why is support for the arts dwindling and why is that hardly anyone cares? As I said before, our governments and our popular media have become followers, not leaders. This all started with the advent of television and the market surveys that determined who was watching what. If the majority of people are watching sitcoms, why then let’s give them more sitcoms. The advertisers, after all, want to expose their wares to the largest possible audience, and it was soon discovered that intellectual challenge tended to drive viewers to other channels. Consequently, it was necessary to assess public taste and create corresponding programming. In the parallel world of food, McDonald’s has done this brilliantly. You always know what to expect, no surprises, and don’t ask any questions about fat, salt, methylcellulose, or nutrition. The comparison with television is apt.

We’re all familiar with the notion of “dumbing down.” Just listen, for example to the dialogue in 1940s radio and even in 1950s television. The vocabulary as well as the political and social allusions are of a level of sophistication unknown in today’s popular shows. Action must now be fast and frenetic, and the sound bite has replaced the meaningful quotation. Popular movies are the same. Cutting is rapid-fire, with shots lasting rarely more than a second or two. Compare this with a scene from, say, “Citizen Kane” Here you will see single shots lasting five minutes or more, typical of films from the 1930s and 1940s. The slower pace implies that the audience is capable of paying attention and following the measured development of plot and character. The big box office blockbusters of today present us with a slam bang relentless array of images of crashes, explosions, fights, and chases. Never a dull moment. And once you have created such a film or TV show, the only way you can improve upon it is to up the ante: more and louder crashes, more and stupider jokes (with laugh track), more provocative sexiness, and more carefully engineered “reality.”

To be continued