News   Apr 24, 2024
 115     0 
News   Apr 24, 2024
 454     0 
News   Apr 23, 2024
 2.9K     7 

To be creative is, in fact, Canadian (MARGARET ATWOOD)

Uncle Teddy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
1,426
Reaction score
15
Location
Toronto
Some good points here.



To be creative is, in fact, Canadian

Mr. Harper is wrong: There's more to the arts than a bunch of rich people at galas whining about their grants

MARGARET ATWOOD
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
September 24, 2008 at 11:00 PM EDT

What sort of country do we want to live in? What sort of country do we already live in? What do we like? Who are we?

At present, we are a very creative country. For decades, we've been punching above our weight on the world stage - in writing, in popular music and in many other fields. Canada was once a cultural void on the world map, now it's a force. In addition, the arts are a large segment of our economy: The Conference Board estimates Canada's cultural sector generated $46-billion, or 3.8 per cent of Canada's GDP, in 2007. And, according to the Canada Council, in 2003-2004, the sector accounted for an “estimated 600,000 jobs (roughly the same as agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, oil & gas and utilities combined).â€

But we've just been sent a signal by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he gives not a toss for these facts. Tuesday, he told us that some group called “ordinary people†didn't care about something called “the arts.†His idea of “the arts†is a bunch of rich people gathering at galas whining about their grants. Well, I can count the number of moderately rich writers who live in Canada on the fingers of one hand: I'm one of them, and I'm no Warren Buffett. I don't whine about my grants because I don't get any grants. I whine about other grants - grants for young people, that may help them to turn into me, and thus pay to the federal and provincial governments the kinds of taxes I pay, and cover off the salaries of such as Mr. Harper. In fact, less than 10 per cent of writers actually make a living by their writing, however modest that living may be. They have other jobs. But people write, and want to write, and pack into creative writing classes, because they love this activity – not because they think they'll be millionaires.

Every single one of those people is an “ordinary person.†Mr. Harper's idea of an ordinary person is that of an envious hater without a scrap of artistic talent or creativity or curiosity, and no appreciation for anything that's attractive or beautiful. My idea of an ordinary person is quite different. Human beings are creative by nature. For millenniums we have been putting our creativity into our cultures - cultures with unique languages, architecture, religious ceremonies, dances, music, furnishings, textiles, clothing and special cuisines. “Ordinary people†pack into the cheap seats at concerts and fill theatres where operas are brought to them live. The total attendance for “the arts†in Canada in fact exceeds that for sports events. “The arts†are not a “niche interest.†They are part of being human.

Moreover, “ordinary people†are participants. They form book clubs and join classes of all kinds - painting, dancing, drawing, pottery, photography - for the sheer joy of it. They sing in choirs, church and other, and play in marching bands. Kids start garage bands and make their own videos and web art, and put their music on the Net, and draw their own graphic novels. “Ordinary people†have other outlets for their creativity, as well: Knitting and quilting have made comebacks; gardening is taken very seriously; the home woodworking shop is active. Add origami, costume design, egg decorating, flower arranging, and on and on ... Canadians, it seems, like making things, and they like appreciating things that are made.

They show their appreciation by contributing. Canadians of all ages volunteer in vast numbers for local and city museums, for their art galleries and for countless cultural festivals - I think immediately of the Chinese New Year and the Caribana festival in Toronto, but there are so many others. Literary festivals have sprung up all over the country - volunteers set them up and provide the food, and “ordinary people†will drag their lawn chairs into a field - as in Nova Scotia's Read by the Sea - in order to listen to writers both local and national read and discuss their work. Mr. Harper has signalled that as far as he is concerned, those millions of hours of volunteer activity are a waste of time. He holds them in contempt.

I suggest that considering the huge amount of energy we spend on creative activity, to be creative is “ordinary.†It is an age-long and normal human characteristic: All children are born creative. It's the lack of any appreciation of these activities that is not ordinary. Mr. Harper has demonstrated that he has no knowledge of, or respect for, the capacities and interests of “ordinary people.†He's the “niche interest.†Not us.

It's been suggested that Mr. Harper's disdain for the arts is not merely a result of ignorance or a tin ear - that it is “ideologically motivated.†Now, I wonder what could be meant by that? Mr. Harper has said quite rightly that people understand we ought to keep within a budget. But his own contribution to that budget has been to heave the Liberal-generated surplus overboard so we have nothing left for a rainy day, and now, in addition, he wants to jeopardize those 600,000 arts jobs and those billions of dollars they generate for Canadians. What's the idea here? That arts jobs should not exist because artists are naughty and might not vote for Mr. Harper? That Canadians ought not to make money from the wicked arts, but only from virtuous oil? That artists don't all live in one constituency, so who cares? Or is it that the majority of those arts jobs are located in Ontario and Quebec, and Mr. Harper is peeved at those provinces, and wants to increase his ongoing gutting of Ontario - $20-billion a year of Ontario taxpayers' money going out, a dribble grudgingly allowed back in - and spank Quebec for being so disobedient as not to appreciate his magnificence? He likes punishing, so maybe the arts-squashing is part of that: Whack the Heartland.

Or is it even worse? Every budding dictatorship begins by muzzling the artists, because they're a mouthy lot and they don't line up and salute very easily. Of course, you can always get some tame artists to design the uniforms and flags and the documentary about you, and so forth - the only kind of art you might need - but individual voices must be silenced, because there shall be only One Voice: Our Master's Voice. Maybe that's why Mr. Harper began by shutting down funding for our artists abroad. He didn't like the competition for media space.

The Conservative caucus has already learned that lesson. Rumour has it that Mr. Harper's idea of what sort of art you should hang on your wall was signalled by his removal of all pictures of previous Conservative prime ministers from their lobby room - including John A. and Dief the Chief - and their replacement by pictures of none other than Mr. Harper himself. History, it seems, is to begin with him. In communist countries, this used to be called the Cult of Personality. Mr. Harper is a guy who - rumour has it, again - tried to disband the student union in high school and then tried the same thing in college. Destiny is calling him, the way it called Qin Shi Huang, the Chinese emperor who burnt all records of the rulers before himself. It's an impulse that's been repeated many times since, the list is very long. Tear it down and level it flat, is the common motto. Then build a big statue of yourself. Now that would be Art! Adapted from the 2008 Hurtig Lecture, to be delivered in Edmonton on Oct. 1
 
While I generally agree with Atwood's points on creativity, she kinda shot herself in the foot politically when, on the one hand, she argues that to be creative is Canadian, and then, on the other hand, stated that she would vote for the BQ if living in Quebec.
 
I think Atwood is out to lunch here, and she'd do better to leave such histrionics to her artistic work.

Is this really such a no-issue election that cuts to arts funding are being spun as so profoundly dangerous to the nation?? Harper's comments, oafish though they may be, are hardly the grumbling beginnings of fascist policy and shame on those who would be so irresponsible and deluded as to characterize them as such. What's really at issue here is a mandate to curb government spending and taxation in a nation that has far too much of it to begin with, and at a time whe Canadian and global economies are sliding. This is the reality whether artists or money-grabbing Quebecers want to hear it or not. But lets not ask what we can do for our government, that is not the Canadian way. Instead, we hold our hand out and demand to know what our government will do for us and how much money we are entitled to. Who cares about the shrinking economy, tax us more! Who cares about funding to health care, essential social services or national infastructure, tax us more so that we can afford to fund experimental artists in Edmonton or continue to pay the lifelong debt that Canada bears to bribe Quebecers into staying in Canada. Ahhhh, how the heart swells with national pride (oops, cannot fund that because that would mean taking money away from the funding of cultural and minority groups)!

Well chill out all you culture-vultures, and I consider myself one of you, there are still funds to go around, and if you don't qualify for them then maybe you should go out and promote your art the good old fashioned way, which is to say by actually producing something relevent and meaningful that an audience will actually want to buy. As for Quebecers, try looking beyond your own gallic noses for once to understand that it's not all about you and your spoiled self-obssessed little needs, and try sending somebody to Canadian parliament that many actually care about something bigger than la belle province. If the bitter taste of 'Vive le Canada' sticks so distastefully in your craw then 'Vive le Quebec libre' and be done with it, I say.
 
Atwood continues to denounce intolerance, and a right wing that demonizes groups of people and sets minorities against one-another in order to profit from those divisions. In 1981 I heard her talk to a packed St. Lawrence Market North audience of angry gay men who were protesting the steam bath raids that had just happened. She said how puzzled she was when she first heard that the bath houses had been raided; she paused for effect, and her line, "What have the police got against cleanliness?" brought the house down.

http://www.rbebout.com/bar/1981.htm
 
Well chill out all you culture-vultures, and I consider myself one of you, there are still funds to go around, and if you don't qualify for them then maybe you should go out and promote your art the good old fashioned way, which is to say by actually producing something relevent and meaningful that an audience will actually want to buy.

Since you raised it, could you please provide an example of relevant and meaningful art that will sell well. You know, something everyone could agree on.
 
Since you raised it, could you please provide an example of relevant and meaningful art that will sell well. You know, something everyone could agree on.

Obviously, that is the problem: true art is controversial and open to interpretation. One person's treasured bust of Elvis is another person's trash, so to speak. There is no way you can get any kind of consensus on this issue. But there are examples all around us of 'art' that is successful and 'art' this is not. I can barely stand Celine Dion, but I won't fault her talents. Lots of people like her, so her market value is very high. Some goth kid splashing paint on a wall is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. I have friends who have been trying to 'make it' for 30 years as artists and only know of two or three who actually made it.

As a society, it is worth debating whether arts need or should be subsidized. Like all other forms of 'subsidies,' whether for public housing, welfare, new subways, road expansion - we all have a vested interest in it and should be willing to entertain an open and free debate about the issues.

Personally, I don't think Canadian 'art' is all that fragile any more. Perhaps 30 or 40 years ago it required nurturing, but the internet is a great mediam for promotion one's art - and virtually free.
 
Well, according to the Star... I should be voting Bloc too. I don't agree that they should leave the nation, but they seem to be set in the right direction on a number of issues.

Try it for yourself. No cheating.

http://www3.thestar.com/static/election/quiz/index.html

Good god, are these the only suggestions on the table?! We are doomed! (I am Green Party, apparently, with LPC/CPC tied for second)

I don't really care about the funding, one way or another. I just don't like Harper. Like most issues, he manages to turn the most mundane issues into these life & death issues. If he had just cut the funding, told people what it is being re purposed to, and shut the hell up he would probably be in majority territory now. But no, he has to go on about well heeled, gala-attending, elitist, urbane artists and painting the issue with some populist brush stroke. Political jujutsu at its worst. He could have eliminated all arts subsidies, I wouldn't really care. But trying to launch a kulturkampf against "elitists" (really, people who don't vote CPC) is infuriating. He tried to create a wedge issue, and he lost.
 
Since you raised it, could you please provide an example of relevant and meaningful art that will sell well. You know, something everyone could agree on.

That's not the issue Hydrogen, the politicization of the arts is. The left in Canada does exactly what the right in the USA does, which is to hijack the real issues of an election when behind in the polls by distracting with alarmist and outrageous social issues that are always sure to play to the masses (terrorism and gay marriage/abortion in the States, socialist funding and minority rights in Canada). For most of us in the centre of the spectrum this is unbelievably frustrating.


I don't really care about the funding, one way or another.

I actually am in favour of arts funding but more in terms of infrastructure (CBC, performing arts venues, museums etc) which to me is a way of providing the vehicles by which Canadian artists can makes themselves known and compete. The rest I feel should be up to the public and philanthropy and the audiences that the artists themselves develop organically.

I also do not think that the funding of the arts should be some sacred cow, guaranteed at all times. At times of economic uncertainty it must come lower on the priority list, and so it should be for a government that is behaving responsibly, and so it should be for Canadians who understand that tough times call for choices (health care/social services vs arts funding).

I just don't like Harper. Like most issues, he manages to turn the most mundane issues into these life & death issues. If he had just cut the funding, told people what it is being re purposed to, and shut the hell up he would probably be in majority territory now.

I agree that Harper is oafish and stiff and lacking in some basic diplomacy and social graces, but this doesn't warrant the backlash that ensued and the appropriating of legitimate election issues by what is essentially a special-interest group. The fact that this non-issue may decide who governs the nation is extremely unsettling to me.


But no, he has to go on about well heeled, gala-attending, elitist, urbane artists and painting the issue with some populist brush stroke. Political jujutsu at its worst. He could have eliminated all arts subsidies, I wouldn't really care. But trying to launch a kulturkampf against "elitists" (really, people who don't vote CPC) is infuriating. He tried to create a wedge issue, and he lost.

This is left-wing media propaganda. Harper did not suggest banning the arts or stopping all funding altogether, and although clumsily and insensitively expressed there are indeed many Canadians who would question why we are paying more taxes for fewer social services, simply to continue funding artists that really should be supporting themselves the way Canadians in all walks of life do.

Lets be honest that the real backlash has come to Harper from Quebec where this has been spun, yet again, into a language/French culture issue. Quebecers could care less what happens to the rest of Canada or any Canadian issues as long as a steady stream of money continues to flow to them from Ottawa. This is what the liberals have always known and what the Harper Conservatives were seeming to learn until this unfortunate reminder: kiss the ass of Quebec or lose the election. C'est toujours la meme histoire!
 
I agree that Harper tried to create a wedge issue, and that it failed. Dividing people, demonizing groups - gays, unions, artists, the poor, the unemployed - and setting people against one-another, and profiting from divisions, is the right's own special iterest group agenda. Culture, and the often low-paid artists who feed the hunger for it, are what defines us and I'm heartened that the righteous anger of the arts community has generated support from the wider public.
 
This is left-wing media propaganda. Harper did not suggest banning the arts or stopping all funding altogether, and although clumsily and insensitively expressed there are indeed many Canadians who would question why we are paying more taxes for fewer social services, simply to continue funding artists that really should be supporting themselves the way Canadians in all walks of life do.

I wasn't questioning the logic of the cuts, I honestly don't care. A good chunk of the money cut wasn't even going to arts (Northern Native Broadcast funding, for instance). What I don't like is trying to create wedge issues by pitting one group against another, and that is exactly what Harper tried to do. It is a recurring issue with him to. He makes some token policy change, most of which I usually agree with or don't care, and then goes on to cast it in this light of urban elitists vs. "ordinary" people. Attempting to de-huminanize artists and bring people together through their dislike of one group or another is low ball politics. Once again, I really don't care about the money. I don't have any sympathy for people who try to create wedges, and loose.

Lets be honest that the real backlash has come to Harper from Quebec where this has been spun, yet again, into a language/French culture issue. Quebecers could care less what happens to the rest of Canada or any Canadian issues as long as a steady stream of money continues to flow to them from Ottawa. This is what the liberals have always known and what the Harper Conservatives were seeming to learn until this unfortunate reminder: kiss the ass of Quebec or lose the election. C'est toujours la meme histoire!

Quebec is just more in tune with their culture. Not to suggest that Anglo-Canada has no culture, but it doesn't put as much of an emphasis on it as Quebec. They really do define themselves by their culture, it is their entire reason d'etre. It gets a bit silly sometimes, but that is the situation. They certainly don't see their celebrities as some kind of leech on society, they see them as society. Lampooning artists, to them, is a much more serious than it is to us. If not for their artists, they would be forced to the reality that they aren't very unique. It's not about the funding, Harper has given them more than enough to treat the "fiscal imbalance." It is that he seems disconnected with their mindset. It's identity politics, and he lost.
 
Again, Harper is an oaf and his tactics are clumsy. At the end of the day, however, what he managed to do was alienate the interests of Quebec cultural nationalism. Bad move. In the rest of Canada the welfare-reliant arts system is hardly likely to be a friend of conservative economic policy anyway, and to be fair it is just as much of a cheap wedge tactic to paint all those who question arts funding as philistines and despoilers of Canadian culture. Canadians can support the arts just as avidly, and perhaps even more effectively, through their patronage than through their taxes.
 
Canadians have been supporting the arts through their taxes even before Dief was chief and the Canada Council was formed. I'd hate to think what era patron of the arts Tewder wants to turn the clock back to; given his notion that investing in the arts is "welfare" I'd guess the Victorian workhouse era.
 

Back
Top