By Maegen Black
Since April 2008, the Conservative government has slashed $45 million from federal arts and cultural funding. Every time I write, say or read those words I feel the sting of their fiscal impact on the cultural sector like a slap in the face. These sweeping cuts have impacted artists in every discipline; whether you’re a filmmaker, sculptor, dancer, singer, curator, writer or otherwise — your sector has been affected.
The targeted programs assisted artists and arts organizations with international market expansion and the development of Canadian cultural content here at home. Programs in training, travel, preservation, and production were severely cut or cancelled outright. When asked why the cuts were made, government representatives responded with a mixture of bottom-line budgeting and ideological differences, but the strategic report that lead to the cuts has yet to be released to the public.
Even basic common courtesy was not observed when these cuts were announced. Instead, the cuts were leaked to the media by unnamed Conservative representatives and posted online, buried deep in the web pages of individual Canadian Heritage program sites rather than being officially presented to the public. Adding insult to injury, the cuts were leaked with a tone of disdain for the artists who had received this funding. Recipients were used as scapegoats, and controversy brewed as 3 of about 300 recipients from a single program were labelled as inappropriate. This is where things really started to get messy.
The arts community was not impressed. Not by the cuts themselves, not by the way they were announced, and not by the reasons given for their cancellation. Initially, there was concern that the looming election would overshadow the cuts, and that this loss to the cultural economy would go unnoticed. For whatever reason, be it the lack of an overbearing election issue (other than leadership and the almost infamous sweater-ads) or the ferocious response from the cultural community, the cuts have stayed in the news.
Public figures such as Paul Gross, Naomi Klein, Atom Egoyan, and Margaret Atwood have voiced their concerns about the cuts — drawing coverage. There were lame attempts from the Prime Minister to paint himself as a friend of the arts because he plays piano and fronts an informal band (Stephen and the Firewalls) — drawing coverage. Impressive public rallies and town hall meetings, especially those based in Quebec, have brought audiences of over 2,500 to a single event — also drawing coverage.
For once, federal funding for the arts is getting a lot of attention, which allows Canadian artists the platform to explain its importance, and to clear up some serious misconceptions derived from the manner in which these cuts were revealed. Somehow, almost overnight, the public impression of an artist went from starving to spoiled, and the idea that federal funding allowed a load of ungrateful, lazy artists to live off the teat of government became common. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the response to these cuts has ensured that the public look at the reality of the situation for most artists (poverty), as well as the reality of the cultural economy’s financial return ($84.6 billion in 2007 alone, creating over 1.1 million jobs for Canadians, as reported by the Conference Board of Canada).
But not all of the coverage has been productive. Quotations have been blown out of proportion and statistics have been twisted. Arguments flew back and forth over whether or not the Conservatives actually increased funding to arts and culture, but in a Globe and Mail article by James Bradshaw from September 19, 2008, the raw data shows that funds were “gradually shifted away from arts and culture, and funneled instead into other branches of the Department of Canadian Heritage that focus on the department’s social mandate.” What does that mean? Funds were pulled from the arts to pay for sports.
There is the sense that the groups on either side of this issue are simply stomping their feet, refusing to acknowledge the opinions or rationale of the opposition. In response, the National Director of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, Alain Pineau, has put out a public call to capitalize on the current situation. Pineau asks that the arts community and the incoming government work together to strategize a new and equally beneficial plan to develop the creative economy. He points out that “Reverting to hyperbole or stereotypes does not create an atmosphere for the kind of serious national dialogue that must take place on this topic. The current debate must refine both its lexicon and civility.” I couldn’t agree more.
Changes are looming in federal politics whether artists (and the general public) like it or not. Those within the Canadian arts community must work with whoever is in power towards a common goal: the development of an effective system that invests in the arts for a high return. But respect must be paid to the specific intricacies of the creative economy, just as it would when arranging investment in agriculture, manufacturing, or any other sector in Canada. If the old system truly wasn’t working, then let’s work to fix it together rather than casting these important programs aside in the heat of an election campaign.
For a full list of the programs cut, click here.
Advocacy activity is everywhere online. To get involved, check out the Department of Culture and I Vote For Culture. Another great site to check for recent polls in each riding and recommendations on strategic voting, see Vote for Environment.
Maegen Black is an artist, advocate, writer, and arts administrator with a Bachelor of Design from the Ontario College of Art & Design.
