Ordinary people — Struts and Frets: Kris Joseph

Ordinary people

September 25, 2008 · 15 comments

The University of Ottawa’s Academic Hall was stuffed this afternoon.  Fire-code-violating stuffed.  People poured in to listen to a town-hall-style meeting organized by the stalwarts behind Vote Culture.

Martin Faucher and Wajdi Mouawad warmed up the crowd with passionate statements that I hope will be published very soon, and then the floor was turned over to panelists (including Peter Hinton and Mark Chatel), who made statements and posed questions to election candidates.

I won’t say much about the meeting itself because it will surely be covered by media in the morning.  I wasn’t taking notes, anyway, and so can’t faithfully repeat many of the profound things that were said.

By far, though, the most profound statement made this afternoon doesn’t need to be transcribed.  It came from the Conservative Party of Canada, who deemed the town hall so unimportant to ordinary working Canadians that they didn’t send anyone to take part in the discussion.  NDP was there.  Green was there.  Bloc was there.  Liberal was there.  The Conservative chair stayed empty.  Nobody was shocked.

In light of Stephen Harper’s recent comments on the cultural issue:

“I think when ordinary working people come home, turn on the TV and see … a bunch of people … at a rich gala all subsidized by taxpayers claiming their subsidies aren’t high enough when they know those subsidies have actually gone up, I’m not sure that’s something that resonates with ordinary people.” (Sept 23)

…I think the arts community deserves to respond.

I think Harper is an artist, actually: he’s terrific at fiction.

Artists are ordinary working people.  There are, in fact, 1.1 million people working in arts- and culture-related fields in Canada.  Few of us are full-time artists because our income averages $23,000 per year (according to 2001 census data).  Income for the average, ordinary working Canadian is about $40,000 (again, 2001 census).  The prime minister makes $280,000 per year, so he has a much better understanding of what is ordinary than artists do.

Ordinary people occasionally go to galas to celebrate achievements.  They dress nicely.  They get their hair done.  Such galas include extraordinary events like wedding receptions.  Any ordinary working Canadian who sees footage of a wedding reception on TV should, according to Harper, assume that all of the attendees live in the magical land of ‘GalaWorld’: they’re terrifically wealthy, sleep in their fancy gowns and spend hundreds on their hair and nails every day.  One wonders if Stephen Harper’s wife has told him about the gala she’ll be attending in a few weeks: it’s a terrific fundraiser for youth education initiatives, but most ordinary working Canadians won’t be able to afford a ticket because they have to feed their families that night.

Ordinary people are good at math, and can connect dots.  When programs totaling $48.8 million are cut, ordinary working people would consider that a decrease in funding.  It’s okay that Stephen Harper is confused, though: the man who promised to end corporate welfare (“end” would be a “decrease”, right?) has given already-profitable corporations $50 billion in tax breaks.

Listen: Stephen Harper knows how to use his platform.  He thinks that by painting artists as elitists (and, in doing so, stealing a page from the McCain Playbook) he will make himself appear more connected to the everyday working Canadian and less like the well-paid elitist he actually is.  Everyday working Canadians, I suspect, value freedom and free speech, but Harper only values free speech insofar as it falls in line with what he already believes: he refuses to answer questions from the press on almost every topic, so as to control how his policies are viewed by everyday working Canadians.  He has fought hard to protect everyday working Canadians from such evils as movies they might not like, and the ability to freely use content they’ve purchased.  Moreover, he and his candidates now fail to appear at town halls and debates, so as not to face any criticism or questions or dialogue from everyday working Canadians.

Culture and the arts affect ordinary working people every day, from the music and television and movies we all consume, to the ideas we discuss around the dinner table or in the coffee shop, to the things we dream about at night.  Free and open discourse — of which a healthy arts community is part — is a cornerstone of any free society, and governments who fear it or try to stifle it are doomed to failure.  Harper is afraid of artists, and of everyday working Canadians.  He should be.  We are at our strongest when under attack.

It’s a terrible cliché, but in thinking about Harper’s arts and culture ‘policy’, I can’t help but respond with a new version of Pastor Martin Niemöller’s infamous poem that starts with the line, “First, they came for the artists”…

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=657375864 Judi Pearl (from Facebook)

    Thanks, Kris. Well said. We are working to get Wajdi's speech translated, subtitled and on YouTube as soon as we can…

  • http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=657375864 Judi Pearl (from Facebook)

    Thanks, Kris. Well said. We are working to get Wajdi's speech translated, subtitled and on YouTube as soon as we can…

  • http://www.krisjoseph.com/ krisjoseph
  • http://www.krisjoseph.com/ krisjoseph

  • Pingback: So-called “elite” artists fight back « The Ottawa Arts Newsletter

  • http://www.krisjoseph.com/ krisjoseph
  • http://www.krisjoseph.com/ krisjoseph
  • http://www.ryananderson.ca/ Ryan Anderson

    I think the biggest problem facing the arts is that Harper is partially right – a lot of artists are elitists, and they’re the ones that the public sees. They don’t see the struggling of theatre companies to put on a season of struggling Canadian playwrights. They don’t see actors living in studio apartments just to support their craft. They don’t see the small businesses and business people who donate what they can afford in the form of a program ad or work for free to help these organizations.

    What they do see is pretentious douchebags talking about the cultural relevance of an ugly painting that was just bought for $3 million. Of course they can’t relate, and it’s an easy argument to make.

    The reality of the situation is, of course, that THOSE galas represent only about 1% of events in the arts. The rest try desperately to be those galas, so that they can attract the kind of people who can afford those galas because the state of arts funding in this country reduces every artist and arts organization to a state of institutionalized begging.

    The result is that regardless of how “rich” the gala is, artists still come off as snobby and pretentious, trying desperately to be the douchebags with the million dollar painting.

    You’re completely right with your points, and I as much as anyone would love to see cultural funding in this country even approach that of what places in Europe count as normal, but if we’re going to fix the perception of artists as elitists, artists have to stop acting like elitists.

    I’m painting with a broad brush, obviously. There are plenty of intelligent, talented and grounded artists in the community (and I would count you as one of them), but we can all rhyme off names of people in the community who fit that artistic elitist mould to a tee. If we want “the average consumer” to identify with artists, we need to be cognizant of the image we’re projecting.

  • http://www.ryananderson.ca Ryan Anderson

    I think the biggest problem facing the arts is that Harper is partially right – a lot of artists are elitists, and they’re the ones that the public sees. They don’t see the struggling of theatre companies to put on a season of struggling Canadian playwrights. They don’t see actors living in studio apartments just to support their craft. They don’t see the small businesses and business people who donate what they can afford in the form of a program ad or work for free to help these organizations.

    What they do see is pretentious douchebags talking about the cultural relevance of an ugly painting that was just bought for $3 million. Of course they can’t relate, and it’s an easy argument to make.

    The reality of the situation is, of course, that THOSE galas represent only about 1% of events in the arts. The rest try desperately to be those galas, so that they can attract the kind of people who can afford those galas because the state of arts funding in this country reduces every artist and arts organization to a state of institutionalized begging.

    The result is that regardless of how “rich” the gala is, artists still come off as snobby and pretentious, trying desperately to be the douchebags with the million dollar painting.

    You’re completely right with your points, and I as much as anyone would love to see cultural funding in this country even approach that of what places in Europe count as normal, but if we’re going to fix the perception of artists as elitists, artists have to stop acting like elitists.

    I’m painting with a broad brush, obviously. There are plenty of intelligent, talented and grounded artists in the community (and I would count you as one of them), but we can all rhyme off names of people in the community who fit that artistic elitist mould to a tee. If we want “the average consumer” to identify with artists, we need to be cognizant of the image we’re projecting.

  • http://www.krisjoseph.com/ krisjoseph

    Astute as always, Ryan — but the issue of the most well-off and controversial artists having the largest platform is a real catch-22, since the artists who are just scraping by (no matter how happily) don’t have much power with which to project an image depicting how ordinary they are.

    I did see a terrific idea come out of Queen’s University this weekend: students there are hitting the streets in pairs or small groups, presenting music, dance, stories, puppetry busker-style alongside signage that says, simply, “art is your story”. More info here: http://artisyourstory.wordpress.com/

    It’s a novel approach… I would suggest that its reach could be strengthened by having the street presentations filmed and put on YouTube.

  • http://www.krisjoseph.com/ krisjoseph

    Astute as always, Ryan — but the issue of the most well-off and controversial artists having the largest platform is a real catch-22, since the artists who are just scraping by (no matter how happily) don’t have much power with which to project an image depicting how ordinary they are.

    I did see a terrific idea come out of Queen’s University this weekend: students there are hitting the streets in pairs or small groups, presenting music, dance, stories, puppetry busker-style alongside signage that says, simply, “art is your story”. More info here: http://artisyourstory.wordpress.com/

    It’s a novel approach… I would suggest that its reach could be strengthened by having the street presentations filmed and put on YouTube.

  • Sideshow Bob

    Maybe some of us folks support the Conservative platform. I go to local theatre productions; give donations to support the Arts – but I’d rather not have some quasi-government agency pick losers and winners. Le me decide what I want, not the culture whores of Toronto who fund each others pet projects with tax dollars.

    Maybe we should increase the basic personal exemption so artists earning their $23000 can take more home? Or maybe we should admit that many poncy self-declared artists are talentless hacks, who don’t deserve a cent to help them inflict themselves on unsuspecting audiences (and if you can’t name any, you’re not trying very hard).

    Summary: I support the arts as an individual. Leave some more money after taxes and I’ll give more. But let me choose what I want; don’t leave it in the hands of the incestuous, close-minded arts community.

  • Sideshow Bob

    Maybe some of us folks support the Conservative platform. I go to local theatre productions; give donations to support the Arts – but I’d rather not have some quasi-government agency pick losers and winners. Le me decide what I want, not the culture whores of Toronto who fund each others pet projects with tax dollars.

    Maybe we should increase the basic personal exemption so artists earning their $23000 can take more home? Or maybe we should admit that many poncy self-declared artists are talentless hacks, who don’t deserve a cent to help them inflict themselves on unsuspecting audiences (and if you can’t name any, you’re not trying very hard).

    Summary: I support the arts as an individual. Leave some more money after taxes and I’ll give more. But let me choose what I want; don’t leave it in the hands of the incestuous, close-minded arts community.

  • http://www.krisjoseph.com/ krisjoseph

    Hey Sideshow Bob,

    Thanks for offering another view. I hate feeling like I preach to the converted all the time.

    If you’ve looked at the all the party platforms and track records and you want to vote Conservative, go ahead — even if you consider yourself an arts supporter. You, like all people, are a complex individual and you get to make a choice based on as many factors as you see fit. I have looked at the Conservative platform and track record, and won’t vote for them; the wonderful thing about democracies is that we can each do our own thing. I would, however, be far less vocal about my Conservative indigestion if their representation in the House of Commons more accurately reflected (especially on a regional basis) the way people actually vote, so that your views AND mine are both accurately represented at the table. 51.2% of Canadians have no voice in Parliament, and that strikes me as unbecoming of a democracy. Can’t resist sneaking in a push for democratic reform.

    Tax exemptions for individual artists are not something I’m asking for. I list $23,000, relative to the $40,000 average for Canadians, relative to Harper’s $280,000 only to highlight his inability to truly understand what resonates with ordinary people, on an income basis. He is not ‘ordinary’; the same could be said of any elected MP. I’m not bemoaning my level of income. I have an engineering degree, can make far more money than I currently do, and did for many years. I choose to live with less because money isn’t the most important thing in my life. It may not even make my top five. Grants aren’t given out as income supplements, anyway (if you know of any, do let me know). From an artist perspective (and possibly from the perspective of many self-employed Canadians), though, I would like to see the ability to use income averaging so that my income fluctuations from year to year don’t cause such big problems at tax time.

    I can name a VERY large number of artists who I would consider as “poncy talentless hacks”, but that opinion would be subjective. I have very strong opinions on what makes for good theatre, but that’s subjective too. The difference between me and Stephen Harper is that I believe that a system of ‘blind’, peer-reviewed approval for grants (such as used at arms-length, by design, by the Canada Council) is prone to some abuse but is essentially viable and proven, while Harper would rather have the power to decide on behalf of all Canadians precisely what art is appropriate for Canadian taxes to fund (see Bill C-10 and the rationale for the culture funding shell-game, which Flaherty recently admitted was ideologically-based). Which system is more closed-minded? This is the heart of my anger over the Conservative policy on culture, and indeed the Conservative party’s ideology overall.

    You and I differ over one other key point, which I will belabor even though culture funding is only one fifth of one percent of the total federal budget and s really secondary to the censorship issue I’ve already raised. You feel you should be able to choose where your tax money goes based on what you want. I submit that it’s not all about you; you are a citizen of a country of 33 million individuals who all hope YOU’ll be as open-minded as you want THEM to be. Applying your tax logic to my life, I don’t think I should subsidize a Ford motor plant because I drive a Honda. I don’t think I should have to pay for health care because I haven’t been to see a doctor this year. I don’t think I should help fund lung cancer research because I’ve never smoked a day in my life. I shouldn’t have to pay for the maintenance of all our national parks because I haven’t been to all of them. I shouldn’t have to pay to fix potholes on the Trans-Canada highway because I haven’t been on it since 2004. I shouldn’t have to help make the 2010 Olympics happen, because I’m not going to attend them (and I don’t like hockey anyway, because the outfits aren’t tight enough). I shouldn’t have to fund education, because I have no children. I pay taxes and happily support all of these things because I think they are important for Canada and contribute to our overall well-being as a society, even if I don’t like them personally. I’d say that’s fairly open-minded. I think culture is just as important, and the Conservative platform doesn’t address this (among many other issues) to my satisfaction.

  • http://www.krisjoseph.com/ krisjoseph

    Hey Sideshow Bob,

    Thanks for offering another view. I hate feeling like I preach to the converted all the time.

    If you’ve looked at the all the party platforms and track records and you want to vote Conservative, go ahead — even if you consider yourself an arts supporter. You, like all people, are a complex individual and you get to make a choice based on as many factors as you see fit. I have looked at the Conservative platform and track record, and won’t vote for them; the wonderful thing about democracies is that we can each do our own thing. I would, however, be far less vocal about my Conservative indigestion if their representation in the House of Commons more accurately reflected (especially on a regional basis) the way people actually vote, so that your views AND mine are both accurately represented at the table. 51.2% of Canadians have no voice in Parliament, and that strikes me as unbecoming of a democracy. Can’t resist sneaking in a push for democratic reform.

    Tax exemptions for individual artists are not something I’m asking for. I list $23,000, relative to the $40,000 average for Canadians, relative to Harper’s $280,000 only to highlight his inability to truly understand what resonates with ordinary people, on an income basis. He is not ‘ordinary’; the same could be said of any elected MP. I’m not bemoaning my level of income. I have an engineering degree, can make far more money than I currently do, and did for many years. I choose to live with less because money isn’t the most important thing in my life. It may not even make my top five. Grants aren’t given out as income supplements, anyway (if you know of any, do let me know). From an artist perspective (and possibly from the perspective of many self-employed Canadians), though, I would like to see the ability to use income averaging so that my income fluctuations from year to year don’t cause such big problems at tax time.

    I can name a VERY large number of artists who I would consider as “poncy talentless hacks”, but that opinion would be subjective. I have very strong opinions on what makes for good theatre, but that’s subjective too. The difference between me and Stephen Harper is that I believe that a system of ‘blind’, peer-reviewed approval for grants (such as used at arms-length, by design, by the Canada Council) is prone to some abuse but is essentially viable and proven, while Harper would rather have the power to decide on behalf of all Canadians precisely what art is appropriate for Canadian taxes to fund (see Bill C-10 and the rationale for the culture funding shell-game, which Flaherty recently admitted was ideologically-based). Which system is more closed-minded? This is the heart of my anger over the Conservative policy on culture, and indeed the Conservative party’s ideology overall.

    You and I differ over one other key point, which I will belabor even though culture funding is only one fifth of one percent of the total federal budget and s really secondary to the censorship issue I’ve already raised. You feel you should be able to choose where your tax money goes based on what you want. I submit that it’s not all about you; you are a citizen of a country of 33 million individuals who all hope YOU’ll be as open-minded as you want THEM to be. Applying your tax logic to my life, I don’t think I should subsidize a Ford motor plant because I drive a Honda. I don’t think I should have to pay for health care because I haven’t been to see a doctor this year. I don’t think I should help fund lung cancer research because I’ve never smoked a day in my life. I shouldn’t have to pay for the maintenance of all our national parks because I haven’t been to all of them. I shouldn’t have to pay to fix potholes on the Trans-Canada highway because I haven’t been on it since 2004. I shouldn’t have to help make the 2010 Olympics happen, because I’m not going to attend them (and I don’t like hockey anyway, because the outfits aren’t tight enough). I shouldn’t have to fund education, because I have no children. I pay taxes and happily support all of these things because I think they are important for Canada and contribute to our overall well-being as a society, even if I don’t like them personally. I’d say that’s fairly open-minded. I think culture is just as important, and the Conservative platform doesn’t address this (among many other issues) to my satisfaction.

Previous post:

Next post: