IMAGE VIA
{re: 'Barbarians in Government' series... why didn't I think of it sooner?}
via the Globe & Mail (thanks Ardele!):
Commentary
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
By MARGARET ATWOOD
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).”
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
Comments
more:
Is Harper's battle with the arts community smart political strategy?
Image Via 
