the last place on earth you probably want to be

I’m happy to see that the question of arts funding is still in the news. I hope that in some way, the value of articles like Atwood’s will resonate with the “ordinary people” who actually don’t care about the arts. I’m unpopular in thinking so, but as much as I agree with Atwood, Harper’s right too. One only needs to scan the comments on Atwood’s essay to see that the value of art and artists is a highly contested topic.

Here’s what Harper said (from canadaeast.com):

“I think when ordinary working people come home, turn on the TV and see a gala of a bunch of people, you know, 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,” Harper said during a campaign stop in Saskatoon.

First of all, Harper’s definition of an artist is wrong. It worries me that his defense of the funding cuts is based on bad information. As Atwood points out in her comment, people don’t get into the arts to get rich. What is so troublesome about Harper’s comment is not merely that it’s insulting to artists, but we have to wonder what else he’s lying about as he jets around the country, indoctrinating his subjects with misinformed ideologies. We can hate him all we want but he’s still the most powerful man in Canada. It’s a dangerous, dangerous thing.

Having said that, I think more people agree with Harper than I feel comfortable believing. Especially when he reinforces their ignorance by repeating comments such as the above.

Let’s not forget that the “rich gala” art world exists. (Harper’s wife was, until yesterday, a part of it). It’s exclusive, and (to some) it’s prestigious, and while there may not be money in it, particularly, the people in it have money. I think most artists in Canada feel alienated from this scene/market/world, and that alienation should be likened to the alienation a lot of non-artists feel toward arts in general.

My goal as an emerging critic and curator is to make art accessible to as many people as possible. I really believe in inviting those in the margins of the art world and beyond to participate in art in an engaging way — one that makes them really understand the value of art as it relates to the changing of consciousness, its participation in the writing of history, and its ability to act as a marker of cultural attitudes and values. I don’t find it condescending to inform an audience. I would like to learn as much about art in a gallery as I do at school. When I learn things after visiting art spaces, I’ll know that they are serving a purpose that benefits all citizens and not just artists.

I would love to see this kind of attitude adopted by institutions all over the place. There is so much more we can be doing to allow art to touch everyone — and not just those who are innately interested.

I’ll end this disjointed rambling with another excerpt from Atwood, one that resonates with me very strongly. Stephen Harper scares me, and he should be scaring a hell of a lot more people:

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!

_________