9 Responses to “A CULTURAL POLICY FOR BC”

1. Tweets that mention A CULTURAL POLICY FOR BC -- Topsy.com says:

   February 23, 2011 at 12:47 pm

   [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by CanadianMusicCentre and Craig Pedersen, Arts AdvocacyBC. Arts AdvocacyBC said: A cultural policy for BC? /e5qaqB What do you think? Give us your ideas. [...]
2. SUSAN WEISS says:

   February 23, 2011 at 2:51 pm

   Tom,

   Thank you for sharing this! I appreciate it.

   Your last point: “Is the present structure of the British Columbia Arts Council viable? If not, how to amend? The structure of the Arts Council seems to us to be viable. Appointment of Council members, however, should be based on recommendations from the arts community. This must be a”

   Can you please post the rest of this thought?

   Many thanks and

   Cheers!

   Susan
3. Elaine Carol says:

   February 23, 2011 at 3:11 pm

   Hey there Tom: Thanks so much for this GREAT work!!! Enormously appreciate the time and thought put into this document. Here is some feedback. I have not been involved in arts policy to any significant degree since 2003 – when Minister Sheila Copps brought together artists and cultural workers for her forum on arts, heritage and cultural diversity and in the mid-1980s was involved in Toronto Arts Policy so I am rusty and may be mixing politcal apples and policy oranges. Here goes:

   Under “A Ministry of Arts, Culture & Heritage” – #2. after “arts education” should “community-engagement” be added as it is usually delivered in a less institutional or large institutional context?

   #3. Should “ensuring that arts creators or creators of art maintain all copyright and intellectual property” be added? In this day and age and with this “Liberal” government and the history of BCAMP and EmbraceBC grants, I don’t think this can be stressed enough.

   Here is a general statement for the last question “present structure of BC Arts Council” and this may be mixing improperly but 1. where do we talk about Gaming funding or is this not the place. Ideally all that funding should come to the BCAC to be adjudicated by a jury of our peers not by government workers and 2. is there any way we can demand a guarantee of a minimal amount of funding coming directly from taxation and other government revenues to the BCAC so we can ensure that we are no longer the province with the least per capita funding for the arts?

   I hope this makes sense. If not, you have my business card and know where to reach me. Thanks again, Tom!!! Great work!!!

   Take care,

   Elaine Carol
   Artistic Director
   MISCELLANEOUS Productions
   Web Site: http://www.miscellaneous-inc.org
   Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Miscellaneous-Productions/104073496902?ref=ts
   Twitter: ElaineCarol3
4. Keith Higgins says:

   February 23, 2011 at 4:58 pm

   while the discussion of broad principles, and the establishment of some sort of culture ministry, are interesting, I think that many questions still come down to the issue of control of budgets, and here there are several unknowns.

   For starters, what are the measurements that enable us to determine an optimal level of public investment in arts and culture? (And this figure necessarily includes investments in public access to the arts, which I believe is what you are trying to address in your second point.) At the moment, there is a presumably some sort of dialogue between manifested need (which could be measured by requests to the BCAC, producing an incomplete measurement of the real costs of production of culture and access to culture), and the government’s “ability to pay” (which is highly subjective given the many variables present in the determination of budget priorities).

   There are also many inequalities that need to be addressed within the current (and historical) structure of cultural investment. In particular, we have consigned the cultural activity in a great swath of the province’s communities to amateur status. This has persisted from the inception of dedicated cultural funding in BC (at the establishment of the BC Cultural Fund, every organization not deemed “major” was directed to work under the auspices of a Community Arts Council, whether one existed in their community or not). The amateur makes a valuable contribution; however, neglecting or refusing to give artists in many communities recognition as working artists is extremely patronizing and not a good development strategy.

   The minefield of “intellectual property” is not necessarily a wise place to go. I would propose that it is more urgent that the free exchange of ideas, perspectives, and aesthetic identities needs to be kept separate from attempts by governments to mobilize or manipulate culture in the service of electoral or public relations objectives. If by mentioning “intellectual property” you mean to highlight the role of working artists in the arts and culture, it might be better to just do that instead. The Appelbaum-Hebert commission asserted in the early 1980s that the primary source of support for the arts and culture in Canada was in fact working artists through direct contribution and through their acceptance of low lifetime income levels (and here I could point to the recent York University survey that found visual artists, with peer recognition as artists, on average paid to be artists — keep in mind that people making a very good living dragged this average up — and so artists are out there subsidizing organizations including major museums and professional art dealers).

   But back to the question of money. If there had been a policy framework for responsible stewardship of cultural investment in BC, the withdrawal of casino money in 2009 would not have produced anywhere near the disaster it has. But until we are able to provide policy recommendations that include workable methods for determining optimal levels of public investment in the arts and culture, it is likely that this stewardship will not emerge.

   The most demonstrable progress made on actual cultural policy in BC was under the Barrett (BC Arts Board, Cultural Services Branch, BC Art Collection) and Harcourt (BC Arts Council, Status Of The Artist Committee) governments. However, what emerged in both instances was weaker than it should have been, and was not accompanied by the kind of public investment that would make these initiatives meaningful, or enable them to prosper through changes and upheavals in government. (In both cases, the governments that followed undermined any progress — Bennett II, who stopped the purchase of new works for the BC Art Collection and disrupted the emerging regional responsibility within the nascent Art Board’s structure and Clark who promised expansion but delivered a cut instead.)

   Rather than focusing on “cultural institutions”, working artists deserve to be foregrounded.

   Rather than attempting to map out the interaction between politicians, the Ministry, and the BCAC, I think it would be more valuable to establish clear interdictions to limit political interference, and to demand the implementation of a clearly arms-length relationship as dictated in the Arts Council Act (1996), but never satisfactorily implemented.

   And rather than leaving the issue of money for another day, everyone needs to give serious thought to the question, how do we determine an optimal level of public cultural investment? What are the guidelines that will produce the level of investment likely to raise the incomes of artists and cultural workers to somewhere above the official poverty level, likely to provide meaningful public access to a full range of cultural opportunities regardless of geography or income level, and likely to lead to a flourishing cultural life in the province?

   Thanks for your work so far.
5. Elaine Carol says:

   February 23, 2011 at 6:57 pm

   @Keith Higgins: I always deeply appreciate your comments, Keith. However, I would like to respectfully debate the issue of intellectual property. I think that it is essential to bring it up with this government. Given the history of the BC “Liberal” government siphoning off BCAC and Gaming funding, how they have put funding into EmbraceBC “arts engagement projects” that is paired with this government’s demand for intellectual property, and how the government is using this intellectual property as advertising for their party, how they have been literally using artists’ intellectual property to forward their own narrow and anti-art agenda, I think that we have to discuss it. Art has so much become a commodity to them, one that is easily exploited. I think that rather than just focusing on money, we need to also focus on our rights as artists including and especially copyright and intellectual property.
6. SUSAN WEISS says:

   February 24, 2011 at 10:43 am

   Tom,

   How about this:

   “SUSTAINABLE CULTURE IS THE NEW FRONTIER, ISN’T IT?

   Here is a departure point: http://wp.me/pVjZw-5K

   Cheers!

   Susan
7. Keith Higgins says:

   February 24, 2011 at 10:58 am

   @Elaine To say that I am proposing “just focusing on money” is inaccurate, and I’m not sure how what I have written would lead to that conclusion. I am saying that the lesson we can take from periods of “policy” progress in this province is that general principles on paper (or even legislation, in the case of the BCAC), however useful, become meaningless if not backed by an appropriate level of public investment in culture. If we were to provide a policy framework or principles in answer to the question I have put above, “how do we determine what is an optimal level of cultural investment”?

   1. I’m not proposing that we concentrate entirely on budget levels. I am arguing that without an appropriate commitment to public investment in culture (both production and access), much written policy becomes meaningless. I have provided nutshell descriptions of historical cases, here in BC, to support this argument.

   2. Using the term “intellectual property” to discuss the autonomy of arts and culture from the political process, as you appear to be trying to do, is an obtuse way to go about it. If you want to address copyright issues attached to the actions of a specific government program, and I don’t think there’s any reason not to do that, you should do so. But generalizing “intellectual property” issues in this way does not address what should be a core principle of government’s relationship with culture. We have certainly seen manipulations of funding processes (both in the case of the Gaming Branch and in the creation of the Spirit Festivals) to serve political aims, and these instances do not revolve around problems of copyright.

   3. Regarding “our rights as artists”, the reason that “intellectual property” issues are a minefield is that artists find themselves manipulated when copyright law (which is a federal matter) has been opened for revision. In the previous revisions to the Copyright Act, gains were touted such as enshrining the exhibition right in law, establishing the public lending right, establishing artists’ copyright collectives, “moral rights” and so on. All good things of course, and even if the resulting small increases in income don’t materially affect most artists’ standards of living they are all manifestations of a sort of fairness — you use my creation, I get paid. However we also ended up supporting a revision of copyright law that allowed large corporate holders of “intellectual property” to create new income categories for themselves, often to the detriment of individual creators. I fear at the current moment we are starting to do the same. The large copyright collectives are lobbying against expansions to fair dealing, but ignoring digital locks and anti-circumvention. The effect of the latter measures will be to restrict discourse and the exchange of ideas and — surprise — create new revenue opportunities for large IP holders at the expense of creators, critics, scholars and the public at large. That’s a small part of why I say above that it’s a “minefield”.

   If you want to argue against political manipulation of the arts, then a strong statement of why autonomy is important needs to be cast. Typically in the past this has been explained by the principle of arms-length, but there may be a better way of framing it; however, I really think framing it as an IP issue muddies the dialogue and does not produce anything useful.

   If you want to promote a better standard of living for artists, IP is only one part of the problem.

   If you want to pursue IP issues nonetheless, keep in mind that the relevant laws are federal rather than provincial. If there are issues of non-compliance (which we see both in the specific case you are referring to and in the refusal of some provincially-funded organizations to pay exhibition fees and other copyright fees), that would seem to be a separate point entirely from the arguments I am making. It looks, honestly, like grounds for litigation rather than a matter for the broad strokes of policy.

   For clarity, I think some issues need to be disentangled.
8. Elaine Carol says:

   February 24, 2011 at 11:48 am

   @Keith – thanks for your comments. I am on the run to a meeting so I will be brief.

   Many of your points are well taken and thank you. I am well aware that copyright is a federal rather than provincial issue. I have been trying to get a discourse going in the BC arts community, at the BCAC and CC, as well as in the mainstream press, as well as specific arts lobbying groups re: the issue of BCAMP/EmbraceBC forcing artists to give up IP for their “contracts” in spite of the fact that in our case their funding came in at less than 5% of a project.

   No one wants to deal with this issue and I have heard reasons like yours before, i.e. “it’s a minefield… it’s a federal and/or legal issue.” All these issues of artists’ funding, rights, IP, autonomy, etc. are minefields, all are tangled up and if artists don’t start dealing with them soon, it will be too late. It may already be too late because as the artist and academic Lisa Steele says “by the time it gets to me, it will be too late.” Well, “it got to me” when the Campbell government was first voted in, Campbell gave copyright and IP workshops to bureaucrats running granting programs, and BCAMP grants became contracts, went to a bidding/corporate process and IP was demanded by the government, regardless of the fact that all other funders, distributors, broadcasters, etc. stipulated that we own our own IP and industry sector/professional standards.

   Our tiny organization has already fought this battle legally, i.e. we got our pro bono lawyer involved when EmbraceBC posted one of the photos from one of our performances on their website without our permission or the permission of the youth participants’ parents depicted in the photo. The photo was eventually taken off the EmbraceBC web site once we mentioned the parents – they did not give a fig about the fact that they violated our rights as adult artists and were willing to take us to court. Obviously we do not have the money to go to court.

   Many artists since then have signed contracts with EmbraceBC and clearly did not read the fine print. They have no idea that they gave up their IP or what this means. Sure issues need to be disentangled but unfortunately the BC government has tangled them up so what should we do? Sit idly by while this happens. Frankly and with all due respect to artists in this province, I am amazed at the lack of interest in this issue and/or action, as well as the fact that so many arts groups that have received EmbraceBC contracts may have their music, lyrics, photos, films, etc. exploited by the BC “Liberals.” It’s not just a legal issue or a federal issue, it’s an issue of policy and I think we need to speak up about it, tangled as it may be.

   Thanks for hearing me out. Debate is always satisfying with you, Keith.
9. Bill Horne says:

   February 28, 2011 at 6:13 pm

   1) Not sure how to frame this in terms of cultural policy, but we definitely need to get Status of the Artist legislation back on the table in BC, since so much of what we do as artists falls within provincial jurisdiction.

   I remember meeting with Minister Waddell, the late Burt Harris and Sandra Bannister when the Glen Clark govt was considering this. Sandra’s report came out and the govt set it all aside. My impression was that they were afraid of a public backlash against what might be seen as another level of bureaucracy. They missed a big opportunity.

   2) Although copyright is in the federal domain, it wouldn’t hurt to have a portion of cultural policy affirming the rights of artists to make a living from our work.

   Very recently, the Canadian Museums Assn made a presentation to a Parliamentary Cttee that suggested removal of the Exhibition Right (which allows for visual and media artists to be paid exhibition fees, sometimes referred to as CARFAC fees) from the Copyright Act.

   Lo and behold, the President of the CMA, Jon Tupper, happens to be the Director of the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria.

   It’s noteworthy that The Québec Museums Society quickly disassociated themselves from the Canadian Museum Association’s position on copyright. Apart from a deep historical understanding of the value of culture, Québec has Status legislation. I wonder how much Mr Tupper’s position comes from living in a province whose funding and cultural policies have been *degraded* for so long, to use Tom’s word.

   More information about the CMA’s statement about artists’ fees see http://tinyurl.com/4aku5js ; for the Québec Museums Society statement see http://tinyurl.com/4wjaajm .

   3a) The 2nd objective Tom mentions near the top of his post about accessibility is important geographically, and I really appreciate Keith mentioning the “amateur” status consigned to artists and communities in the boonies. And Tom’s reference to cultural development in the regions.

   I remember questioning an administrator at the BCAC last winter when I learned that 97% of that round of grant recipients were from the Vancouver area. The most northerly recipient was from Kaslo. To see how this looks to those of us living beyond Hope, see http://www.claireart.ca/BCAC_grants2010.jpg .

   I was told I should be asking how many artists from the hinterland had applied. So I asked, and was told: just five.

   [Full disclosure here: two of them were my wife and I. So I have to acknowledge a personal interest in this issue!]

   I then asked where the jurors were from. All from Vancouver, except one from Denman Island (or was it Hornby Is.?), which is not exactly a geographically diverse sampling.

   To me this indicates a systemic problem which the BCAC is supposedly addressing, according to its reports.

   3b) One of the ways the “amateur” status affects visual artists and organizations in the hinterland is that there are very few galleries in our regions that pay CARFAC fees. When those galleries do try to apply to BCAC for a budget that will include the fees, they’re told their facilities aren’t professional enough to qualify.

   I think this usually means they don’t have state-of-the-art temperature/humidity control, or nice enough lighting, etc. Or perhaps there’s no curator with a degree. Whatever. Most artists I know, myself included, don’t really give a %^#* about that stuff. We want to exhibit our work, and we want the fees we are entitled to under the © Act.

   3c) Another discrepancy for artists and organizations in the hinterland is that policies written in Victoria do not necessarily fit our needs. A fine example of this is the challenge continually faced by Island Mountain Arts here in Wells (imarts.com) which has been a cultural hub in our region for over 30 years. Yet it must limp from year to year on pathetically low project funding and has never qualified for operational funding.

   I was on the IMA Board for a few years and remember when a staffer from BCAC made a rare appearance here to meet with us. The level of exasperation was incredible as we listened to excuse after excuse for why we didn’t qualify. This person, and whoever was writing BCAC funding policy, had absolutely no idea about our community or our region, let alone our impact or our needs.

   She didn’t listen; she didn’t advocate for us. So we all learned how policy was being imposed, not developed from any meaningful consultation with – what are we called? – stakeholders

   Oh, for a Ministry, let alone a Ministry and a BCAC that would take the role of *initiator*, as Tom lays out in point 3!

   Sorry to miss the AGM, Tom. I hope you get a good turnout.