Impact and Change

What's the best way to get the public on your side?

Over at the Next Stage, there's a video link to a news item on Global BC about the recent cuts to funding for Arts & Culture in BC's provincial budget. Check it out.

Three questions should immediately pop up for all artists concerned about BC after viewing this item:

1. Why did this story air?
2. How effective was it?
3. How do we get more stories like this on air?

After watching the story, you realize that the reason why Global took an interest is because Kim Catrall got on board and criticized the BC government for its excessive cuts to Arts & Culture.

Some would be annoyed that the only reason that this issue has made it to air on a major network was because a celebrity mentioned it. Not me. I think this is great news.

If you recall during the last Federal election, Arts & Culture became an issue (and made it to the national debates for the first time in history) only after prominient Québec artists criticized the PM for $45M in funding cuts, made months earlier. The PM responded, and the rest is history.

What local arts groups need to do now is try to figure out how to get more celebrities on board. With the 2010 Olympics only months away, and Vancouver (and BC) becoming increasingly in the spotlight, this may be just the opportunity we've been waiting for... I'll get back to this in a minute.

The other detail about the story that I noticed is that Global also spent extra time, energy and money to profile how local groups (like Carousel Theatre) will be impacted by the funding cuts. This is significant when you consider how much easier it would have been to broadcast a 15-second bit featuring Catrall's comments and then move on. The question is: why did they bother? Was it just good reporting? Does Global have a proclivity for focusing on the "human" angle? Or, is it something else entirely...

Well, maybe. Global TV (along with fellow broadcasters CBC, CTV and A-Channel) is embroiled in a major public relations battle with cable providers Rogers, Bell and Telus. At issue is whether the broadcasters should be able to charge the cable providers for access to their programming. You may have seen 'Save Local TV' commercials or clicked on their website. What's important to note about this conflict is that the broadcasters (especially Global, which needs the extra income most desperately) are furiously branding themselves as the champions of local television, and by extension, local communities.

I see the possibility for a mutually beneficial relationship...

What's happening in BC right now is an underground movement to build momentum and help get the public on the side of artists and cultural workers. As more events are planned and executed in support of culture -- like last week's Art Strike -- two publicity objectives need to pursued and met.

First, there needs to be celebrity voices, or the voices of prominent members of the community, on side and (if possible) on sight. This makes the event sexy to the broadcasters.

Second, any and all press releases, backgrounders, etc., need to start angling the story so that it's not just about the government cutting funding.
Our story needs to be about protecting local culture and local communities. Our story needs to mirror the messaging and the language that the broadcasters themselves are using to demonize the cable providers. Our story needs to give the broadcasters a reason to move the story up to near the top of the news, or a reason to do an "in-depth" feature.

See... whether we artists realize this or not, this issue is more important than just the state of culture in BC. This is about how important culture is to Canadian politicians. If this issue gets legs -- if national outrage can start to mimic the same momentum that was seen in the 2007 Federal election -- then maybe we can stop this brutal political habit of unfair cuts to the Arts to sustain an image of fiscal responsibility. I've written before that the only reason why Arts & Culture suffer the deepest budget cuts is because it appeals to a certain constituency. It only serves to create an image of "toughness" and "hard choices" but it really doesn't affect the bottom line.

The situation in BC is dire, but there is real opportunity to get some traction and support for this issue. There are the Olympics in only a few short months, and the eyes of the world will be upon us. There are major broadcasters that could could be sympathetic to our cause. There are prominent (read: famous) voices that could sing out on our behalf.

If politicians lose more capital by cutting the arts instead of defending them, then there's no further reason to see those cuts happen in the future. Simple as that.

Now go make some noise.

The War on Culture

Artists must find a way to avoid being collateral damage of deficit budgets

Praxis Theatre's recent post concerning the insane funding cuts to BC's Arts Sector got me thinking about the newest fad in Canadian politics: the war on culture.

Was it only last year that arts funding actually became an issue in a national election? And didn't the artists all rally together (under the lead of Québec) to make enough noise so that the Conservatives were once again hamstrung with another minority government? Did we not see the birth of the Department of Culture and the phoenix-like resurgence of The Wrecking Ball onto the national scene?

And yet, here we are again, not even a year later and arts funding has become a major casualty in a political marketing campaign.

Er... you mean "casualty due to a recession budget," don't you Aaron?

No, I don't. Look at the numbers. At the very worst (and there always are, and will continue to be, many different and contradictory numbers tossed around where arts funding is concerned), there will $17.25 million cut in core arts funding this year. In the face of $2.8 billion projected deficit, what's $17M?

It's nothing. It's a drop in the bucket. It doesn't make any financial sense. In other words, it's political.

Where other industries in BC are looking at an average of 7% cuts in funding, the arts sector is looking at reductions of 80-90%. And this is an industry that continually makes the most with the least in terms of dollars. Why are we always the punching bag?

Charles Campbell, of The Tyee, makes a compelling argument for fighting back. But, other than a couple of posts, all is quiet on the Western (blog) Front. Why are we content to continue to be the punching bag?

... Mind you, I don't follow a lot of BC based theatre blogs, so please point me in the right direction if you know of some hot-headed responses to BC's September Budget update. Thx.

The point is, however, until we can figure out why politicians find it more expedient to obliterate arts funding rather than defend it, we're going to continue to be casualties on this new war on culture.

---

UPDATE
Answering my own question, the Alliance for Arts and Culture seems pretty righteous to me.

Did I call it?... Maybe not

Spider-Man musical to resume production

According to MTV's Splash Page, Spider-Man will be hitting the Great White Way after all. From the report:

According to Variety, production on "Turn Off The Dark" could resume as early as this week or as late as next week.

No official comments have been made by the show's producers, who suspended the musical due to "a cash-flow problem" in August, but Variety's report cites rumors around the theater industry that "Spider-Man" will swing back into action shortly.

However, despite what I predicted in Monday's post, MTV goes on to say:

As for who saved "Spider-Man," the obvious guess is the Walt Disney Company, who recently acquired Marvel Entertainment in a $4 billion deal. But the musically-minded entity is apparently not responsible for "Turn off the Dark's" salvation, according to the report.

Then... who is responsible? According to a snarky report from the NY Post's Michael Reidl:

Bono's too smart to put his own money in the show, but word on the street is that he's tapped into his vast network of rich friends and business associates to restart production.

Hm...

On the lighter side, here's some video from the musical's open casting auditions (courtesy MTV):

MTV Shows

And here's G4 Tech TV's analysis of what Disney ownership might mean for Marvel:

Video Games - E3 2009 - Attack of the Show

More responses can be found on Hero Complex.

Even though we've seen this before... WTF!!!

So blatant, so appalling, so... typical

I haven't really been inspired with righteous political anger on this blog since parliament was prorogued last winter. Time to fire it up again.

Montreal's Divers/Cité festival was denied a $155,000 grant from the federal government's Marquee Tourism Events Program (MTEP), part of the economic stimulus plan.

Divers/Cité features international performers that are homosexual. This year, the festival is scheduled to run July 26 - August 2. Festival organizers found out about losing out on the stimulus money on Tuesday. Yeah... this Tuesday.

This, after festival organizers were assured by federal civil servants at Industry Canada that the Divers/Cité application had met all the MTEP criteria, and was only waiting for final approval from Industry Minister Tony Clement's office.

Clement, who just recently took over the reigns of this program from Tourism Minister Diane Ablonczy, claims that issues of "regional fairness" were the reason why the festival lost out. Since approximately $42M has already been awarded to festivals based in Quebec, he felt he needed to spread the money around.

Couple of things:

1) MTEP is a $100 Million program. The 150K that Divers/Cité requested was just a drop in the bucket. Even if nearly half of the kitty had already been spent in Quebec (about the same amount that has been allocated in Ontario, BTW), would funding Divers/Cité really have made all that much of a difference? But, like I've written before, insignificant amounts of money seem to make no difference to this government when comes to matters of ideology.

2) Clement took over the MTEP file in a flurry of controversy when it was suggested by a Conservative backbencher that the PMO wanted to punish Ablonczy for allocating $400K to Toronto's Pride Week. Conservative MPs vehemently denied it. Even Suzanne Girard, director of Divers/Cité, sprung to the defense of the PMO, saying that right wing elements of the Conservative Party were trying to undermine the government. She said, “It could do exactly what the right wing does, which is block the whole thing and it stops.” Then, Clement confirms everyone's worst fears by yanking funding 4 days before the festival is set to begin.

3) Regional allocation for funding is nowhere to be found in the eligibility criteria for the MTEP. Criteria outlines that only events or festivals that can prove that they attract large numbers of tourists could apply for funding. By the government's own regulations, most of that funding would be streamlined to Ontario and Quebec... which shouldn't be an issue since the demise of these provinces' manufacturing sectors are at the core of the recession, they need the most help.

To me, Clement's claims for trying to check stimulus funds earmarked for Quebec under the guise of "regional fairness" reads like CPC code for "we're just trying to avoid another sponsorship scandal." Which is a sad cover for a blatant appeasement of the Conservative base. Not only does it financially slewfoot an openly homosexual festival, it also addresses other key CPC base points: less public funds for the arts and less money for Quebec.

But really, $150K is nothing. It's really hardly anything to the government's stimulus budget. The stimulus program for infrastructure alone is $12 Billion. GM's Canadian division got a $10.5 Billion bailout.

To me, this is just another sad attempt to appease those in the CPC who have been alienated by the government's... well, governance. But pulling $150K away from one gay festival, when a much larger, more prolific gay festival in Toronto got nearly triple that amount just a few weeks before... seems to me a pretty weak gesture.

That... and a totally disgusting and shameful way to conduct business.

Is there any comparison? Part II

Mr. Ellis weighs in

A little background: Adrian Ellis and I go way back to High School, but have only reconnected in the past couple of years when I moved out to T.O. He's a wicked cool artist that composes for film but also composes and does sound design for theatre, most recently Staged & Confused's successful production of The Crackwalker.

Those of you that are interested in the nitty-gritty of the film composer's creative process should definitely check out his blog The Music Creative. I think its fascinating, and I totally dug his latest post on Music for Theatre. Oh, and you can also follow him on Twitter, you know, if you're into that sort of thing.

Aside from the fact that I think he's a righteous dude (and that we're planning to do some collaboration on the next incarnation of Superhero Live! as soon as I get this REALITY itch out of my system), I bring all this up because he wrote me an email the other day about my recent post that I wanted to share with y'all.

Check it out:

Hey Aaron,

You should open up your blog for non-Blogger users to comment!! ;)

(Aaron says: this is now fixed, by the by. Anybody who wants to post comments is now free to do so. Thx for the heads up, dude.)

I actually think this is a fascinating topic. Here are my thoughts:

Slimy producers vs. greedy wanna-be's

'If you build it, they will come'.

The producers see a need, and a cheap way to create programming that the public consumes like fresh baked double chocolate frosted cupcakes. As with most things that people lament about our consumerist, hyper-capitalist world, it is the public's acceptance, nay, requirement and hunger for entertainment in the form of sadism. They love to see people persevere and overcome, but even more, they love to see someone fail. This is what I find truly disturbing, not one opportunistic producer or fame-hungry stars in waiting, but the fact that people desire this highly negative, judgmental form of entertainment.

Why do they do it

Very very very very few artists have even the faintest clue about the music or film industry. There is an incredible deficit of proper and realistic education about the ins and outs, pitfalls of 'The Biz', and resources and strategies for success. Instead, people are transfixed by the myths and false promises of the industry - the big bucks and fame, that somehow, magically and by their (supposed) talent, they will be found, recognized, and in every way shepherded (bum patted) to success. Beyond this, even if an artist is somewhat educated about these things, they are not in any way prepared for what to do when 'it' does happen (you've won the lottery, now what?). A career is an incredibly difficult thing to manage, and even if you 'make it' a lot can happen. To make it you have to have a plan, and a sustained career has to have a plan.

So to answer your questions:

I'm trying to figure out what drives people to Reality-TV, despite the overwhelming odds and risks associated with it. Is it the money? Is it the lure of fame? Is it something else?

What drive artists into our profession, despite the overwhelming odds and risks associated with it? Is just passion? Is it the lure of fame? Or is it something else...


I think it's ignorance of the realities of the industry, and moreover, of the nature of reality tv. Recently, filmmaker friends of mine wanted to join the 'On The Lot' program, where filmmakers 'compete' against one another in order to have a film produced by Spielberg (or something, can't remember). I said, forget it guys. They really thought it was a shot at fame.
1. It's a lottery,
2. The best do not always win
3. The producers aren't interested in making stars, they are interested in making dramatic television that retains a high viewership. They will put you in positions that will make you look terrible (by design or post-production), and at worst will cost you your integrity and any real credibility you might have. Do you think the 'winner' of this show will have real clout in Hollywood? Never. It's a joke. They really had no clue what it was really about.

People have stars in their eyes. Everyone believes they have a special talent that is unique and will be recognized. The truth is, no one cares. You have to fight tooth and nail (just like any other entreprenuer!!!) to make your art heard/seen/cared about. Go online and check out some unknown indie-bands on myspace or whatever. There are tens of THOUSANDS - and many are good, if not great! Why are they not famous? Well, they can't ALL be famous, even though they 'deserve' it.

As far as the non-reality star chasing artists are concerned? Man, it takes all types. Let's assume they know the odds of the industry. Well, you gotta still somehow believe that you are going to have a go at it and make it because of god knows what reason. Faith, I guess? Yea, some are in it for the money, some the fame... more are starting to get it that those days are probably over, but there are real ways (hello, Internet distribution/marketing) to make a living - but it's hard and will take tons of work. Me? I do it because I absolutely LOVE what I do, and I want to spend as much time as possible being creative with the BEST creative people - and that means, doing it professionally. I no longer chase fame/fortune - I know the chances are miniscule, and mostly dependent on luck. But, I do know if I bust my ass and do the best work I can, I have an ok chance of at least making a decent living doing what I love.

CHEERS!

Adrian

Cool debate

On the merits of a "Luminato Fringe"

Me and MK are chatting about the pros and cons (and the likelihood) of Luminato starting up a 'Fringe' festival.

I'm pretty sure I'm talking about issues that are way above my head, but it's still been a cool chat thus far. Anybondy else that has an opinion on the matter should weigh in. I'm a little tired of my own opinions and would love to read what other people think...

Check it out.

Is there any comparison?

Is it wrong to feel kinship with Reality stars?

While surfing, I stumbled upon this article on Yahoo! about the darker side of Reality TV.

The second line is what caught my attention:

But who is to blame when an everyday person becomes an overnight TV sensation and can't cope -- when Susan Boyle falls ill after failing to win "Britain's Got Talent" or when "American Idol" fan Paula Goodspeed, who was teased after a poor tryout, commits suicide outside the home of a judge?

It's a good question. Since most of the Reality-TV analysis I've come across in recent weeks has been framed negatively, I'll pose it this way...

Do you blame the heartless and slimy networks/producers that create the shows or do you blame those attention-starved celebrity wannabes that audition for them?

Alot of people will answer, who cares?

But when I thought about it, I couldn't help but compare these folks to regular artists - like you and me. Not in terms of talent, but rather in terms of the disdain a good portion of our society has for us (while, at the same time, they keep sampling our wares).

I mean, when you publish a report that highlights a 37% wage gap between artists and the average Canadian worker, and that nearly half of us make less that $10K per year, the ensuing public response can range from apathy to outright hostility.

I'm trying to figure out what drives people to Reality-TV, despite the overwhelming odds and risks associated with it. Is it the money? Is it the lure of fame? Is it something else?

What drive artists into our profession, despite the overwhelming odds and risks associated with it? Is just passion? Is it the lure of fame? Or is it something else...

And are the two urges related?

Day 5

Less creative, more administrative

And... good evening,

I would have blogged earlier, but I got caught up in the big press conference.

Today was about setting a schedule. Planning for the next stage of this bad boy. Grant deadlines and resources. And a chat with my web-dude. We had a chat about whether my idea was feasible (it is!), whether it would cost an arm and a leg (it won't... at least on the web side - the video side is another story), and whether it's really "interactive" (jury's still out on that one).

So on the last day before I go back to my joe-job, I feel good. Prez. Obama had it exactly right: "I'm happy with the progress so far, but I am not content."

More needs to be done. And it's up to me to keep working, evenings and weekends, until my next week off. End of May.

I'll keep you updated, but more on big ticket items rather than day-to-day stuff, as i go.

Good night!

Update City

Or, “Where the hell have you been, Talbot?!?”

In a word, busy.

No, unfortunately, not in a good "creating/writing/birthing-process" kind of way, but rather in a "my joe-job is consuming my life" kind of way. I had to cover for a gaggle of different people who were either sick or on vacation during the past month, and I’ve been totally exhausted to do much creatively, nevermind blogging about it.

It’s funny how life works out. Like many artists, I’ve been subjected to the: "When are you going to get a real job?" stigma… I’ve been asked that directly and, of course, indirectly through our politicians and our media. Without disclosing my employer, do you want to know what my main responsibility for my "real" job is???

First, I print the emails off of the computer.

Then, I scan the emails back into the computer.

This is my "real" job. Society’s messed up, kids.

However, I will give my employer due credit: my job's allowing me to take two weeks off to work on my show (…unpaid, of course, but that’s where my grant comes in). I plan to split up my leave into two one-week segments in April and May. This will allow me to get some distance from the piece in between drafts.

As mindless as my job is, I’m very grateful to how supportive they are. And, I guess it beats waiting tables. Or working at Timmy’s. (I’ve done both.)

I haven’t just been sitting on my thumbs, however. While I haven’t been working on the script proper, I’ve been revising my approach to the work. Specifically, I’ve been revising my process as I had outlined in my OAC grant proposal, based partly on the amount of money I actually received.

Anyone who has received an artist’s grant before knows about the difference between the amount of money you’ve asked for versus the amount of money you actually receive. For project grants, having a shortfall in funding from one granting source may not be such a big deal, if you have multiple sources of revenue.

In the past, I've just generally made-do with the money I got. But I don't think I ever delivered value-for-money when I've done that. More importantly I don't think I got true value for my time invested... not that each experience wasn't valuable, but rather, I question whether I could have made each project pay dividends if I had taken the time to plan according to my budget realities. In other words, if I had looked for opportunities to enhance the project for the future, or for other parties to collaborate with, or for different venue options to present it... well, who knows what might be.

So that's what I'm doing with this one. I'm working with an eye to the future. I'm designing my process so that I'm not just looking at what this grant offers me and my collaborators right now, but a few months and a few years down the road...

Maybe everybody already does that. If so, I'm crashing the party!

Answering my own question

Before I move on from politics...

This will be my last political-based post for a little while as I'm going to start to focus more on artistic process and theory now that I finally got my first grant since moving to Ontario in mid-2007. (Yay!)

But before I do, I thought I'd answer my own question about arts funding in Budget '09.

Did we get what we wanted?

Well, no... but I don't really think it has much to do with how much money was earmarked for culture, nor do I think it has much to do with how the money was distributed (although this is a side effect of what's really ailing us).

What I think we really wanted was a government that recognizes the value of arts and culture in Canada. We still don't have it and, as long as the Harper Conservatives retain power, I don't think we will.

With the 2009 Budget, the sudden appointment of 18 senators immediately preceding it, and the establishment of a firm end-date for the Afghanistan mission during last year's election, the Conservative government basically stopped being... conservative. Or, at least it abandoned the lion's share of policies that it used to stand for.

(Don't take my word for it though. Here's a pundit that knows more about it than I do. Here's another. And another.)

But I don't think this represents a seismic shift in where the party's long-term goals are. Rather, I think that it's a natural consequence of a government whose immediate focus is survival at all costs: compromise.

But that doesn't mean Mr. Harper, his party, or his base now values culture any more than it did when they used arts funding as a wedge issue in the 2008 Federal election. In fact, I've written earlier that the new arts funding in Budget '09 is less a policy than a temper tantrum.

What bugs me, and I think most artists, is that Mr. Harper painted us as leeches in order to win a few votes, and the budget does nothing to salvage our reputation. And we can see that he still thinks we're leeches because no new money is going to arm's length organizations (i.e. Canada Council) that fund us.

What we wanted, what we still want, is a little respect. We want recognition that we do provide an important service to our country, that we are a boon both in raw financial numbers as well as in quality of life.

We want a partnership with our government that is both respectful and responsible. (We don't want to waste taxpayer's dollars anymore than the taxpayers want us to.)

We recognize that not all of our art is going to be brilliant... in fact very little of it will be. In fact, a large portion of it will be shit. That's a fact of life. Art is like science: you must fail, fail, and fail again before you finally discover another secret of the universe.

I think each new secret is worth it. I just wish more people agreed with me.

Budget Hangover

Why has the furor over arts funding fizzled?

It's been about a week since Budget ’09, and all is quiet on the Culture front. At least… it’s been quiet online.

There’s a smattering of righteous anger about the $25M set aside for Luminato’s Canada Prizes for the Arts and Creativity over at Praxis. But, mind you, at the time of this writing, only 9 comments have been posted. And The Art of the Business’s round-up of the budget’s art funding hasn’t generated a lot of discussion either.

In fact, comments have been down across the board. In the G&M’s story about arts funding, only 49 people have voiced their opinions. Which could be construed as a good number, but it’s nothing compared to the hundreds of comments the G&M was generating when the Liberal/NDP coalition was a near reality.

Blogs that I expected to hear from – Department of Culture, One Big Umbrella, The Wrecking Ball – have been mum on the Budget. And yes, I realize that I’m a big ol’ Mr. Pot pointing fingers at a bunch of Mr. Kettles: the first time this blog actually started to get some attention was when I was all about political activism.

So, what gives? What happened to our united front? Why are have we retreated into the dark corner like a pimply tween that snuck into a high school dance?

Did we get what we wanted after all?

---

Update: Oops, didn't mean to leave you out Starving Artist. Nice read and responses.

Spite seems to work for the Arts

Budget Day 2009

So, on top of the $160 million in new Arts & Culture funding already announced, there might be additional funds hidden in the rest of Budget 2009, to be read later today.

Pretty amazing turnaround from a few months ago, hey? Maybe you're like me and you're asking, "What gives?".

This might help. I was digging around the webbernet and found this little tidbit buried in the G&M's "Spector-Vision" blog:

Today, on the front page of La Presse, the newly-minted minister of cultural heritage, James Moore, is promising $160 million for culture. Recall, that it was a $45 million reduction in funding that many observers believe was the reason the Conservatives were denied a majority in October. Asked what he had to say to the Bloc which has been demanding the restoration of those funds, Mr. Moore lets the cat out of the bag:

"They've been demanding $45 million? We're talking $160 million. If the Bloc Québécois, the Liberals and the NDP vote against the budget, they'll prove they're liars about being the great defenders of artists."

Kinda sounds like the new Conservative Culture policy basically amounts to: "So THERE!"

In any case... works for me!

Let's see what other tidbits they announce later this afternoon...

Et tu, Ignatieff?

It’s the fashion these days for directors to set a new production of Shakespeare in an alternate historical timeline. I’m sure I’m not the only one who is a little tired of these productions, especially as each new interpretation seems to be more and more of a stretch. So please don’t read the rest of this post as a ringing endorsement of the style (…er, fad).

However, for argument’s sake… and because my little art blog seems to be all wrapped up in politics right now, anyway… if you were to apply Shakespeare’s political tragedy to our own Canadian one, who would you cast in the titular role: Stephen Harper or Stephane Dion?

The answer, of course, depends on your point of view – pro-coalition or not. I imagine if you are a Conservative supporter, then your pick would be Harper. The idea of the greatest leader of the Roman Empire assassinated by his own government via multiple stab wounds to the back is probably more than fitting to your view of Canada’s current political crisis. This would probably also serve to keep your blood boiling hot.

However, considering the Conservative party’s current stance on culture, I’m tempted to assume that an ardent Harper supporter has neither read nor seen Julius Caesar. As such, s/he wouldn’t know how minor a role Caesar actually has in the play. (I do: I’ve played him.)

Stephane Dion is a more apt choice – especially if you replace the Roman Empire with the Liberal Party of Canada. (Considering how many years the Liberals have governed the country since confederation, this is actually not that much of a stretch.)

The real question then becomes how to cast the true main characters in the piece: Brutus and Marc Antony? Does Michael Ignatieff become Brutus – the man who ended up leading the assassination plot (albeit reluctantly) for the good of the Empire, and takes power? And does Bob Rae become Antony – the well spoken orator who rallies against Brutus, and ends up defeating him by setting up a triumvirate government with Octavius and Lepidus (read coalition government with Layton and Duceppe).

Hm. This is kinda fun. I can see why directors can be lured to this approach… However, my focus is not in producing Shakespeare, so I won’t be looking to produce this any time soon. Feel free to use, if you like.

I’d buy a ticket.

"They blew it"

... is what my wife said to me as the grainy, Youtube quality video of Stephane Dion was broadcast over some national stations. I sighed, and then agreed.

Hard to disagree. While this whole battle for hearts and minds of the Canadian public may not make a whole hooey of difference to what's happening now over at Rideau Hall, but if the GG does grant prorogation to Harper, then this video will haunt the coalition's quest for legitimacy.

Harper's an idiot. While he stokes the fires of his man-made political crisis into a national unity crisis, he would have a helluva an easier time convincing the nation that the coalition is unstable due to incompetence more than anything else.

Mr. Dion, if you want to quell fears that you're not staging a coup d'etat, then it might help if you avoided making your video look like it was filmed by Al Qaida. For goodness sake: you have the ENTIRE CULTURAL COMMUNITY BACKING THIS COALITION... you could've probably gotten one of us to help you.

Well... I should probably calm myself down. All is not lost, of course. As an artist, I know what's like to occasionally fail miserably (scroll down, you'll find me). However, like Andy Field sez, "don't fear failure."

Here's an excerpt:

So what do you do when the dust settles on a show like that? After the polite and slightly pained smiles and thank-yous? What did (Orson)Welles think, standing there in the darkened theatre, after the acrobats and the stagehands and the chorus line had gone home? Did he agonise over what could have worked better, what he could have changed, how he might have worked harder? More likely, he was already charging blindly on to the next project; the songs and the dances and the collapsing scenery already a forgotten memory.

Onward friends. Onward.

Diabolical

Harper's cuts to the arts earlier this year showed more than a callous attitude towards Canadian culture... it revealed how he intends to govern, period.

What's happening on Parliament Hill right now is almost unheard of. And it hinges on a relatively small cut that will have a huge impact on a target group that is politically unfriendly to Harper's Conservatives.

Sound familiar?

Like the cuts to culture funding only a few months ago, the Conservatives' plan to eliminate public subsidies to political parties does nothing to solve the current economic crisis. It does, however, solidify their core support (presumably to distract from upcoming and unavoidable deficit spending the government will be forced to engage in) and it will also nearly destroy the opposition's ability to compete in the next federal election (which will probably be coming up in a matter of months, or even weeks, based on these moves.)

Like the culture cuts, the $30 million the government will save is barely a drop in the bucket compared to the $3 - $10 billion that economic forecasters are saying next year's deficit may amount to. However, just as the culture cuts disproportionately damaged the long-term viability of the exports component of our industry, cutting subsidies to political parties will also disproportionately hurt the opposition parties' finances and viability to construct a future election campaign (at least in the short term... when it will matter most).

During the election, I wrote that the culture funding cuts could be used as a political tool for progressive voters to describe a pattern of ideological governance by the Conservatives. However, I thought that Harper's capacity to do so would be contained by the context of a minority government and a worldwide economic crisis. Who knew that his ambitions would be so naked or bold.

As the Globe's Jefferey Simpson wrote

Thursday's economic statement was an economic lame duck and a political boner. It revealed, among other things, the kind of Conservative Party that all but its core supporters suspected would eventually be outed: a group of ideologues, led by a Prime Minister who discarded his campaign sweater to reveal an economist with a tin heart and a politician who looks everywhere for political advantage.

Instead of trying to grow Conservative support, he appealed only to his party's core. Instead of acting in a statesmanlike fashion at a time of crisis, he opted to play politics, proposing to cancel public subsidies for parties, a move that would disproportionately benefit his.

The Conservatives have altered the parliamentary schedule so that a vote of non-confidence won't happen until at least December 8. The G&M is reporting that the Conservatives are going to embark on a massive public relations blitz to build public opinion against a possible Liberal-NDP coalition government, relying on (ick) Bloc support.

As much as I am skeptical that this coalition would work for any extended amount of time, at this point I'm positive that anything would be better than this current bunch of goons that running the show.

What can we do about it?

Remember that the optics on this one are not so good for the progressive parties, and that's why the Conservatives tried to pull this fast one in the first place. Their plan is too shout as loud as they can to anyone that will listen that:
1) The opposition is trying to force an election because they are not willing to give up taxpayer-funded subsidies; and
2) The Conservatives won the election fair-and-square, and the opposition was not given a mandate to govern.

Please, shout back:
1) In a minority government situation, it was the Government's responsibility to maintain the confidence of the House, and the Conservatives failed miserably only six weeks after the election;
2) The Conservatives tried to use the most serious financial climate in seven decades in which thousands of Canadians have lost their livelihoods for their own political gain;
3) It's actually the Conservatives that want another $300 million dollar election, the opposition is actually taking extraordinary steps to avoid one by setting up a coalition government; and
3) The Conservatives were not given a mandate to govern either -- they lost 62% of the popular vote.

Remember: if this wasn't a blatantly political move, then why didn't the Conservatives also impose election advertising spending limits along with cuts to funding? Or alleviate individual donation caps?

The Department of Culture also has more tips about how to get involved and avoid being railroaded by this weekend's upcoming publicity blitz.

Seriously. What a friggin mess.

AWWWWW.... crap.

Ballet BC lays off entire company.

Humble Pie

Well, I guess I can admit when I'm wrong.

The furor over arts cuts didn't give Mr. Harper a majority, it actually was one of the only things that prevented it.

The arts cuts equalled a resurgence of Bloc support in Quebec, which in turn prevented Harper of making his "breakthrough" in La Belle Province. In English Canada however, it was another story...

I'm not sure how I should feel about all this, and I imagine that a lot of other artists are similarly confused. After all, Harper still won, so I imagine the cuts will remain. And from what I hear, he's a pretty vindictive politician: if artists prevented his coveted majority, than I wonder (and fear) if artists will be subject to his subsequent wrath.

And I'm not sure how good anyone feels about the arts funding issue directly benefitting a party committed to breaking up the nation...

Are we to blame for this too?

We're All Fools

Harper might win a majority by cutting arts funding... and we artists are helping him do it.

Don't ask me how I feel about Harper's cuts and his outrageous comments. I'm as hurt and and angry as the rest of you, but there are more important issues here than my feelings. Or yours.

As a political maneuver, this was brilliant. (er... diabolical?)

Harper had to deal with a couple of small problems: he was being attacked by all the party leaders on a number of issues and he needed to consolidate his base support while, at the same time, attract swing voters at the centre of the political spectrum.

Regionally, he was working long before the writ was dropped with massive pre-election spending in order to warm up the electorate. Conservatism at its most basic level (I thought) is against taxpayer's money being spent like this, especially on frivolities like a UFO sighting commemoration.

As the economy gets worse and worse during this campaign, he looks like he's doing his due duty in managing the economy by cutting "frivolous" arts funding. He tells artists that we have to "stick to a budget."

Now these cuts were made a while ago, but they didn't receive a lot of press. But we as artists must challenge them. Because we're constantly under attack. And the arts need to be defended. And so Quebec artists, bless them, use the Gemeaux awards to shame Harper and the ideology behind these cuts. But unfortunately, outside of Quebec, this plays right into Harper's hands.

He calls us "fat cats" and says we live in an "ivory tower." He says that the furor over these cuts won't resonate with "ordinary Canadians," i.e. regular folk that work hard for their money, not like them bum artists living on the taxpayer's dime, the worst kind of corporate welfare. (Ick.)

All of a sudden the arts (for the first time that I can remember) have become a major election story. Let me tell you why, in my opinion, this is not a good thing for artists.

What has been accomplished here? Let's take a look:
1) Harper has consolidated his core support. Even those who may have felt alienated by his concession on Afghanistan, can rally around on Harper on this issue. These cuts are ideological in nature and appeal to many of the same voters who support life sentences for children.
2) Harper hasn't lost any support from the centre spectrum voters; in fact, he may have gained some traction. Think about it: we're an electorate that is having trouble understanding the Green Shift. Trying to explain how cuts to programs that send artists overseas are a bad thing... is damn hard. Unfortunately, Harper's comments about artists being "whiners" is ringing true (at least in English Canada).
3) The left still remains split. While artists have succeeded making a lot of noise about the value of art, we've only been denouncing Harper and we haven't thrown our combined weight behind a different candidate that will champion the arts. And we, just like the rest of Canada, remain divided into camps of ideological or strategic voters.
4) The other major parties have jumped on the band wagon. As passionate as I am about the arts, the pragmatist in me knows that it won't win an election. So while this is a major election story, it's not an election issue. But all the other party leaders think they smell blood in the water, and at this point, are desperate for any conservative weakness that might have some traction. This is not it.

The two major election questions are the economy and Harper. He has made the election about these issues, and the more the other leaders are sidetracked away from them, the more this plays in his favour. Especially if they continue to be unified in their pro-arts, anti-Harper response... if there's no distinction, then there's no mending of the left-of-centre split.

Now I realize that Harper needs Quebec to form a majority, and yes, cutting Quebec arts funding IS actually a major election issue... in Quebec. But in BC and especially in Ontario, it's the economy stupid.

So what do we do about it?

1) Keep making noise... but be strategic. This election is about Harper. He's coming to us in a fuzzy sweater and trying to woo the centre by claiming he makes common sense decisions for the good of Canada. But THIS decision is steeped in ideology. Same as his crime bill. This is a pattern: what journalists like to call a narrative. (He's also being mean about it - another narrative). This is the narrative that we must promote: if he follows far-right ideology on the arts and crime, then what does this mean for health care? Education? WHAT WOULD HARPER DO WITH A MAJORITY??? (You get the idea.)
2) We have to back one of the other parties. Any one. But we have to consolidate our vote. This is a tremendous opportunity: the other leaders are listening. What can/will they do to consolidate our vote?

E-mail this post to every artist you know. There's still time...

~talbot