The Liberals and NDP claim that the Conservatives, particularly Stephen Harper, ’do not get it’ with regards to funding cultural groups. According to them, the majority of Canadians are opposed to the Conservative funding cuts. Yet when we see or hear protests against the funding cuts, it is not ordinary Canadians protesting, but rather those who have made a career of living off government grants.
While obscene or obnoxious so-called ’art’ being funded by taxpayers’ money, occasionally captures the headlines, there is a larger issue that is totally ignored or overlooked.
In both 2004/5 and 2005/6, the Canada Council for the Arts distributed just over $132 million to artists and organizations, which rose to $152.6 million in 2006/7. Since 2000, Parliament (or more accurately the Canadian taxpayer) has contributed over $1 billion to the Canada Council alone. This does not include the various other federal programmes for culture, which come under the auspices of the Department of Foreign Affairs or Heritage Canada, or the numerous provincial and municipal arts councils, which provide many millions in their own right. Not exactly negligible support, as many artists would have the public believe.
The arts community trots out the standard statistics on the economic impact of arts and culture in Canada, in order to justify the generous grants to this sector, or as evidence for the need for greater funding. In its 2004/5 report, the Canada Council estimated that the impact of arts and culture on the Canadian economy was $40 billion. This amount is repeated frequently by proponents for increased funding, as if the artists in receipt of these often generous government grants are responsible, collectively, for the revenues generated by the cultural sector. However, a simple examination of various statistics challenges this logic.
While the number of professional artists in Canada has risen from 120,000 in 2001, to over 137,000 in 2005, the number of recipients of council grants fell from 2,304 to 1,927 during the same period. It rose to 2,037 in the following year. In the three years from 2004 to 2007, about 6,000 artists shared $58,673,000! On an annual basis, these grant recipients make up barely 1.4 percent of the total number of Canada’s professional artists. Since most of these artists were not first time recipients, the actual number and percentage of professional artists in receipt of Canada Council grants during this period was consequently even less. Clearly these individuals cannot be responsible for the $40 billion generated by art and culture in Canada.
The world of the various arts councils is a cliquish, insular one. Many of the artists are selected by a committee of their peers, who a year or so later, are themselves grant recipients. With this revolving door policy, it is not surprising that a favoured number are regularly found in the arts councils’ annual reports. One could be forgiven assuming, from these records, that a few hundred people exclusively make up Canada’s cultural community, rather than the more than 130,000 who are classified as professional artists. (Of course, this figure does not include the untold artists, or writers who work away at their respective crafts, in addition to their primary employment.)
Though praised by their peers, supporters and friendly critics, one wonders how many of these individuals actually would be recognized by the general public for their so-called achievements. Furthermore, one would assume that if they are truly as good as they are reported to be, why is it that many of them have been at the cultural grants trough for years, if not decades. For some the accumulated grants from the Canada Council, Ontario Arts Council and Toronto Arts Council amount to nothing more than cultural welfare. If they are really so wonderful, they should be able to earn enough from their art or writing to no longer require this support, like the majority of professional artists.
The grants programmes should be a hand up, not a handout. One or two grants to assist a specific project could be justified, but to be attached to the cultural grant trough for life is blatant misuse or waste of taxpayers’ money. This continued, long-term, assistance appears to indicate that, maybe, they are not as good as their peers would have us believe and that the public does not really care for what they produce. If the general public is not willing to buy the end product, they should not be required to support this same work with their hard-earned tax dollars. Clearly a limit should be set on the number and value of grants that an individual can get from all the different arts councils. If they cannot succeed in their respective fields, then they should seriously reconsider their options, just like the rest of the population.
Art, literature, etc., has no colour or race. Individuals are assessed on their work, not on their racial origins. Yet despite this, the Canada Council has for years provided funds through its ’Equity’ programme: ’supporting Canadian artists of African, Asian, Middle Eastern, Latin American or mixed racial heritage, and their artistic practices.’ Since the regular grants have never been exclusively for the ’visible majority’, the equity programme does not really promote equality among Canadian artists.
In addition to the direct support provided by the various arts councils, a number of Toronto artists have the added benefit of living in cooperative housing. These artist co-ops are supported by different levels of government with money from the same taxpayers who contribute to the arts councils, and provide apartments at below-market rates. Just another way some individuals manage to take advantage of hardworking taxpayers.
For centuries, wealthy patrons commissioned artists and composers to produce their masterpieces. This system generated incredible works of art and music. When the patronage system eventually collapsed, mostly because artists found the demands of their wealthy patrons too restrictive, many encountered enormous financial hardships. Some artists, whose works command millions of dollars today, rarely sold anything during their lifetimes.
Eventually, many artists began to make a living from their work. However, in the mid to late 1950s, politicians assumed the role of patrons of the arts, with the use of public funds. One wonders if their primary concern was to give a necessary boost to struggling artists, to enable them to get exposure and thus develop a successful independent career. Or did they wish to simply create another welfare programme for those unable to succeed on their own?
Most Canadians do not or would not object to government support of such organizations as symphony orchestras and ballet companies. The necessity to keep such entities viable is almost universally accepted. Nor would they object to providing individuals with a start in their careers. However, if they knew that many recipients (artists, writers, performers) of these generous government and Canada Council grants have received them for years, or even decades, they might question the purpose of this financial largesse. They might even urge Stephen Harper to cut more funding, rather than less, and take these artists off their funding life-support.
Historian, genealogist, political observer / commentator and researcher, as well as photographer, Branka Lapaine received her BA from the University of Toronto; PH.D. from University of London, England. Publisher of The Phoenix, a political publication which ran from 1986 to 1991, she is the author of several booklets (CUSO and Radicalism, etc.) and numerous articles. Branka is also the author of a genealogical guidebook.
