A feminist critique
of the Canada Council
and the funding system
that can make or break
an artist in Canada.

(INSPIRATION FOR THIS PIECE)

Too often, one is afraid to address injustice for fear of destroying one's career. So what have I got to lose?

The following is inspired by the above (please follow the link) and a response to reportage in the Georgia Straight on arts in B.C. In the Nov. 2 issue there were two seemingly unrelated articles in the arts section, that both had references to survival as an artist.

From a historical perspective, prior to Canada Council funding, Vancouver was a community of artists, working together, organizing shows, festivals and readings, perhaps 'artists colony' would be the best description, it was a cool place to be in the early sixties, having attracted literary luminaries like Malcolm Lowry and for many years before that a pretty hip music scene. At this time there was equality for women artists, who were not inhibited in producing their art, for example, prior to Intermedia, Jone Payne did pyrotechnics at the Vancouver Art Gallery, Jeanie Kamins made community art, Maxine Gadd and Judith Copithorn, readings at the Sound Gallery.

By introducing a structure for distribution of funding, sold to us under the guise of more freedom to make art, the Canada Council undermined the community by removing the incentive for the production of art for the self, and replaced it with production of art for the state, a funding hierarchy, dominated by men of course, this being the sexist sixties. At that point, alternative art became institutionalized, artists economically controlled by their "peers", through the funding.

At the Visual Poetry Festival at UBC in 1967, all the media attention was diverted to Michael Morris and Gary Lee Nova, the "stars" of Intermedia. Other male artists of Intermedia went on to teaching in major educational facilities, young women training as art workers were subjected to this same attitude. Most of the contemporary women artists, were ignored, forgotten or marginalized by the nature of their work which was often organic. Helen Goodwin, exhausted by the years of unsuccessful funding for her dance group, eventually walked into the ocean. The traditions of that aesthetic and subsequent power structure continue to this day. Conveniently, one history is written and another is entirely forgotten with the aid of Canada Council funded art history books.

Many of the women I knew from that earlier period, could be classified as "behind the scenes" women. The vibrant artists scene could not have existed without these women, who made up the audience, cooked and provided food and support, contributed ideas, worked on the projects without getting credit but were really discouraged by the prevailing chauvinist climate to be artists in their own right. Some women became wives or partners and due to their connection in this way, seemed to garner more credibility. The other way for women media artists to become accepted was to become part of the groups who were offshoots of Intermedia, such as the Western Front or the Video Inn and later, during the seventies, Pumps. It is interesting to note that while the "men" belong to "schools" of art during this period, artists like Gathie Falk and Martha Sturdy stand out as individuals.

Women artists working in the fields of social justice or textiles were not considered important. Their work was not seen as a contribution to art or culture, but instead was taken for granted. One example of these women was Melissa Gibbs who was part of the New Era Social Club collective along with Roy Kiyooka and Glen Lewis and who worked at the Georgia Straight during the early seventies. She assisted Dan McLeod during a very difficult period when he was close to losing a newspaper that is now highly successful and cannot be ignored as part of the west coast identity. Her presence within the art scene is difficult to define, but the whole culture of the late sixties and seventies in Vancouver is impossible to keep within the bounds of art history, but is more suitable to an anthro-social scrutiny. For example, why does the Museum of Anthropology contain works of art?

The Complicity of Artists Funding in all of This

This year, not including matching grants from other funding sources, the C.C. gave the largest artist run groups, Western Front Society, a privately owned institution, $221,500 and Video Inn/Satellite Video Exchange over $200,000. They, along with artists and and other gallery administrator/curators connected to them, have dominated "alternative art" for over 30 years, in Vancouver, and along with their contemporaries in other parts of Canada, through the artist run gallery system.

Although some galleries try to remain independent and some people in ARGs are socially responsible, the lure of accessible money and guaranteed success is far too tempting to ignore. Why bite the hand that feeds? Now, the $50 million in "supplementary grants to help arts organizations that already receive council funding", reward is heaped on reward.

My theory, that the best government control mechanism for any free thinking or radical group, is to find the sell outs and set them up as the representatives. Once created, this machine will self replicate.

For a while, there was some social justice funding to media for community work, but that ended when the "Arts and Media" got changed to the "Media Arts", under Tom Sherman. When the C.C. gets its funding cut, "it" will consolidate. You can bet that when Harper starts hacking, it won't be the funding to well established groups.

The $17.4 million in grants to B.C. from the C.C. for 2005 - 2006 was represented by a total of 106 jurors from BC. That's $174,000 aprox. (or more?)designated by each juror and well worth having some connection to. We are specifically told, from an industry viewpoint, to network, as part of our job as an artist. Having someone from your group working at the C.C. probably also helps.

So, if the present system is fair, why are the majority of full time dedicated artists and musicians still starving, while art industry salaried or successful professionals get the biggest grants?

There is no longer any artistic free will, as Burnett says, "We're trying to resituate the process of creativity within an understanding of how industry works. For example, if they want to be a painter, they have to understand how the gallery system works."

What is this system? It is the funding industry run by arts organizations through the "jury of peers". Artists are no longer trained to be artists, but 'art businessmen', using connections to "sell" their work to the galleries, networking their way to the top to become "established". Coupled with matching grants from other funding bodies, these "established" artists are eligible for huge amounts of money, for BC this year, for example from the C.C. alone, Jeff Carter $45,000, Claudia Minerva Culos-Medina $59.000, Julie Andreyev $60,000, David Rimmer $60,000, Jean Routhier $60,000, Steven Sanderson $50,000, Paul Wong $60,000 and others for a total of $796,486 for individual artists in the Media Arts.

However, if an artist is "established", why go to the CC for money? Wouldn't an "established" artist have more luck raising funds from other industry sources?

"The figures are quite clear," said FranÃcois Lachapelle, head of the section, on the line to the Straight from Ottawa. "Only 15 or 10 years ago, we were able to fund roughly one artist out of three applicants on the senior level. Now we cannot assist more than one artist out of 10 applicants." The council's proposed solution is to cut the pie up in a radically new way. The most striking of the suggested changes is at the top of the system. The richest funds handed out under the current arrangement--$34,000 grants, each intended to fund a year of work by an established visual artist--would be replaced by a group of $50,000 allotments, each renewable over three years for a total of $150,000 apiece, a drool-inducing prospect for most working artists. - Brian Lynch, Straight, Nov. 2004

True, media art costs a lot of money, but the costs of production in digital media has significantly decreased and a lot of equipment and facilities are already paid for, supposedly for artists use. But this is always designated by a careful bureaucracy, to artists who bring in more money through their projects. Media artists and musicians should have better access to the tools of production based on need, that doesn't include the inherent politics of these groups and pre-approved art. Peggy Campbell, a filmmaker who is trying to be helpful, gives workshops on how to make your application "stand out from the rest". It's competition, using all the rules of cutthroat business, not for the sake of art, but rather the art form of bureaucracy, clothing the machinations of control.

Curators/artists are churned out by the dozen every year, locked into this system. Society has spent a lot of money on the children they love, to become artists, there has to be some sort of industry to take them. Unfortunately, the industrial commodity is our most sacred creative quality. Why has art become sublimated to this atrocity?

"But at the same time, the economies necessary to support it remain fragile, and questions about representation and identity – “Whose art is it, anyway?” – are constant reminders of the vagaries of art’s integral “value.”" - Melanie O'Brian. While the eagerly awaited, "Vancouver Art and Economies, co-published with Artspeak, "one of Canada’s most influential artist-run centres", assesses the “state of the arts” in Vancouver" - Arsenal Pulp, is not yet available through the public library's reference section, I doubt it will address the inequities I have touched on above but will focus on Vancouver's lusty photo conceptual industry.

Under the C.C.'s stalinist style socialism, you have to focus on their industrial structure as a means of survival as an artist. It requires time and inclination to become a robot in their system, which is ironic as the WF has 6 artists in residence rendering that very thing. Another linguistic irony is the use of the word "swarm" and "INfest" for the annual get together of government funded artist run galleries. "InFest is about infesting the world with these new models of galleries," Wallace says, as the meeting breaks up and Western Front members clatter around in the kitchen at the back of their building. The sun has set. It's time for dinner." - Robin Laurence, Straight, Feb. 2004

Some artists will get a lifetime of support because they are closely networked into this structure. They know how to get the grants. Look at the records. The protective urban mythology surrounding the grant system is "a crap shoot", "roll of the dice", "luck of the draw", "I just do it to keep in practise". Why fill out an application form, which takes significant work, why not just get a ticket? A lottery system would actually work if it was fair, putting previous winners out of the draw.

Finally, there is no transparency in the way the money is distributed, C.C. reports are always two years behind, you never find out who are on these juries, unless you applied for a grant and make a request in writing after you get the results. What are they ashamed of? You'd think they would be proud of these awards, publish the profiles and projects of the artists and organizations on the web along with the juries that selected them. Artists who have been unsuccessful should also have the right to have their project published to see what we have missed in our cultural landscape.

Is it too much to ask that all funding bodies publish this information, why must there be such a veil of secrecy if we are truly amongst our "peers"?

 
 









           INDEX