Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Canada has nothing to tell the world

by Paul Wells on Friday, August 8, 2008 12:27pm - 0 Comments

That’s the conclusion one must draw from the decision to can the program under which the Canadian government sent artists abroad, chronicled here by ITQ. Not for the first time, I’m left wishing the Harper government would work a little harder at imitating the Bush administration. Here are a few cultural and public diplomacy initiatives the State Department has funded in recent months:

• Sent eight U.S. college and university presidents to Brazil and Chile;

• Sent a former Major League Baseball player to Panama to help kids handle pop flies and grounders;

• Co-ordinated literature exchanges between publishing houses in the United States and partner publishers in Mexico, Pakistan and Northern Ireland.

All as part of a Global Cultural Initiative under the personal patronage of President and Mrs. Bush. Bunch of Communists.

Tags: cultural diplomacy, you need to save a buck to -- er -- save a buck

More by Paul Wells

http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

Demosthenes

It is almost as if Liberals/Dippers, who claim to believe in multi-culti vlaues, would actually prefer to impose our morals/values/culture on others. As if they didn’t, somehow, actually believe their propaganda about how all cultures are equal. As if they were slightly ashamed of the hoi-polloi abroad and believed they needed to be shown what’s what.

But they wouldn’t actually believe that, right?
http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

Oh, jwl, that’s just silly. I mean, you can put forward any number of perfectly defensible arguments against funding the overseas travel of artists and activists — although I’m sure there would be equally defensible counterarguments – but the idea that somehow, supporting a US tour for the Royal Winnipeg Ballet represents an insidious attempt to “impose our morals/values/cultures” on those notorious heathens south of the border is simply ridiculous.
Ti-Guy

As if they didn’t, somehow, actually believe their propaganda about how all cultures are equal. As if they were slightly ashamed of the hoi-polloi abroad and believed they needed to be shown what’s what.

I love performance art. Give this guy a travel stipend. Oops…too late.
http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

Kady It might have been slightly over the top but I was doing ‘performance art’ as Ti-Guy says. I wouldn’t have worded it the way I did but I was trying to do it in the style of Demosthenes.

I am against cultural exchanges because I don’t think they actually achieve anything useful and they are a colossal waste of money but I am also troubled by them because they do have a whiff of imperialism about them.

The Royal Ballet going to U.S. bugs me as a taxpayer but sending Supreme Court Justice abroad to lecture on our Charter of Rights troubles me morally. I think Canada is a great country that should be admired but I don’t like imposing our beliefs on others.
T. Thwim

Or.. apparantly.. even demonstrating them.
http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

That same argument, though, if taken to its logical extreme, would make virtually all international travel undertaken by elected officials – including the PM – similarly morally troublesome, would it not? What about those statements that the government puts out on events that take place abroad – sometimes congratulatory, but often condemnatory?
http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

“That same argument, though, if taken to its logical extreme, would make virtually all international travel undertaken by elected officials – including the PM – similarly morally troublesome, would it not?”

Probably, but I am not always logically consistent.

I don’t mind our politicians speaking for/against things happening in the world when they are here in Canada but I think it’s bad manners to go to someone else’s country to lecture them on why we are great and how the host country doesn’t measure up to our lofty standards.
http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

But is there any reason to think the Winnipeg Ballet, or, for that matter, Holy Fuck or Tal Bachman did that? Maybe they were just promoting Canadian culture in a positive, non-fingerwagging fashion.
Ti-Guy

I am against cultural exchanges because I don’t think they actually achieve anything useful…

When you actually know they don’t achieve anything useful, let me know.
http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

“But is there any reason to think the Winnipeg Ballet, or, for that matter, Holy Fuck or Tal Bachman did that?”

Kady I don’t know what they were like on tour but I am against paying for these third rate acts to gallivant around the world for no particular reason.

I lived abroad for a bunch of years and Canadians are starting to develop a reputation, on top of the ‘boring’, ‘milquetoast’ one we already have. We are becoming a nation of sanctimonious prigs and people are noticing. There are many Canadians who really believe that we have something to teach the world and if foreigners just did as we do, we would all live in peace and harmony.
Ti-Guy

I lived abroad for a bunch of years and Canadians are starting to develop a reputation, on top of the ‘boring’, ‘milquetoast’ one we already have. We are becoming a nation of sanctimonious prigs and people are noticing.

I lives abroad for many years as well, and apart from “boring,” (which I’m fine with…someone has to be boring, otherwise the British, the French and Americans won’t know how fascinating they are) I never noticed this. Mostly, people are indifferent.

Maybe it’s you. You sound kind of crabby.
Paul Wells

Look who’s talking. Hey, Ti-Guy: your pointless belligerence toward every single interlocutor is getting really tired really quickly. Tone it down.
http://www.johnwaugh.blogspot.com John W

These elites don’t need the money to travel.
It just provides better hotels, better restaurants, and better wine.
Mike Horn

If we didn’t have anything to teach the americans and british then why did they need our help developing the atom bomb. Can we agree that cukltural exchanges with NATO allies is acceptable use of Foriegn Affairs money. Most of these countries are also in the Commenwealth or Francophonie where we are expected to lead.
http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

Mike Horn I think you should stop drunk posting. A cultural exchange that lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of Japanese is not exactly a selling point for how great they are.
Jack Mitchell

John W:

“These elites don’t need the money to travel.
It just provides better hotels, better restaurants, and better wine.”

The cause célèbre in this case (Holy Fuck going to Europe) cost, what, $3000? That doesn’t leave any money for hotels, wine, or restaurants if you’re transporting five members and at least some equipment.

I do wonder if there’s any other country on earth in which you’d find such dyed-in-the-wool hatred for “culture” and “artists” as there is in Canada. (Conceivably England.) Plenty of other nations don’t love the arts, but in my experience it’s only in Canada that you can find educated people who honestly wish the arts would cease to be. (Of course the line is “Not on my dime!” etc. etc. etc.)

All this “taxpayers’ rights” BS generally… As though taxes were voluntary!
Jack Mitchell

It’s very hard to comment on this issue when mentioning the name of the experimental rock band at the centre of it makes your comment require moderation.
http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

Jack M I think I am one the people you think hates ‘culture’ and ‘artists’.

I don’t hate either but I just don’t see why I should have to subsidize it. If Holy Fcuk wants to go to Europe than they should go without expecting me to pay for it.

The way I see it is if an artist, in whatever medium, is good enough they get recognition and are well known within and without the county. If they are mediocre, they expect the taxpayer to take care of them. I don’t see why I should be paying for dire artists to inflict their mediocrity on others.

What I thought interesting about that list is that the numbers are so small I found myself thinking about how much I pay in tax annually and who did I pay for. For instance, I found myself thinking that I paid for Dyer to hobnob with Fidel, Lewis to go to film festivals and Tal to traipse around southern Africa. I am working long hours to pay for others to have holidays when, at the very least, Dyer and Lewis can afford to do those things on their own dime.
Jack Mitchell

Oh, jwl, I feel so sorry for you and your long hours. But you must know that 9 drops in 10 of the sweat of your brow goes to paying interest on the debt, health care, and whatnot. I won’t indulge you in the fantasy that “you” are paying for the artists. You are taxed and the government spends that money as it sees fit. Do you slap yourself on the back every time you drive down the freeways that “you” paid for? Good job, Joe Taxpayer! You really got a bargain there! See that policeman? He’s personally sponsored by you! He should be so grateful!

Government subsidies for the arts exist because we have an egalitarian social system in which the fabulously wealthy feel little need to tie their names to great works of art. The patron system was in place til about 1750. After that, the market was supposed to be big enough that artists could support themselves. And that was the case until 1950, when TV pretty much destroyed taste. Nowadays we face a choice between subsidising the arts publicly and letting fifty ancient, subtle forms of art die off. When I say you hate “artists” and “culture” I mean that you would be happy to let market-driven art-forms (Hollywood, TV, hip-hop) flourish and couldn’t care about the others.

As to Lewis and Dyer, they’re hardly artists, they’re “cultural ambassadors.” The point is to raise Canada’s profile. That can have a real impact, though it’s a bit hit-or-miss. For example, Norman Bethune’s reputation in China is *still* shielding us from Chinese annoyance, 50 years later. Admittedly he wasn’t exactly sponsored by the Canadian government, but the idea behind sending Dyer to Cuba is that some young Cuban, looking to the post-Castro era, will hear his talk and, 30 years from now when he’s prime minister of the latest Caribbean Tiger economy, smile on Canadian wheat. If that helps today’s Joe Taxpayer’s grandchildren keep their jobs, the money will have been well spent.
Ti-Guy

Look who’s talking. Hey, Ti-Guy: your pointless belligerence toward every single interlocutor is getting really tired really quickly. Tone it down.

Sorry, I forgot that the purpose of Macleans (and most private media) is to feature tedious anti-Canadian invective in service of bad policy while ensuring that even mildly robust challenges are never allowed to be mounted.

Forgive the lèse majesté. I too often forget how brittle and petulant “journalists” can be.
Paul Wells

Fortunately anyone reading this thread, including the post that started it, will be able to judge the credibility of the claims in your latest comment.

Please take any position you like on policy, Ti-Guy. But do try to stop being abusive toward other readers.
http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

Jack M I actually don’t think I have paid for everything I see that’s government related. My point was that the sums spent were so minuscule, at least for government spending, you could make it personal. I was wondering if the government did that on purpose.

Creative destruction is your friend. To me, spending money on arts that most people don’t pay attention to is like the government spending money to subsidize radio tube makers and typewriter manufacturers. I am big fan of history and old things but both of us have to let go.

I was never certain why governments send cultural ambassadors to other countries so thanks for explaining theory. I am big believer in unintended consequences and hope the government is not assuming that some Cuban will be sympathetic to us in 30 years. I have read convincing arguments that one of the main reasons Middle Easterners hate the ‘west’ is that we are propping up leaders they loathe. I wonder how many Cubans are going to be impressed by Canadians going to resorts and putting money into the pocket of Raul and his chums in the Revolutionary Armed Forces.

Personally, I think the biggest mistake Canadian artists made was to encourage the establishment of the Canadian Council. Once you agree to take tax payers money than you are accountable to them and great art is not created by committee. So we now have post modern artists who want to do all sorts of odd things but they are responsible to heathens like me that believe not a single piece of worthy art, except music and books, has been created since 1900(I might be exaggerating a little but not much).
Jack Mitchell

jwl, thanks for your thoughtful post. I’ll try and imitate the civilised tone.

“Creative destruction is your friend. To me, spending money on arts that most people don’t pay attention to is like the government spending money to subsidize radio tube makers and typewriter manufacturers. I am big fan of history and old things but both of us have to let go.”

I happen to agree with you on a number of things (see below), but I think this premise is flawed. “High art” was never about greatest good for the greatest number. (I assume we’re talking about good high art here, not conceptual meat skyscrapers et hoc genus omne.) I would compare it rather to astrophysics or any other pure science: the common man has no idea what it’s about; hopefully he thinks its vaguely cool; but the fact that the Hubble telescope wasn’t putting man on Mars was no reason to shut it down (as Bush did). Surely the idea should be to elevate the population rather than lowering our artistic standards and be satisfied with people saying, “Dude!” (which is about where we’re at right now, thanks to the democratising art you loathe). I’d be the first to say that the effect of relativising the value of art has been destructive; but it that really a good reason to pull the plug once and for all?

I’d nitpick about the date of 1900, myself. I think the destruction Western traditon was actually quite beautifully done; the inherent problem is that once it’s gone you can’t keep on destroying it. I mean, Picasso only makes sense in relation to traditional European painting; once that’s forgotten, neither can the tradition be cannibalised nor, alas, does Picasso make much sense per se.

Anyway, that’s ancient history now, we’re in the wilderness in terms of the traditional arts. But for my part I think revivals are possible: in jazz, Wynton Marsalis has single-handedly proved it (the guy is like a one-man Renaissance).

Can’t quarrel with anything else you say. Oh, the poor Canada Council, graveyard of innovation. It would be much better if they just appointed some arbiter elegentiarum to stamp his personal taste on Canadian art for the next twenty years, good or bad, André Malraux-style. But what are the odds of that happening in a democratic country? Maybe if we invited Albert II of Belgium over we could hand him the Canada Council money to dispense as he saw fit. Hey, not a bad idea!
mark

On a related note, in the 48 or 72 hours since this story broke, has anyone heard a peep in defence of the program from any its recipients?

I think the current government has calculated quite accurately that the artists, writers, academics, etc. that are affected by this program cancellation aren’t exactly going to say or do much about it.
madeyoulook

Well, mark, there was certainly way more than a peep coming from the taxpayer-pampered arts community when the subsidy review for standards of decency (or whatever) snuck in the last budget. Apparently Sheila Copps’ policy choice was “evil Conservative censorship!” when ultimately implemented. We didn’t hear nearly enough (for my heartless right-wing tastes) about the obscenity of harvesting taxpayers’ labours in order to keep afloat the producers of that which not enough people cared to watch / read / listen to / etc.