Andrew Paul

Richard Lee performs during Nextfest 2009

IMHO (In My Humble Opinion) is a new column that raises significant arts issues and spurs discussion and debate. And we want to hear from you. Please let us know what you think by leaving a comment below.

Ah, arts funding cuts in Alberta. They’re like brown snow is to winter, dog crap is to lawn, Stephen Harper is to Canada: irritating, unfortunate, and ubiquitous. So ubiquitous that it seems like Alberta artists have taken the latest news of a 15-per-cent cut in their stride, barely looking up as the provincial government gives them another firm kick to the ribs.

But let us consider for a moment a question that most of us, if we care about the arts, rarely want to consider. Do we really need arts funding? Do we really need the arts? To anyone who lives in an arts bubble, which I fully admit to, the answer seems obvious, and it’s a loud, screaming, impassioned, “YES!!”
But, stepping out of the arts bubble, why, really, should the government pay money to support a tiny theatre company whose audience take is less than the rental cost of the hall? Or the visual artist who slaps three shades of grey on a canvas and calls it a masterpiece or the musician whose lyrics rhapsodize poetically the joys of soft toilet paper?

And sometimes I wonder, having seen all of these shows, and many others of their kind, whether art shouldn’t have to follow the free market. Shouldn’t art, as a sector of our economy, bend to the will of the people? Shouldn’t art that people like and support flourish, and the art that people don’t choose to support disappear into obscurity? Would it be hugely problematic for our society if our art followed a democratic, free market system?

I’ll answer my own question by saying, yes, I think it would be hugely problematic, and this is why. The minute artists are forced to consider the populist will (any more so than they already do), any drive for innovation, any spark of creativity will be lost. Artists need to feel safe to take risks, to develop new forms, to push boundaries of established thought. This is the artist’s role in society, and to force artists to do only that which they know they can sell is the death knell for creativity (further to this point, look at the state of Broadway theatre, and you’ll know of what I speak — a Spiderman musical? Are you kidding me?).

Not that I have a problem with populist art. Just because a piece moves millions of people and makes kajillions of dollars doesn’t mean it’s less artistically-valid than a film, for instance, that seven people see. But that’s another argument for another day. This argument comes down to how we define art, and whether it holds value in our society, value that should be reflected in a portion of our tax dollars and government spending. It’s about the importance of that tiny theatre company or the toilet paper song. It’s not about the perceived value of the art itself, as that is eminently subjective, and one man’s masterpiece is another woman’s trash, and everyone is entitled to an opinion about that.

But this argument is about the significance of art in itself, regardless of whether that art is a blockbuster movie or a Fringe play, or Celine Dion or Corb Lund. So let’s examine the importance of what the arts bring to our society, and the reasons why investment in the arts is fiscally smart and necessary.

Why Should we support the Arts?

1. The arts spur the economy. Richard Florida, in his book The Rise of the Creative Class, illustrates how the creators of arts innovation are the new gatekeepers for fiscal vibrancy. According to Florida, a city that has a flourishing arts scene (and interestingly, a sizeable gay population) is more likely to embrace innovation in all sectors of the economy. His ideas hearken back to the Renaissance, where cities like Florence and Rome were the centres of intellectual, scientific and artistic achievement. Creativity flows from one sector to the next, and innovation and openness to new ideas are the benchmarks of a thriving economy.

2. Community building. When you consider the great cities of the world, Rome, Paris, London, New York, what do they have in common? Yes, they all have great public transit systems, but transit is not  the key to their greatness. These cities are great because of their world-class sources of art, and art that is accessible (yes, through transit, in many instances) to all segments of the population. Sure, in New York, tickets to the Met can cost $300 a pop. But you can walk down the street and see a violin virtuoso perform in a local coffee shop for the price of a latte. By achieving accessible art in many brands for all kinds of audiences, these cities become amazing places to live, to learn and to think. Without art in places like New York City (and our own city, I’d wager), you’d be left with nothing but loud, rude people smoking cigarettes and lots of smog. You’d still have a great transit system to take you from one end of the city to the other. But why would you leave your house?

3. Image building. A society’s art speaks to the values of the people it represents. The Roman Forum was built to impress and intimidate. Fifteen hundred years later, the Sistine Chapel was built to express a society’s obsession with religion. And now, 500 years later, the Art Gallery of Alberta (whether you love it or hate it) makes a powerful statement about innovation, creativity and the entrepreneurial spirit of Albertans. Art helps us to shape our identity, be it personal, regional or national, and powerful art can be a sign of just that: power, influence, viability, credibility.

4. Communication. Art allows us to express ourselves, which is an innate human desire. Without access to art, without the ability to write and draw and act and make music, or consume all of the above, we seriously limit the effectiveness of our communication abilities. We also limit our ability to persuade, to entertain, to connect with each other. Without the example of art (be it storytelling through words, music, film, theatre), we’d only experience the world through one small lens — our own eyes. But through these arts, we can experience multiple lives, multiple worlds vicariously, which gives us a greater understanding of our world and our own place in it. And by communicating universal human experiences, we come to a greater understanding of others, leading to a healthy sense of compassion and empathy.

Preaching to the choir?

I could go on. Which is why it blows my mind that still we continue to under-value arts and artists in Alberta. You don’t have to go to the tiny theatre company or love the toilet paper song to appreciate the importance of the arts, and yes, given the status of the economy, everybody needs to tighten belts in order to get back on track. But, in my humble opinion, the arts have such significant value to the future of our city, our province and our society, that I feel that it is short-sighted to take such a large bite out of a comparably small budget. And perhaps our government leaders need to join their philanthropist cousins (thank you, by the way, to the Pooles and the Winspears et al, just for being so gosh-darn nice) at the tiny theatre to find out what they’re missing.