22^nd CAPA COA Conference:
IN CANADA, “CULTURE” HAS A NEW MEANING
(http://www.capacoa.ca)

Calgary, Saturday, November 7, 2009

In Canada, the meaning of the word “culture” has changed, as it has experienced a worldwide shift. What it refers to, today, generally goes beyond the confines of art and creativity to embrace a wide diversity of societal phenomena, from tourism to communication. It is as if art and thought had lost their monopoly over the meaning of the word. The new information technologies and their Web manifestations (from YouTube to Facebook) have the power to give everyone their 15 minutes of fame (as Andy Warhol put it). Given the potential of these new technologies, everyone can become an artist to the extent of their fantasies and the dizzying expansion of their ego, therefore acquiring a new kind of subjectivity: no learning process and no special knowledge required.

In the contemporary sense of the word “culture,” art is one component, and no longer absolutely central. Communication is taking over, with the result that the media are seen as the prime vectors of thought, more important than literature, drama, music, painting and so on. Art forms have proliferated, and their boundaries are constantly widening in a way that defies labelling. Culture is everywhere, so much so, that it is in danger of being nowhere. It covers every aspect of society, from research laboratories to diplomatic networks by way of local, provincial and federal politics, community and city politics, and international relations, not without a measure of clamour and confusion. I reject the idea of contrasting local culture with world culture, or provincial with federal, but there is a great need for harmonization. We have to prevent cultural activities from becoming atomized or balkanized into tiny fiefs wasting their substance in duplication and unproductive squabbles. Our very first thought must be to defend free access to culture for everyone. To that end, Canada's cultural diversity is a treasure that we must actively exploit in order to counter the tendency towards the micromanagement of culture that results from an excessively doctrinaire application of multiculturalism.

Today, globalization is taken for granted. The liberal world no longer really acknowledges technological or ideological boundaries. Yet culture cannot be subject solely to the laws of the market, or its less “cost-effective” forms will be under increasing threat and may even disappear. There are already numerous areas of activity—not just cultural activity—that could not survive without strong government support. Non-commercial films, theatre, creative writing, the emerging visual arts: these could not survive the market-based selection process that regulates the private sector. Patronage cannot therefore be an absolute remedy, since the resulting law of the jungle would very quickly eliminate works that do not deserve to survive if the yardstick is profitability. People may argue that the great poets and the great painters did not receive grants, that they lived and created in poverty and, in some cases, in deep distress, and that their works nevertheless achieved recognition and fame. Point taken, but would they still be around today without assistance from government that keeps memory alive and guarantees the future by subsidizing publication and exhibition activities?

It is in fact a government responsibility to protect all the ecosystems of our world in which the profit motive can lead to depletion of our reserves and natural resources. In that spirit, the government is responsible for protecting the ecosystem of our culture, by recognizing that market economics can produce great achievements, but not in every field. Let me be clear: I am not here to defend state-conceived art and esthetics. On the contrary, we must reject culture and art that is subject to authority, no matter how democratic; yet we have to take the same precautions to protect culture otherwise subject to market esthetics. Everything cannot be reduced to a dollars-and-cents solvency, a mercantile approach. The relationship between the state and the private sector must be based on open dialogue in which cultural issues come before business issues.

It is when government takes the strongest action, that private sponsorship undertakes to complement, rather than replace, public money. Culture must not be regarded as an unproductive expenditure or a necessary luxury, when it actually constitutes a substantial sector of the economy that is of as much interest to the provinces as it is to the federal government, and provides a livelihood for hundreds of thousands of people.

For example, the Saint-Roch district is one of the oldest faubourgs of Québec City. With its location close to the bridge, the railway and the large port warehouses of Québec’s Lower Town, it was an ideal place for the development of commerce and industry as early as the eighteenth century. Workers and merchants set up all around and created a community life that was dynamic and cosmopolitan. Economic development continued for two centuries, then declined in the mid-twentieth century, and then shut down completely between 1960 and 1970. As a result, businesses, social development and cultural vitality suffered the same fate. The district transformed into an urban desert. It became home to society’s rejects, drugs, prostitution and violence. City officials forgot about it, preferring instead to concentrate their efforts on the development of soulless suburbs.

Not until 1992 did the City of Québec create an economic  revitalization program for the district, urbanizing it in such a way as to restore the richness of its memory and heritage, while at the same time opening it up to the realities of modern life: affordable housing, social and cultural development strategies, opportunities for people to live and work in the same community.

In addition, the program offered technical support to the artists and developers who set themselves up in the district. Since 2000, $380 million has been invested in Saint-Roch for the purpose of restoring, renovating, rebuilding and recreating the vitality of a bygone era. Today, we find performance venues, theatre companies, art galleries and arts and crafts stores. The district has become a locus of trade and creation, and that in turn inspires and attracts residents and visitors in great numbers.

Culture should therefore be seen as an essential component of Canada's economic life that does produce added value for our national heritage, and develops a pool of workers whose creative labours breathe new life into society well beyond the specific areas in which they are active. As a result, sustained and flourishing creative activity has a very positive impact on research activities in other areas of technology, as it works to incorporate more and more cultural disciplines into the life of society.

According to the June 4, 2009 issue of Macleans, Calgarians spend more money on arts and culture than do Canadians in any other city: 41.5% on attending live shows, 53.5% on visiting a museum and 52.2% on an activity related to arts and culture. According to the last census in 2006, Calgary is the second most rapidly developing city in the country. From this, we can infer that economic booms facilitate cultural patronage and that everyone benefits:  artists get the financial support they need to survive and develop, while the business world awakens to the social and economic value of art and the importance of investing early in creativity.

            This observation leads me to believe that, currently in Canada, the meaning of the word culture is changing. Slowly but surely, we are recognizing the value of creation in the survival of our neo-liberal and hyper-technological societies, and consequently, the perception of the role of artists is undergoing a profound transformation.  For additional proof, I would point to the ever-increasing number of mediators and intermediaries between art and society. And that is a good sign, provided they do not start overshadowing the creators themselves. Middlemen and intermediaries between art and society have proliferated. This process should not be at the expense of the key players: the creators. The activities of institutions have also expanded, in many cases through projects developed by artists, and their diversity is something we have to keep in mind. Financial support for artists must not be subject to an ideological quid pro quo. Culture is not an issue to be adopted by a political party, but a primary concern for any society anxious to ensure its own survival. A country that neglects its culture is in danger of losing it.

Creators and artists must not be the recipients of cultural services in the management of which they play no part. The presence of the lively energy of creators must be preserved in the structures through which culture is managed. To that end, their components must be connected and networked, since there is a danger otherwise of a harmful atomization that would transform the richness of diversity into a free-for-all characterized by political string-pulling and selective sponsorship.

It was this thinking that led me, four years ago, to suggest the development of Art Matters under the aegis of the Governor General, my wife Michaêlle Jean. Knowing how much importance she attaches to arts and culture as an instrument of socialization, I was anxious that when we confer awards at Rideau Hall to celebrate the talents of our artists, we should be able to provide our numerous guests, the award winners and the public with something more than a formal ceremony and a dinner, excellent though these are as opportunities for people to meet. This led to the Art Matters concept, which reflects a desire to provide a space for discussion, reflection and connection that brings together various artistic disciplines, cultural organizations and the business community. Art Matters has since been extended to cover official visits to every corner of Canada, and even abroad during State visits. To date, 42 forums have been held, many of them in public. Hundreds of artists, managers, researchers and arts patrons have stepped up and taken part in these debates on a lively culture, covering new forms of dissemination and a constantly reshaped relationship with audiences.

Artists have talked about their creative activities, their social responsibility, their world view, their commitment and their aspirations. We have discussed the challenges of the new technologies and the new dissemination media, links between artists and members of the public, the need for creative opportunities and the need for recognition. We have listened to artists talking about their experiences in various communities and their accomplishments, in some cases abroad. Once personal trajectories and challenges have been addressed, every discussion moves on to the question of identity: what is a “Canadian artist”? What is “Canadian art”?

The distinctiveness of Canadian artists and what they create has often been expressed in terms of comparison or contrast. Canadian artists are not American artists, nor are they British or French artists. We know what they are not, and it remains to be determined what they are, and what makes their creations unique. In any case, it is not possible to offer a firm definition of Canadian culture, any more than it is of Canadian identity, since both are constantly developing and changing, like a mosaic or a coat of many colours.

This is an initial response, the first sign of distinctiveness: what characterizes our identity and our culture is diversity. In 1948, in his book On being Canadian, Governor General Vincent Massey praised the merits of diversity: “We have plenty of colours and lights and shades in our make-up. Canada is no monochrome of uniformity.” Like that great defender of art and literature, I share a personal conviction that the struggle to develop our country's identity is also a struggle to ensure the survival of Canadian culture.

It seems obvious that art and the question of identity are closely related: we cannot claim to be defending the Canadian identity if we are not fighting tirelessly every day to give life to our own culture, one that is “Made in Canada,” as proclaimed on the labels of the clothes we wear. We also fought, however, for the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which came into force four years ago, as a rejection of the assimilation of culture to a product like any other.

You who battle every day within your communities to defend the uniqueness and variety of your culture already know that art is not just another product, and cannot be thrown—as some would wish—to sink or swim in the cauldron of unfeeling commerce.

We have every reason to be proud of our Made in Canada culture; it reflects the vigour of our artists and of our country’s cultural institutions, just as we are proud to learn that Canada has more than 130,000 artists. Proud, too, to learn that the number of artists more than tripled between the 1970s and the 2000s. Proud, lastly, to see our artists travelling everywhere in Canada and abroad. This pride, which is shared by the majority, comes at a cost that our collective social conscience cannot ignore and must bear with the same pride! On this point, I think we have to salute the energy and persistence of an artistic community that, despite minimal resources in many cases, succeeds in maintaining a remarkable level of excellence. This should encourage efforts by our federal, provincial and municipal institutions and the private sector to work together to support our creators and their creations.

In the Internet age of easier and quicker travel, protectionist legislation, quotas to ensure the presence of Canadian content in the media, and the dissemination of Canadian films are extreme necessities, but are no longer enough. What will make people want to go to the Glenbow Museum instead of looking at reproductions on the Web? What will make people want to go to a concert by the Orchestre symphonique de Montréal rather than watch it later on television? What will make people want to read the latest novel by Alice Munro rather than grab the latest bestseller by Dan Brown?

What motivates us, sometimes without our realizing it, is the dialectic of the encounter between creation and the public, being attracted, and wanting to initiate a dialogue. Attracted by a work of art, the spectator enters a world of emotion, reflection and imagination. The encounter is also a reflection of art that refers us to radical existential and metaphysical questions on the meaning of life and the structure of our world: “Who am I?” “Who are we?” In response to these open-ended questions, artistic creation guides us, taking the risk of plunging into the unknown, breaking the silence and overcoming taboos, making the impossible possible, uttering the unutterable, and prompting us to dream; in a word, artistic creation takes the endlessly renewed risk of humanizing humanity.

For example, the work of Ojibway artist Ron Noganosh, who was born in Georgian Bay and grew up on the Shawanaga reserve in Ontario, tells us about ourselves. The shield, an archetypal Aboriginal artefact, is central in his work. Feathers, beads are pure tradition that relates history, but when we come a little closer and look more carefully, we are surprised to find beer cans, traces of the present day, which also tell us about the conditions in which we live. This is work that tells us who we are, depicting both our past and our present.

A mixture of the history of our great ancestors with the everyday, a hybrid of tradition and contemporary commercial items, this is also the stuff of our culture. Art historian Jocelyne Lupien has written that the cultural identity of North Americans results from a fusion between the here and the elsewhere, ourselves and other people, sacred mythologies and popular beliefs.

A strong culture is one that accepts rich and varied influences and gives us today’s Canada, both this country's past and that of those who have come to populate this land of immigrants. A strong culture is one that seeks to build on both pasts to create a present and a future. A strong culture is one that asserts itself as a necessity and a factor in improving the quality of life for the society in which it flourishes. It thus springs from a collective desire, a responsibility shared by the public and the creators. It includes a network linking artists, members of the public, arts administrators and academics sharing a conviction that art is an essential resource, naturally, but also a renewable one that must be protected. During a national Art Matters event we held at the Banff Centre in April 2008 to review the 24 meetings held across Canada, the participants quickly realized that it was their duty—as artists, decision makers, researchers and cultural managers—to spread the idea among all Canadians that, like air and water, creation, imagination and ideas make life more livable. The result was that at the end of this seminar, we adopted the following slogan: the arts make life more interesting than art. It is therefore up to all of us—and this is our purpose with Art Matters—to share that idea and make sure it resounds daily in our communities so that people sense the urgency of working together to develop a culture they can share.

The assurance of networking that is free of ideological confrontation, commercial competition and corporate lobbying is a necessity if art is to play its full societal role in today’s world. A network must be developed for artists and those who are culturally active, in the sense that middlemen must not become more prominent in the media than the artists are.

What creates Canada is the creative people who create in Canada. We have to remember that the desire of a nation is a mystery waiting to be revealed, and an artist is someone who remembers the future.

Canada’s culture exists at several levels of government and decision making. There is nothing negative about this if we approach it in the light of contemporary issues. From local to provincial, from provincial to federal, and from all of these to the international with universal concerns, no category of art or culture can disregard this if it is to live and survive. This is the dynamic we must stimulate and activate as effectively as possible. The outreach of Canadian culture in its diversity depends on circulation both in Canada and elsewhere, and on the harmonization of effort.

Our Department of Foreign Affairs lacks the resources to execute a cultural policy worthy of the name. A sector should therefore be developed for thought and action that will bring together the realities of culture in Canada and the right tools for diplomatic work. Cultural diplomacy is one of the major assets of international relations in the 21st century. The reality of internationalization is not something each component of the Canadian federation can tackle in isolation. It has to be addressed by provincial cultural bodies, with representation harmonized at the federal level through regular meetings. Otherwise, it is difficult if not impossible to ensure that Canada makes an impression on the globalized flow of knowledge.

So what role can culture, the arts and creativity play in society? Culture has a role to play in education, diplomacy, the economy and human rights. It is a part of the very meaning of democracy (for which it stands surely) and equal opportunity. It must not yield to—on the contrary, it must preserve a balance among—media domination, the dizzying progress in communication technologies and the pathological expansion of faith in economics as the answers to everything. Culture is the antidote to the ills of the civilization that is characteristic of the times we live in: the individualism that has spread over the last thirty years, and allowed greater autonomy for the subject and expanded freedoms and personal responsibility, has led to collateral damage to our living patterns. French sociologist Edgar Morin believes that the downside of individualism has been a deterioration in traditional solidarities, a fragmentation of individuals, a weakening of the sense of responsibility for one's neighbour, self-centredness and what could be called a metastasis of the ego.[1]  

Canada is not immune to these ailmants of civilization, which can be cured only by a thorough rehumanization of daily life. Such a civilizing policy—what Edgar Morin calls a politique de civilisation—requires the kind of input from the arts, culture and creativity that can generate happiness. This is the prerequisite for a regeneration of our human and social fibre. In this sense, culture is part of a civilizing effort to tackle issues that are more radical and profound for Canada's future, since the essence of Canada and its cultural diversity are one and the same.

In these times of economic and civilization crisis, does there not lurk in the background an opportunity to develop a new Utopia? Are we not facing a challenge to meaning that could help us build the foundations of a new societal organization, another way of living together, with culture front and centre in our political life and—why not?—as the goal of our common future.

Accordingly, when the Governor General's mandate ends, it seems to me that we cannot give up: everything we have done, everything we have learned, the connections we have made, the needs expressed by artists, members of the public, young people, decision makers, business people, and our own convictions, all of these make it our duty to continue our mission beyond the current mandate. We believe that the establishment of an apolitical organization, dedicated to research, reflection and cultural action at the national and international levels, would have very substantial public value and would be a consistent and logical continuation of the actions taken within the mandate of the Governor General of Canada. It was a three-step process: first, the generation of cultural turmoil; second, a time to rethink our culture; and third, a time for action.

In reality, I can now state that these three steps are one and the same: elements of a lively culture within a lively society.

[1]Edgar Morin, Pour une politique de la civilisation, Éditions Arlea, 2002.