By Courtney Price
Umbrellas popped open and jackets were thrown on as the crowd protected itself against the fresh sprinkle of rain. The packed landscape consisted of all ages, wearing jeans, sneakers, sweaters and plastic bags to avoid the drizzle. They were scattered on a grassy hill overlooking a lake that held a stage, awaiting the show.
Violins pierced the silent dusk. The crowd cheered, knowing the wait was over.
They came to see their national choir, accompanied by the orchestra. They came to experience high art while wearing plastic bags and sitting on the grass.
This scenario played out in the small Baltic country of Estonia. Strong ties to culture unite this proud nation.
Is Canada different in this respect? If not, then why does the perception exist that there is a divide between art and the ‘common’ person?
“I think the public doesn’t understand, largely, why they should support the arts,” says City Coun. Clive Doucet, an ardent arts advocate.
“They have the vision that the arts are something that somebody else does, and not what they do. It’s a play they’ve never seen or a concert they’ve never been to.
So why should their tax dollars support something that they never see or hear?”
It seems that the government is more likely to support the arts if it satisfies another goal, such as tourism. Apparently, the arts are only a viable industry when it assists another area of commerce.
Art advocates often have to justify their position with economics. For example, a decrease in funding would risk the jobs of the 35,000 people employed by Ottawa’s cultural industry. What happened to the government saving art for arts sake?
“It’s always the challenge of the government to divide the budgets to respond to priorities,” says Joanne Charette, director of public affairs for the National Gallery of Canada.
“Is culture a priority to the government? Is it priority to the Canadian public? That’s difficult to answer.”
It seems that Canadians consider the arts important only when its existence is questioned. Only then do communities rally together and battle for arts funding.
Take for example, last year’s placard-generating outrage over the City’s threat to cut 80 per cent of arts funding.
Why do Canadians fight for arts funding, but fail to consider art a part of their daily lives?
“(The arts) are more accessible now than they have ever been,” says Peter Honeywell, the executive director of the Council for the Arts in Ottawa. “You can see it in this city, with just the amount of arts groups that exist.”
Artistic schools have “reasonable rates,” according to Honeywell. Schools also fight for bursaries for disadvantaged children who show promise.
Another easily accessible program is Live Rush at the National Arts Centre. This allows students to purchase discounted last-minute tickets to performance art.
Jennifer Cayley, executive director of MASC, a program that brings artistic workshops to schools across Eastern Ontario and Western Quebec, says that the Canadian public is not exposed to enough art.
“Something like the National Gallery, which collects things that are deemed to be the art of Canada, that is our history, everybody needs to be able to experience. But that’s not actually a generally held view.”
If art is so accessible, why do people think it’s unapproachable?
Stefan St-Laurent and Tam-Ca Vo-Van, co-artistic directors of SAW Gallery, say the public is apathetic to artistic endeavours because the work does not speak to them.
“Ottawa is still a relatively small city, but quite a multicultural one. I think that a lot of people from different communities don’t see themselves reflected in the programming at the National Gallery, or other centres,” says St-Laurent.
“It’s a widespread view in contemporary art circles that the art is for a small group of people,” says Vo-Van.
“It’s something that a lot of people still believe. I think that’s why, in countries like Canada, contemporary art is something that people think they can’t understand.”
People can understand art. Artistic appreciation stems from the active engagement of the individual with the work itself. If the art ceases to engage, the participant becomes disinterested.
“Our approach has been to try and show art that is relevant to the communities here,” says Vo-Van. “We have to take an active stance and have a real will to do it.”
“People are genuinely interested in seeing art,” says St-Laurent. “People are consumers of culture and they want choice.”
A combination of economic factors, busy schedules, general disengagement and reluctance to experience art, does not undermine its importance.
“In Canada, the attitude is that the arts are a form of entertainment that we’ve undertaken when we’ve finished doing everything else that’s really important. That’s not true worldwide,” says Cayley.
Canadians need to find new artistic experiences that suit their individual needs. Demand choice in cultural experience.
Canadians may not be listening to the national orchestra while sitting on the grass, but we should be active in artistic and cultural consumption.