|
|
November 6, 2009
Debating arts funding
Philosophers' Café is a tribune for all opinions.
OLGA LIVSHIN
As social creatures, people are driven to express their opinions in public. In extreme cases, such discussions could escalate into conflicts, but there are ways to channel this energy into a positive outlet. In Vancouver, one such outlet is the Philosophers' Café.
The Philosophers' Café is a local phenomenon. It started in 1998 as a single event, introduced by the director of Simon Fraser University's interdisciplinary studies program, Dr. Yosef Wosk, as a way to engage people in conversation. In 2009, the café thrives in 25 locations around British Columbia. A recent one, presented in collaboration with the Jewish Museum and Archives of British Columbia, took place at the Jewish Community Centre of Greater Vancouver Oct. 21. The topic: Are Arts and Culture Relevant During an Economic Recession? Wosk moderated the conversation.
Before he even started, café guests began chatting among themselves. That was why they came – to talk and to listen. Some were repeat visitors. For others, it was the first time. But no matter whether a veteran or a novice, they all were equal in the casual, friendly atmosphere of the JCCGV's Snider Lounge.
Wosk began by explaining the principles of the café. "We don't judge," he said. "Don't be embarrassed. Share your opinion. We've gathered here to get away from technology, from the pre-digested information of the media. There is no conclusion, no winners or losers in our café. We listen to each other."
According to Wosk, God was the universe's first artist. Ever since, art has permeated our lives. It is imminent and all-penetrating, not a fringe benefit, said Wosk. "But what happens when the money is tight, like now?" he asked. "Where do we cut corners?" The B.C. government has decided, among other areas, to cut arts and culture funding. The question, Was the decision right or wrong?, spurred a lively discussion. The positions of the participants split into three distinct categories.
Government should subsidize the arts. The supporters of this view insisted that professional art should be subsidized. In the past, many talented artists had rich patrons. Those that didn't have that support often couldn't fulfil their potential. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart had a patron. Leonardo da Vinci had a patron. The Russian ballet was funded by the czar. High art can't exist without funding, this group argued: it's not self-sufficient in the short run. But in the long run, they said, art returns many times what was invested. As well, arts and culture are organic to a society, like an arm or a leg to a body: you chop off an arm, the entire body suffers. Dr. Marvin Weintraub, one of the proponents of this view, considered both art and science national resources. "They should be sacred, like the police or sewer maintenance," he said. "No nation can exist without either of them."
Government shouldn't fund the arts. Advocates of this position were in the minority. According to them, the current recession and the cuts in funding should be considered an opportunity for artists. Historically, the best masterpieces were created during crises, they contended. Human talent thrives under pressure; we have to remember that life is not a continuous holiday: challenges make us stronger. We have to act positively, be inventive, and not complain. "Make more with less," was the theme of this faction.
Government's withdrawal of funding hurts us as a society. Many expressed their concern about the social aspects of the arts, particularly arts education. Joan Ezra, a kindergarten teacher, said that arts education produces better societies: "Arts are healing. We had an art camp for poor kids and the results were amazing. Without art programs, those kids could become a problem for the society. Art infuses them with positive self-confidence. But the camp needs money." Anita Perel-Panar, leader of A Star Studio for Performing and Fine Arts, echoed the sentiment: "We can tell the kids that drugs are bad and who believes us? But then, they start dancing and they can't dance while doing drugs, so they stop. Art builds camaraderie, as the kids have to perform together. They are motivated. But without funding, it's the parents who have to pay more."
After the café officially ended, people hesitated to leave. They talked in small groups. They exchanged business cards. Even though no agreement was reached on the question posed, the café had served its purpose: everyone had listened to each other and everyone had been offered the chance to express their opinions.
For schedules and locations, visit philosopherscafe.net.
Olga Livshin is a Vancouver freelance writer. She's available for contract work. Contact her at [email protected].
^TOP
|
|
