Julianna Yau’s blog

During and after the Summit, I talked to different persons (artists, curators, educators) about their feelings about the Summit and everyone seemed to have, as one person put it, a “lukewarm” feeling about the Summit. There was a general sense that there is much to be done and much which had not yet been discussed at the Summit. Because we, as a sector, so rarely meet and engage each other, there was much “what about me and my problems?” at the Summit. This attitude caused the lack of focus that so many found was the main disappointment of the Summit.

What was good is that we all seemed to agree that the same issues were indeed issues. We also agreed that 40 years is much too long of a time to pass each time we meet. From my perspective, these were the needs we identified through the panel discussions and smaller discussion groups:
1. The need for collaboration within the arts sector and the cultural sector.
2. The need for accessibility and visibility of art and artists.
3. The need for support from all levels of government. Although financial support is dearly needed, so is other support (such as programming and governmental bodies such as the Canada Council taking a leadership role).
4. The need to maintain the dialogue which has been created at the summit.
5. The need for real action!

I was extremely thankful that Tamara Winikoff was able to accept our invitation to not merely speak at the Summit but also to participate with us. What she and her peers in Australia has been able to achieve has been encouraging, and she provided us with a welcome perspective from the outside to remind us to keep focused and encouraged us to work collaboratively on the issues were very much joint issues.

Before and after the closing remarks, we were reminded that the Summit is the beginning and not the end of the change which needs to be made. My only hope is that the persons who attended the Summit and those who wanted to but were unable to attend will follow through with the intent to keep the dialogue open and to do something with all of the discussions we had. Without that, there will be no change and we will simply be starting over again in 40 years when someone realizes that we have allowed so much time to pass once again.

The closing remarks by the panelists in the afternoon were wonderfully powerful and reaffirming.

Shawna Dempsey has become one of my new heroines. Her speech was not merely insightful and eloquent, but immensely powerful and provided artists with the much-needed voice for the Summit. She reminded us that one of the stark things missing from the Summit was any direct discussion of the position and concerns of the individual artist. She remarked on the fact that we were all struck by the low artist income figures from Kelly’s presentation but that it was never mentioned again—that we seemed to almost be in denial of the fact that artist wages are so low. She also noted that there was no discussion on the conditions under which artists produce and live, and asked why so many creators of culture live below the poverty line. She brought our attention to the fact that artists subsidize the creation of their own work, and that society perpetuates the concept that current living conditions of artists are acceptable. And she reminded us that there will be no true change if the needs of individual artist are not considered.

Gerald Beaulieu, the President of CARFAC National, recapped some of the themes of the Summit and reminded us to think forwards from the Summit. He repeated the quote that “there is nothing creatively rewarding about not being paid”—a sad reality for some artists. He reminded us of the importance to maintain the momentum of the Summit and to build relationships. He also made specific reference to things we can do after leaving the Summit, such as work on realizing the Exhibition Right Fund and urging the Canada Council to have their artists’ grants refocussed on the research and creation of works rather than on the career stage of the artist because the Canada Council is not in the business of career development.

Hank Bull presented his closing remarks in the form of a wish list, which he dubbed “Hank’s List”:
1. Cultural diversity
2. Internationalism—both taking art and ideas outside of Canada and bringing it into Canada
3. Having the National Portrait Gallery in Ottawa (ed note: the nation’s capital, after all)
4. Strong national Museums Policy
5. Strong Support for Aboriginal Arts
6. Reaffirmation of peer juries
7. The National Gallery to take a leadership role
8. Solidarity from the Summit
9. Another Summit in 2 years
10. Universities to accept arts credits at the same level of other high school credits (ed note: I’m paraphrasing because he appended this to the list during the question period)

Tony Luppino reinforced that there needs to be real action coming from the Summit. He urged us to remember the importance of putting numbers to the things we want—to not simply ask for “increases”, but to ask for the actual amount of increase that we need to achieve our goals. He hoped (and I, too, hope) that from this Summit will come the formation of committees and action groups. He indicated that we need a real strategy for what to do with the National Portrait Gallery, rather than pitting cities against each other. He said that collection agencies should not call themselves that if they do not have a collection budget, and reinforced the need for more work to be done on the issue of education. He also asked us whether it would be beneficial to take up the issue of artists’ rights as human rights issues.

After these closing remarks by the panelists, many of the delegates also made pointed out items which still need to be addressed (my apologies to my fellow delegates: I was not able to capture names):
-publications not merely for broad audiences, but for specialized audiences
-support for the reinstatement of the art transport service
-raw studio space disappearing
-the need for an occupational health & safety report of the mental and physical health of artist work space
-the problem of artist advocates’ salaries being as low as the artist salaries
-the need to form a group to represent the sector, with an action plan
-the need for a government inquiry into the concerns raised at the Summit

The last day of the Summit was another day packed with information and enthusiasm.

The day started with presentations from Tamara Winikoff, the Executive Director of NAVA (National Association for the Visual Arts, Australia). Very regrettably, she was only given about a half hour at the beginning of the day. I was lucky enough to have attended a presentation with her on Saturday, where she not merely gave a thorough overview of what they have done in Australia but also had time to take several questions (she was there for three hours in total on Saturday). I will have to remember to put together an entry on that presentation—I have the equivalent of four pages of notes on my computer from that!

Following Tamara’s presentation was one from [Mr.] Kelly Hill, who provided us with a high-speed overview of the stats found in this presentation. What was both a surprise and not a surprise is that in 2001, the average income for an artist (from all revenue sources, including second and third jobs) was $18,700. This is compared to the average income of the Canadian worker at $31,800. What’s even bleaker is that there is no major increase in this income with an increase of education or age for artists, even though there is for people working in other sectors.

These figures are terrifying for an emerging artist like myself. Although I am fortunate enough to be able to foster other skills to maintain a job outside of the arts to support myself financially, not all artists have or want that option. Indeed, I am often chilled by the thought of having to maintain a Day Job my entire life so that I can produce the artwork I am compelled to create. Even jobs within the art sector itself aren’t financially appealing. Many are not merely paying less than other jobs requiring the same level of work but also have less job security because of a reliance on government funding which is decreasing and because of fluctuations from other revenue sources.

The morning’s panel discussion dealt with “the force of markets”. Being very new to the art world and one of the 20-30 artists at the Summit who was under 35 (remember, there were approx 450 total delegates and about a half to a third were self-identified artists), this portion of the Summit was very intriguing because I haven’t seen enough to have an innate understanding of the art market (aside from the understanding that artwork is valuable well after the death of the artist and living artists usually are Starving Artists).

Again, as a young emerging artist, Paul Wong‘s portion of the panel discussion was particularly meaningful for me. He spoke of being a self-taught video artist who was the “bastard child of the arts” who was not welcome in the art, film or educational worlds in the 1970s. He spoke of having both good and bad relationships with galleries, where shows had been cancelled and he was sometimes never paid. He spoke of having to diversify his sources of income from reproduction fees, commissions, private collectors, curating and creating advertisement. It was somewhat reassuring to know that other artists feel disengaged from the industry, even though I am working in one of the traditional media he feels has an advantage over new media such as video work. I have actually found it more difficult to find a gallery which shows work similar to mine because I work in a traditional medium (stone) and neither a style which is purely traditional (e.g. figurative work) or something “wild” and “out there”.