Archive for August, 2008
Saturday, August 30th, 2008
Ma.gnolia bookmarks for August 30th, 2008:
Saturday, August 30th, 2008
If you can believe it, I’ve been busy for the past two days with things other than copyright or arts advocacy (one of them being the production and administration of my sculptures!).
This meant I missed the live broadcast of the arts budget cuts discussion on Q, which is thankfully available as a podcast. I also received an email from Hedy Fry (the second member of the Heritage Committee to respond to my email):
Dear Ms. Yau:
Thank you for your letter protesting the recent cuts to Arts and Cultural programs by Foreign Affairs and Heritage Canada.
We, Liberal MPs all remember that Stephen Harper was a member of the Reform Party, which took the ideological stance that Arts and Culture was an inconsequential frill. We should not be surprised that as Prime Minister he would implement that ideology.
What is appalling is how it was done, with no announcement, surreptitiously inserted in the Departments’ websites, during the summer, when no one was supposed to be paying attention. This is a ploy the Harper government has used on many occasions, this summer.
Of course, there were explanations for the cuts. The Minister of Heritage called them efficiencies while the officials in Foreign Affairs were at least more honest. They did not approve of “lefty” writers or the immorality of certain titles and artistic subject matter. Such censorship by any other name would be called McCarthyism.
When the federal government does not understand the value of Arts and Culture to national identity or social cohesion; when a government does not have the foresight to see that in a 21st century global economy, the only hope for survival in a country as small as ours is to encourage human creativity and innovation; we should have grave cause for concern.
Even in the crassest of terms, funding of Arts and Culture could be seen as a smart economic investment. After all the creative sector is statistically the 4th largest industry in Canada; contributing 43.2 billion dollars annually to our GDP; responsible for almost 800,000 jobs and levering 2.7 billion dollars in trade.
Liberal governments under Chretien and Martin increased funding to Arts and Culture, initiated innovative Programs like Tomorrow Starts Today, and strengthened the International arts Programs seeing them as key to Canada’s trade, as well as our diplomatic efforts in promoting Canadian values abroad.
Stéphane Dion is on record as promising to increase the international Programs to $22 million and he sees a strong creative sector as key to Canada’s competitiveness in a 21st century world of innovation, creativity and human capital.
I urge you will take a bold stance against the Harper government’s damaging tunnel vision and attempt to censure and impose its own ideology on Canadian society under the thinly veiled guise of ‘efficient public policy.’
Thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
Hon. Hedy Fry, M.P.
Vancouver Centre
A bit heavy-handed with the pre-election jargon, and I wonder what will be done on Fry’s end to compliment the bold stance I’m urged to take.
Also, Penn Kemp of the Save Prom-Art: Promote Canadian Arts and Culture Facebook group received an email from Jack Layton:
At 04:59 PM 30/08/2008 he wrote:
“Absolutely!!
We are on it. We have many artists running for us [like Tom King!] and we will present a strong programme and fight like hell to re-establish the arts funding. These cuts are terrible and wrong. The latest cuts to Telefilm, for example, are horrific, short-sighted and nasty!
Just so that you know, when you’re communicating with your arts network, I am a member of the Writers’ Union with three published books: Speaking Out Louder (Key Porter, 2006) and Homelessness (Penguin, 2008) and Les ideés pour les gens d’ici (2004). Also, the director of our national campaign is Brian Topp, Exec Director of ACTRA.
These facts can give some comfort.
See you on the campaign trail and keep on fighting the good fight.
Thanks,
Jack”
“Layton, Jack – M.P.”
Saturday, August 30th, 2008
Town Hall Regarding Cuts To Cultural And Heritage Granting Programs Organized
London, ON
Event Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008
August 20, 2008 London ON: In response to the recent significant number of cuts made to arts and cultural funding by the Federal Government, artists and arts workers in London and area are organizing a Town Hall to address the cuts, the comments made by the Government about current and past recipients of arts grants programs and to brainstorm how the arts community can impact positive change at the federal level in the next election.
Since taking power in 2006, the Conservative government has eliminated over $44 million from Cultural and Heritage granting programs. The programs affected were designed to assist artists, arts institutions and not for profit charitable organizations in the creation, development, promotion and dissemination of Canadian art both nationally and internationally.
The most recent cuts:
-The PromArt Program, 4.7 million (administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs)
-Trade Routes, 9 million, Department of Canadian Heritage
-Stabilization Projects and Capacity Building, of the Canadian Arts and Heritage Sustainability Program
-Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund, 1.5 million
-National Training Program in the Film and Video Sector, 2.5 million
-$300,000 to the Audio-Visual Preservation Trust of Canada, for programs archiving important film, television and musical recordings.
Because the wave of cuts and policy changes are radically changing Canadian society, the Town Hall will host members of the arts and the broader community, MPs and the media. Anyone concerned by the Federal GovernmentÆs actions toward Canadian arts and culture should attend.
Such sessions will be occurring across the country, including Toronto on September 3.
When: Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 7:00 pm
Where: Board Room, Museum London, 421 Ridout St. North, London, Ontario
For more information or media inquiries contact :
Carol Kehoe
Museum London
421 Ridout St. North, London ON
Phone: 519-661-2500
ckehoe@museumlondon.ca
Valuing Culture: Town Hall Regarding Cuts To Cultural And Heritage Granting Programs
Toronto, ON
Event Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Who should come? Everyone concerned about the Federal Government’s blatant contempt for arts and culture.
Who will be speaking? Representatives from Government, visual arts, film, video, performing arts
What will we be doing? Strategizing on how to get our voices heard in the next election
Why is this important? Because the wave of cuts and policy changes are radically changing Canadian society.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 7pm.
The Theatre Centre
Wednesday, September 3 2008
1087 Queen Street West, (South East Corner of Queen and Dovercourt)
Since taking power in 2006, the Conservative Government has eliminated over $34 Million from Cultural and Heritage Granting Programs. The programs affected were designed to assist artists, arts institutions and not for profit charitable organizations in the creation, development, promotion and dissemination of Canadian art both nationally and internationally.
The most recent cuts:
-The PromArt Program, 4.7 million (administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs)
-Trade Routes, 9 million, Department of Canadian Heritage
-Stabilization Projects and Capacity Building, of the Canadian Arts and Heritage Sustainability Program
-Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund, 1.5 million
-National Training Program in the Film and Video Sector, 2.5 million
-$300,000 to the Audio-Visual Preservation Trust of Canada, for programs archiving important film, television and musical recordings.
With the anticipation of more cuts to be announced next week, we are inviting members of the arts and the broader community, MPs and the media to attend a town hall meeting. This meeting is intended to discuss the funding cuts, the ideological and inappropriate comments made by government about recipients and to brainstorm a plan of action.
For more information or media inquiries contact: info@fusemagazine.org, info@thetheatrecentre.org or heather@torontofreegallery.org
Thursday, August 28th, 2008
So much for not being in the thick of political drama. What was that about getting pulled back in?
Somehow, I find myself contacting members of parliament and being strangely excited by the possibility of an election. Although I don’t like the drama which sometimes comes from being involved, I’ve always firmly believed that complaining without action is valueless to the point of being dispicible. I’m sure that many think I’m overdoing it, but things need to get done somehow, right?
The office of my MP, Andrew Telegdi, responded to me on Wednesday, stating that “Mr. Telegdi is very concerned about the effect that this will have on our economy, the arts and culture scene and our appeal abroad.” and that “[they] will update [me] with any news we receive regarding this issue. And please keep [them] posted as well as [they] appreciate hearing concerns and/or receiving advice from an affected member of the Arts community.” I’m now looking forward to meeting with him sometime soon to discuss the impacts of C-10, the copyright legislation and the budget cuts on the arts community.
Bill Siksay has also been the first member of the Heritage committee to respond, although presumably with a form letter:
Dear Julianna,
Thank you for getting in touch with me regarding the Conservative government’s plans to cut key arts and culture programmes that assist Canadian artists, including “PromArt”. The cancellation of this important program will severely limit Canada’s international cultural presence. My New Democrat colleagues and I certainly share your concern on this issue.
The Harper Conservatives are quite simply wrong to cancel important cultural diplomacy programs that help Canadian artistic groups market and promote their work overseas. I believe that government should play a role in promoting Canadian culture overseas. The selection process for participation should not be a political decision based on the personal tastes or ideology of an individual minister. These programmes represent Canada as a whole and must have clear, transparent guidelines that ensure the best of Canadian culture – and the diversity of Canadian culture – is internationally represented.
This move comes on the heels of Bill C-10 and the Harper government’s plans to censor film in Canada that it finds “offensive”. I agree with many Canadians who feel that the Conservatives’ continued attempts to force their tastes on Canadian artists and arts organizations is deplorable. The Conservative government’s attempts to impose their ideological and moral values on Canadians and to censor artistic expression in Canada is unacceptable. My New Democrat colleagues and I have demanded that they back-off from this plan immediately.
Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. Please be assured that I will continue to follow it closely and that New Democrats will remain actively involved in the campaign to protect artistic expression in Canada.
Sincerely yours,
Bill Siksay, MP
Burnaby-Douglas
With the possible election, the coming weeks are probably the best for getting responses from your MP and from members of committees regarding these and other issues. Get out there and show them we mean business!
Thursday, August 28th, 2008
Some exciting (for me, anyway) not-directly-related-to-art-but-still-kind-of-related opportunities arrived in my email today:
Social Technologies Summit: Call For Submissions — Deadline 5pm, 13 October 2008
13-16 May 2009
Manchester UK
Futuresonic’s acclaimed international conference, the Social Technologies Summit brings 500 opinion formers, futurologists, artists, researchers, technologists and scientists from the digital culture, technology and art communities together around shared issues to do with social media, society, art and the city.
Digital culture burns bright with social connectivity
Inviting proposals for talks, presentations, workshops and session themes. Submissions of innovative formats for social interaction and experimentation are encouraged.
Call For Submissions — Deadline 5pm, 13 October 2008
Download an application form / guidelines here:
downloads.futuresonic.com/social2009.zip
For further information contact
Lisa Roberts
Social Technologies Summit Programme Manager
FutureEverything
+44 161 237 9000
social09@futuresonic.com
See also — A GBP 5000 commission plus many other opportunities are available in the Futuresonic 2008 Art & EVNTS calls for submissions.
www.futuresonic.com/getinvolved
Stanford Law School Announces Center for Internet and Society and Stanford Constitutional Law Center Joint Fellowship
The Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society (CIS) and The Stanford Constitutional Law Center (CLC) announce a new joint fellowship for the study of the intersection of copyright and constitutional law. We are looking for an inaugural fellow to work with faculty and staff from both Centers on range of research and litigation projects addressing the relationship between the Constitution’s Copyright Clause, the First Amendment and the Fair Use
Doctrine.
The primary responsibility for the fellow will be to work on current CIS Fair Use Project litigation. In addition, the Fellow will also be an active part of the CIS and CLC communities, attending lectures and symposia, assisting with Center activities and working with students on related projects. The Fellowship will provide significant opportunity for the pursuit of individual research and scholarship in preparation to enter the academic teaching market. The fellowship position is offered for one year with the opportunity for renewal.
Applicant Requirements:
2-5 years of post-law school civil litigation experience with substantial experience in constitutional law (preferred) and
intellectual property (required) matters;
Excellent writing and analytic skills;
Demonstrated ability to direct litigation of impact cases; and
Demonstrated ability to work in a self-directed and entrepreneurial environment.
The position is for 12 months, with the possibility of renewal for a second twelve months. The start date is September 2008, although this may be flexible depending on the right candidates availability. Salary will be approximately $40,000 per year, with benefits.
Preferred submission deadline is September 8, 2008, however applications will be accepted until the position is filled.
Applicants MUST apply online via the Stanford Jobs website at
http://jobs.stanford.edu/find_a_job.html
Search “Job number 31382″
Applications may also be submitted by email to the following address:
Gelman@stanford.edu.
For more information about the CIS and the FUP, please visit
http://www.cyberlaw.stanford.edu.
For more information about the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, please visit our website at
http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/conlaw/
Thursday, August 28th, 2008
Ma.gnolia bookmarks for August 27th, 2008 through August 28th, 2008:
Wednesday, August 27th, 2008
Reposting from the Canadian Conference of the Arts (PDF):
The Standing Committee on Heritage has decided to start holding hearings on the impact of the budget cuts to arts and culture programs. The first session is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, September 2 in Ottawa. There will likely be another session on Thursday, September 4, but that may be the only two if the persistent rumours of an upcoming election are correct.
Each party has until Friday noon to provide the Committee’s Clerk with a list of witnesses whom they would like to call. You can express your interest to be called as witness to any of the following contacts, MAKING SURE TO INDICATE IF YOU WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR EITHER SITTING AND IN PARTICULAR THE SEPTEMBER 2 ONE. Also indicate where you can be reached, the Clerk having only Friday afternoon to confirm the list of witness for Tuesday!
Liberal Party: please contact Benoït Bouvier tel. 613 286 9899 or email coderd0@parl.gc.ca
NDP: please contact Andrea Emond tel. (613) 9965597 or email siksab@parl.gc.ca
Bloc Québécois: please contact Daniel Dicaire, tel. 6139460644 tlx : 6139413300 email debelc@parl.gc.ca
Don’t forget to specify if your organization would be ready to appear as early as Tuesday!
Wednesday, August 27th, 2008
Ma.gnolia bookmarks for August 26th, 2008 through August 27th, 2008:
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008
Below is my follow-up to my open letter to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which I’m once again releasing under a Creative Commons attribution license.
Honourable members of Parliament:
Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude for ParlVU, which allowed me to listen to today’s meeting of the Heritage Committee.
After hearing the various comments regarding the recent cuts, and further to my original email below, I would like to know:
- Why was the arts community not involved in the review for the usefulness and need for the programs?
- Where is the reallocated money going?
- Which programs which were cut had, according to the review, met their objectives?
- Which programs which were cut had, according to the review, similar programs? what are those programs?
- Which programs which were cut had, according to the review, have high operating costs? why Was adjustment to the budget or operation not considered before the program was closed? if these options were considered, why were they decided against?
- If the government is concerned about arts & culture, why is the art & culture sector not part of a formal consultation and review process of either federal arts spending or copyright legislation changes?
Sincerely,
Julianna Yau
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008
Here are my summary notes from today’s Heritage Committee meeting.
Position on the budget cuts
- these are not “cuts” because the money is being reallocated
- comments about balancing books
- criticism of the 1995 budget cuts was that they were not done fast or deep enough
- funding was cut to programs (a) which met their objectives, (b) where similar programs were providing similar services, and/or (c) the program had high operating costs
- the cuts were part of an overall strategic review of all departments
- this is a changing world where art is changing (????)
- “ensure we are getting results”
- added $30m to festival programs
- funding provided to Quebec’s 400th anniversary celebration
- government is interested in protecting artists, for example through C-61
- mentioned multiple times that copyright protection is important to artists, which resulted in C-61
Criticisms (most of which were unaddressed)
- the cuts have been devistating to the arts community
- arts community fearing this is the tip of the iceberg
- government should not decide who gets funding — this should be done at arms length
- why were the reviews not made public?
- why was the arts community not involved? there should be public hearings & consultations, esp. involving arts organizations
- why did the changes bypass Parliamentary approval? why were the reallocation of funds not taken to Parliament?
- were changes an option before cuts were made?
- although there were cuts in 1995, new programs were also being created while others were cut
- why are programs which have previously been reviewed as being useful being cut?
- keep mentioning that money is being reallocated, but where? the office confirmed, then denied, that the money is being reallocated to the Olympic torch relay
- why were the announcements made in the middle of summer, during peak vacation time and around the time of the Olympics?
- the current government seems to love heritage but afraid of modern art, as shown through C-10
- festivals are important, but so is sending artists abroad
- with the Sustainability Program, the arts organizations are counting on Canada to be a full partner
- if there is good reason for cutting the programs, there should be transparency
- although they decided that copyright was important, the bill was delayed numerous times
At the end of the meeting, they decided that the committee members would submit lists of witnesses for a hearing by Friday at noon. After much verbal jossling, they decided to set a date for the next meeting once the list of witnesses was compiled.
My questions (some overlap with the critiscms above)
- why was the arts community not involved in the review for the usefulness and need for the programs?
- where is the reallocated money going?
- which programs which were cut had, according to their review, met their objectives?
- which programs which were cut had, according to their review, similar programs? what are those programs?
- which programs which were cut had, according to their review, have high operating costs? why was adjustment to the budget or operation not considered before the program was closed?
- if the government is concerned about arts & culture, why is the art & culture sector not part of a formal consultation and review process of either federal arts spending or copyright legislation changes?
|
|
