Creative Entireprise Forum – Afterthoughts
Friday, September 25th, 2009For me, yesterday’s Creative Enterprise Forum unearthed many unresolved issues that I noticed last year while advocating support for the arts. The forum left me with more questions and concerns than answers or confidence that the Council’s time and resources are being properly spent. The raw notes can be found here.
Although someone who was recruiting for their Leadership task force recognized me and said my name had been passed to her, I have yet to be approached by anyone from the Creative Enterprise Initiative or the Prosperity Council. So this is an open letter to them, with my thoughts on what is concerning and what is missing from their plan. Like all blog posts, this one probably still needs a proper copyedit, but this is the best I can do in three hours, before I return to other projects.
My comments here are very blunt and I haven’t bothered to sugar-coat anything. Overall, I would say that what they are doing for organizations have promise, but there is still much to be desired. If anyone from the Initiative or Council wants to speak with me, I would be happy to engage in an open and honest dialogue about what is lacking. Otherwise, I’ll continue to fix these things myself and with the help of other like-minded citizens.
Perhaps what left the most bitter taste in my mouth yesterday, and what caused me to leave early, was the Creative Enterprise Initiative’s lack of transparency when it comes to identifying who it was in the arts and “youth” communities they engaged. Someone posed this question to them, and this was not actually answered—there was a short, general statement, without any organizations or individuals named. They also mentioned a “meeting” they had last year at Kitchener City Hall; I was at this meeting, and it was extremely one-sided and was a presentation, again, of what they have already done, rather than gathering information from the arts community. This leaves cynics like me wondering whether there was consultation at all with the real-life stakeholders of this initiative.
I was also left wondering why I was never contacted. Although I don’t think I’m the person to speak to, as I noted above, my name has obviously been brought to their attention. I have met with both the NDP and Liberal candidates for my riding in the last election. I am no stranger to copyright legislation or arts administration, or other political issues in the arts. But I was never contacted, and didn’t know this forum was taking place until last week. This is also despite the fact that I receive listings to be added to Artifice, one of the few arts mailing lists serving the region, and am able to keep a pulse on what’s happening in the arts community.
The Creative Enterprise and Prosperity Council websites also leaves much to be desired. No recent information can be gotten from the Prosperity Council’s website, and no contact information is on the Creative Enterprise’s website. This leaves me wondering how the community (artistic and geographic) can find out what they are doing if they aren’t able to secure an invite to forums like the one hosted yesterday. This also doesn’t inspire confidence in the marketing support they are going to offer through the Enabling Organization, if few know about the Initiative or Council themselves. Perhaps this exclusivity was intentional, but this again leaves one wondering who they are supposed to be supporting.
They say that they want to reach “youth”; it doesn’t take much to know that most “youth” spends time online, and without even a maintained website, it’s hard to see how “youth” can learn more about these bodies. I also wonder how they define “youth” (which is why it’s in quotes). Is it 17 and under? If so, where do university students, recent grads and 25-35s fit in their plan?
The scope of the Enabling Organization is still very vague at this point. I have two main concerns: one broad, and one specific.
The first concern is that while the Enabling Organization looks to be an excellent resource for galleries and other organizations, support for individuals (and creators in particular) is obviously absent. I realize that the scope and plan for the EO will change over time, but it worries me that the initial plan has left out such a significant part of the arts community.
The second concern is what they have in mind for grantwriting support. The Canada Council and Ontario Arts Council already offer excellent support for those looking to obtain grants from them. Globe Studios recently brought someone to Kitchener from the OAC, and the Multimedia Cinema Club has someone from the Canada Council here this weekend. The Guelph Arts Council also regularly has grantwritting sessions with people from the OAC. CARFAC Ontario and Visual Arts Ontario both offer grantwritting courses (last year, CARFAC Ontario even offered their course by teleconference to a toll-free number, for those who could not attend a class in Toronto). I hope that whatever grantwritting support the Enabling Organization offers will not duplicate efforts already established elsewhere.
Members of the Creative Enterprise Initiative speak frequently about wanting a “made in Waterloo” solution that isn’t mimicking another city. What I fear is that in trying to be home-brewed, more time will be spent on reinventing the wheel than implementing a plan. The concept of taking something and customizing it for ourselves can’t be disregarded as a valid method. While creativity is key, there is much to be said for learning from the successes and failures of others. How is taking the essence of something like the Centre for Social Innovation from Toronto, and building our own arts version of that, any different than striving to create an arts version of the Accelerator Centre?
I also wonder how effective these consultations, task forces and organizations will be in effecting any immediate change to keep some of the young talent in the region before the end of a 10-20 year plan. Things like #hohoTO have proven that we need neither a long gestation period nor a large core group to achieve large, financial goals. Things like BarCamps, the next evolution of conferences, are a new and effective way for minds to meet and ideas being formed. These newer methods of doing things are how things are getting done—without task forces, committees and forums. Any attempt to engage “youth” will involve these “bold, new ideas” for how to do things, even though I’ve heard they are extremely unsettling for those who are accustomed to the presentation-and-questions format of “engaging” people.
Yesterday’s presentation mentioned short-term actionable items to build momentum. My biggest question here is what these items are and how soon is the short-term? We are long overdue for change, and initiatives such as KWArtzLab, KWCultureCamp and KWArtCamp are already quickly forming to fill an immediate need that isn’t being served by local arts councils or addressed by the Creative Enterprise Initiative or Prosperity Council.
Speaking very personally, a 10-20 year, or even 5-10 year, plan isn’t going to be of very much use to many of us between 20 and 35. “We” being many of the people who will likely be needed to carry a 10-20 year plan to fruition. If some very basic things don’t change quickly, like more opportunities for new artists or affordable, safe space to create, many of us will have a difficult time deciding whether to move, shelve our creative output, or end it entirely. Perhaps not many are as intent as I am with maintaining a reasonable standard of living (a home that is in a safe neighbourhood and isn’t plagued by unsafe structures or mice) or insisting on working in space that won’t result in my body or living space being polluted—but I also don’t think that these things are unreasonable requests.
The problem is finding space for creation and having access to funds for sustenance is not easy. I support myself through a full-time job, am currently without a studio which is affordable and welcomes a messy artist, and have few local prospects for showing any work that I am able to complete (despite the fact that my work sells quickly when I do host my own shows). I know many others are in similar situations, and without one of these factors changing quickly, staying in the Region will not be a smart choice.
4. Semantics: The Arts vs Artist vs Culture vs Heritage
This problem is two-tired. The first is that art, culture and heritage are not the same thing and can not be cultivated or encouraged in the same way. While they work wonderfully together, nurturing each of these requires individual attentions.
The second is that I have noticed that supporting The Arts and supporting Artists is two distinct things, though few are willing to admit it. Supporting The Arts is supporting organizations and institutions — symphonies, rather than the violinist; theatres, rather than the playwright or actor; galleries, rather than the visual artist; jazz festivals and record labels, rather than the musician. What I’m seeing here, and elsewhere, is a distinct support for The Arts, and the absence of support for the Artist who fills the theatres, galleries, festivals and symphony halls.
So how, exactly, does the creator/artist fit into the Creative Enterprise Initiative?
The forum mentions sustaining individuals, but there is no apparent part of this draft of their plan which even hints at support for individuals—whether they be small business owners in the creative community, or creators/artists. When the plan outlines the needs which have to be addressed, these items speak only to the needs of organizations, such as operational funding and experimental project funding. While some of this money may make it to the individual creator, creators can not depend on this funnelling for sustenance. This is why granting agencies such as the Canada Council and Ontario Arts Council have separate grants for organizations and individuals.
As I mentioned above, the Enabling Organization is also sorely lacking any plans for enabling creativity at the individual level. This is no surprise, as the needs that it was designed to fulfil are also those of organizations. But where can artists turn when a bad landlord has unjustly entered their studio and destroyed their work? Where can a musician go to obtain temporary equipment for a large show? Who can help ensure that more local writers are featured in bookstores in the region, rather than the big names who already get plenty of attention? What happens when mediation is required between an individual creator and a gallery, studio, theatre or publisher?
More importantly, why were these considerations left out of the plan if people in the arts community had been consulted prior to the presentation of this plan?
Perhaps the biggest problem facing individuals right now is space. The Creative Enterprise Initiative speaks of an “Accelerator Centre for the Arts”, which offers meeting, rehearsal and performance space.
But what about dirty space?
Space where a metalsmith can generate toxic fumes. Safely. Space where woodworkers and stoneworkers can generate dust. Safely. Space where potters can dispose of their materials. Safely.
Space where rehearsals for metal bands don’t result in calls to by-law offices. Space where actors can scream without police showing up.
Space here creativity can happen without bounds.
The arts version of an Accelerator Center, at this point, sounds mostly academic and administrative. While this is necessary, I don’t see how we can “foster creativity” without space to create. I have personally been in (and left) studio spaces in Kitchener. None were properly equipped to handle something simple as noise and dust. Certainly, none would be able to handle anything more toxic, such as chemical fumes, without the artist or craftsman investing heavily into the infrastructure, as I had (and still ended up leaving due to other factors in the building).
Creativity is not just painting, desktop design or playing Bach on the piano. We need a space where creation can be dirty, noisy, and even toxic—but for it to be safe and accessible. We don’t need a handout, but we do need the infrastructure.
Overall, I’m very skeptical that the Creative Enterprise Initiative or the Prosperity Council is open to ideas that are bold and new enough to effect real change, without becoming like one of the cities they are trying so hard not to mimic.
Education receives disappointing attention in this plan. I’ve spoken with professors who recognize the lack of real-world training in their arts programs. Things as simple as having a business card or knowing how to get funding for their projects is not part of the education all creators receive. How can we expect arts graduates from Laurier and the University of Waterloo to be as successful as their science and computer science counterparts if they aren’t given the same preparation?
Things like the Enabling and Barnraisers organizations have very broad scopes at this time, and smack of the same bureaucratic practices that many of us have seen and abandoned for new collaborative structures. Arts Councils are not new, and calling them an Enabling Organization that does the same thing will not give us anything new.
And why a solution to manpower is to find more volunteers for arts organizations, rather than finding ways to create more jobs in the arts, is absolutely baffling to me. Not only are volunteers a recourse only because of lack of funding, but I thought one of the goals of the Prosperity Council was to create more jobs. Why not turn the hundreds of volunteer positions into paid full-time, part-time and contract positions? Is this, perhaps, too bold and too new of an idea? I thought it was not merely needed, but obvious. Perhaps I’m wrong.
