Julianna Yau’s blog

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

Related posts

• Open letter to the Heritage Committee re: arts budget cuts (0)
• Emergency meeting TODAY on Parliament Hill re: Arts Cuts (2)
• Canadian Conference of the Arts - Resources for Arts Budget Cuts (0)
• Aug 26 Heritage Committee Meeting Notes (0)
• Write to your MP about the arts budget cuts (0)

Below is my open letter to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which I’m releasing under a Creative Commons attribution license.

Honourable members of Parliament:

This is an open letter regarding the recent announcements of Federal cuts on spending in the Arts.

As a visual artist living and working in Kitchener-Waterloo, the Secretary of CARFAC (Canadian Artists’ Representation / Le Front des artistes canadiens) Ontario and a supporter of arts & culture, I am deeply disturbed by the staggering number of programs and the amount of money being cut from the Arts.

I, and many other members of the arts community, was extremely pleased by the announcement of the increase of $30m in annual funding to the Canada Council for the Arts⁽¹⁾. However, this is an increase which has been offset by the recent cuts to programs and funding, totalling in excess of $46m⁽²⁾. No less than ten programs have been closed altogether. The Globe and Mail reports that the savings is being re-routed not to other arts spending, but to the upcoming Olympics⁽³⁾.

Why are these cuts being made and not being reinvested in the Arts, despite the recently passed Status of the Artist legislation⁽⁴⁾, which states:

The Government of Canada hereby recognizes
(a) the importance of the contribution of artists to the cultural, social, economic and political enrichment of Canada;
(b) the importance to Canadian society of conferring on artists a status that reflects their primary role in developing and enhancing Canada’s artistic and cultural life, and in sustaining Canada’s quality of life;
(c) the role of the artist, in particular to express the diverse nature of the Canadian way of life and the individual and collective aspirations of Canadians;
(d) that artistic creativity is the engine for the growth and prosperity of dynamic cultural industries in Canada; and
(e) the importance to artists that they be compensated for the use of their works, including the public lending of them.

References:
1. http://www.pch.gc.ca/newsroom/index_e.cfm?fuseaction=displayDocument&DocIDCd=CBO071014
2. http://www.ccarts.ca/en/documents/ListofrecentcutsENG210808_000.pdf
3. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080822.wcuts22/BNStory/Entertainment/
4. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/S-19.6/index.html

Sincerely,

Julianna Yau

Related posts

• Follow-up letter to the Heritage Committee (2)
• Emergency meeting TODAY on Parliament Hill re: Arts Cuts (2)
• Canadian Conference of the Arts - Resources for Arts Budget Cuts (0)
• Aug 26 Heritage Committee Meeting Notes (0)
• Write to your MP about the arts budget cuts (0)

There are merely two days left to send letters and emails of concern regarding the proposed drilling near The Spiral Jetty. If you don’t have time to draft a letter or email, you can use the standard letter from The Spiral Jetty website (PDF warning).

Here’s the email I sent:

RE: Application #8853

I am writing in opposition to the exploratory drilling in Utah’s Great Salt Lake which is being proposed by Pearl Montana Exploration & Production.

This proposed drilling is not merely an environmental concern, but one of preserving a work of land art. A drilling operation in such close vicinity to Robert Smithson’s The Spiral Jetty threatens it physical and artistic integrity. I thoroughly support the concerns of the Dia Art Foundation on this matter (http://www.diaart.org/dia/press/spiraljetty_drilling.html).

The Spiral Jetty has found its home in the Great Salt Lake, but is a work of art to be enjoyed by all. I urge the state to give serious consideration to the detrimental effects that drilling will have on Smithson’s work and on the environment, and to deny this and any future filings in the North Arm of Great Salt Lake that similarly constitute a threat to the artwork and the surrounding environment. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Julianna Yau

Related posts

• Oil Drilling near The Spiral Jetty (0)
• The Spiral Jetty is rig-free (for now) (0)
• The Responsibility of Preserving Public Art (0)
• Playing catch-up (0)
• Quick update (0)

Over the last few years I have gradually become more involved with the issues surrounding the need for copyright reform and have found the copyright-copyleft tug-of-war to be quite frustrating. This frustration stems not from an agreement being unreachable, but with the way we’ve been going about all of this. I am a nose-to-the-grindstone person who likes to get things done and move on. I have little patience or time for boisterous debates for the enjoyment of the debate or for open catfights and nitpicking over irrelevant matters.

So, from that perspective, here are some thoughts I would like to throw out to my fellow creators and copyfighters:

1. Not all creative media are the same.
   music ≠ software ≠ visual art ≠ literature ≠ movies ≠ new media
   Their methods of creation and dissemination are not the same. Their audience and use are not the same. Their value is not based on the same factors. Therefore, the same rules can not always be applied to them. Each must be analysed separately, while keeping in mind the knowledge of the others.
2. Involve all creators in the move towards copyright reform.
   This is a call not only to legislators but to the proponents of the copyleft movement. Creators are necessarily open-minded, but no one likes to have things taken from them and to be told that it’s for the best. Give your fellow creators the tools and knowledge necessary to understand the issues and make the leap themselves.
3. Just because we don’t completely agree on everything doesn’t mean we completely disagree on everything.
   This would seem quite obvious, but not everyone (on either side) seems to go into discussions with this perspective. Let’s find the common ground and work from there.
4. Don’t muddle the line between private/non-profit creative reuse and public/for-profit creative reuse.
   This is a call to both sides of the copyfight. In most cases, there is agreement that there should be fair use/user rights for private and/or non-profit creative reuse of works. The main issue seems to be finding the line in the sand where it moves from private/non-profit to public/for-profit—and this line may never be completely clear. But lets stop using the extreme examples for our arguments and try to wade through that messy grey area.
5. Indirect criticism without education is not constructive.
   Whatever happened to contacting another party directly if you disagree with them? Yes, blogs and similar tools are great for reaching many people and having open discussions. I have found, however, that there is still great value in one-on-one discussions (and sometimes, gasp!, in-person) with people—often this direct contact flushes out the fact that we agree on more than we thought we did.
6. Money isn’t everything, but we all have to eat.
   ’nuff said. Let’s find a healthy balance between no money because we’re giving away everything and overprotecting everything because we want more money. I don’t think anyone any creator actually wants either of those scenarios, anyway. If there are other ways to generate revenue, let’s include those ideas in discussions on copyright so that those of us who are used to the traditional copyright model are more comfortable with a newer model.

Thoughts?

Related posts

• Waiting For Copyright Legislation… (0)
• CARFAC Saskatchewan’s Thought Spots (0)
• You know what they say about assuming… (0)
• Yoav Mazeh: Fixation in Copyright - part two: the discussion (0)
• Yoav Mazeh: Fixation in Copyright - part three: my thoughts (0)