Julianna Yau’s blog

I attended three sessions today, and am back home temporarily (instead of attending the keynote speech) because I need some down time to collect my thoughts. Tons of information coming at us, and it wasn’t long before I got the hang of sending updates to Twitter and Flickr. I’ll be posting the mostly raw notes I took from the sessions, with some linkage (esp to the Flickr images after they’re tagged and captioned).

It’s been a draining day, and I honestly don’t know whether I’m returning for the networking reception and dinner. Unlike CopyCamp, the TIAC was spread across two buildings and several rooms. The university was not the easiest to navigate (especially for a directionally challenged person like myself), and the construction that was happening didn’t help. Lunch was a bit of a headache for me because I took [myself and some unsuspecting victims] the long way to the university plaza. Even without that, I think I would have felt rushed (despite what another person had mentioned to me)… maybe it’s just because I like to really take my time with meals. At least with CopyCamp, food was provided and lunch was more of a break than an interruption.

I also did notice a big difference with the networking. Part of the issue was the size of the group. It was somewhere between the number of attendees at the Visual Arts Summit and CopyCamp. I found that with the BarCamp model that CopyCamp followed, and the smaller group, I was able to not merely meet but have more real conversations with the other attendees. I suppose that’s why TIAC is having the networking reception I may not attend ;)

Stan Douglas has won the Canada Council Bell Award in Video Art. The CBC article mentions that some of his work are remakes of old films. This was something he mentioned at an Art Talk he presented at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo last year. One of his films (which, sadly, I haven’t been able to see) is a remake of The Outrage (1964)/Rashômon.

Other winners of the award include Paul Wong, Sara Diamond and Vera Frenkel, who were  at the Visual Arts Summit.

This is a very exciting press release that came through my email from multiple sources today.

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — February 11th, 2008Following the recent Visual Arts Summit, a new group of visual arts organizations has come together to form the Canadian Alliance for the Visual Arts (CAVA). Rather than an official organization, CAVA is an independent alliance of national visual arts organizations determined to advance the status of visual arts in Canada. Through communication, cooperation and collaborative action this network will achieve common goals, as outlined in the Visual Arts Summit’s Collective Agenda. (www.visualartssummit.ca)

Representatives from eleven of Canada’s national arts service organizations make up CAVA’s membership. These organizations, though diverse in focus, each have a vested interest in the promotion and advancement of Canadian visual arts. CAVA’s main objectives are to speak with a unified voice, to develop a cohesive strategy to improve the socio-economic conditions of artists, and to pursue the health of our art galleries, museums, artist-run centres and commercial art dealers so that Canada’s extraordinary visual arts can flourish.

After two productive teleconferences, CAVA held their first face-to-face meeting in Montreal on February 1st, with another scheduled for the 14th of March. These meetings have set in motion a number of joint projects which will affect change for Canadian visual arts, both in the artistic community and the general public. The group looks forward to the upcoming announcements on the disbursement of new funding by the Canada Council for the Arts, and will be in attendance at the Council’s meetings on February 12th.

For more information on CAVA and their planned initiatives, contact any member:

Shawn Van Sluys, Ottawa
Canadian Art Museum Directors’ Organization
613-862-5035, shawn.vansluys@camdo.ca

Lise Leblanc, Ottawa
L’Association des groupes en arts visuels francophones
613-244-9584, lleblanc@agavf.ca

April Britski, Ottawa
CARFAC (Canadian Artists’ Representation)
613-233-6161, carfac@carfac.ca

Christian Bédard, Montréal
Le Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels du Québec
514-866-7101, Christian.bedard@raav.org

Daniel Roy, Montreal
Artist-Run Centres and Collectives
514-524-4529, danielroy@arccc-cccaa.org

Maegen Black, Fredericton
Canadian Crafts Federation
506-444-3315, info@canadiancraftsfederation.ca

John McAvity, Ottawa
Canadian Museums Association
613-567-0099 x226, jmcavity@museums.ca

Patricia Feheley, Toronto
Art Dealers Association of Canada
416-323-1373, gallery@feheleyfinearts.com

Milly Ristvedt, Toronto
Royal Canadian Academy of Arts
416-408-2718, milly@kos.net

Jennifer Dorner, Montréal
Independent Media Arts Alliance
514-522-8240, dir@imaa.ca

Ryan Rice, Kahnawake, QC
Conference Aboriginal Curatorial Collective
514-756-6602, directoracc@gmail.com

Yesterday, I attended the 2008 Grafstein Lecture in Communications at the University of Waterloo. This year’s presenter was Jessica Litman, on the topic of rethinking copyright.

The topic of rethinking copyright was exciting on its own. I have a great deal of respect for Litman’s work, so being able to attend the lecture was something I was looking forward to for several weeks.

Litman started the lecture with some background information, which was mostly “common knowledge” for anyone who has studied copyright and all of which was a precursor to the crux of her position. She reiterated the fact that many creators are trying to manage the changes in the way their work is distributed, accessed and copied with the new technologies available to us, and that the internet is putting some copyright owners out of business and creating opportunities for other copyright owners (primarily creators who wouldn’t have publishers under the old model of creation and distribution). She then reminded us that the costs of paper publishing, both historically and presently, require that much of the revenue go toward the publisher, who is an intermediary between the creator and the user.

Litman stressed the need for a reallocation of the priorities in copyright, with a focus on enhanced rights for readers of works. She reminded us that the dominant businesses in the creative industry are lobbying for change because the current copyright law does not work well for them. In particular, current US copyright law makes it very difficult to license digital copies of music.

Among the distribution problems is the one that creators often have little control over and income from their works. This, I believe, is a problem more common in creative works meant for mass distribution (e.g. literature, movies, software and music), rather than something like visual art where the work is meant to be unique and limited in its distribution.

A very interesting (and under-reported) point that Litman mentioned is that 4 years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada passed a judgement which states ““Research” must be given a large and liberal interpretation in order to ensure that users’ rights are not unduly constrained“. This decision, she felt, should be giving lobbyists for user rights adequate support for their cause.

One of her great observations is that the technology for distributing/copying/publishing is overlapping with the technology for reading/watching/listening. This is where the old concepts of how people interact with creative works shifts, because the technologies create temporary and permanent copies of copyrighted works.

The following are the three ongoing problems she listed as prime examples:

• webcasting
• what falls under private copying
• law suits for secondary liability (read some of these recent posts by others for a taste of the issues)

The question Litman posed to us is where do readers, listeners and viewers fall into copyright?

One of the problems she has with current discussions on user rights is that we are rolling all users of copyrighted materials into one category: both the corporate users (e.g. Disney) and the individual readers, listeners and viewers. Note that in the Q&A which followed the lecture, someone asked where Litman would place the new breed of users, which I’ll call the creators of user-generated content. Litman replied that she would draw the line between commercial and non-commercial use. Although I tried drawing that line in the past, I’m still not certain whether that’s the correct or most accurate distinction.

Litman stressed the need to use the distinction of “readers, listeners and viewers” rather than “consumers” (because of the inherit implication that money is involved) or “enjoyers” (because the work may not necessarily be enjoyed, per se). From this point, I’m just going to use “RLV” because I’m too lazy to type “readers, listeners and viewers” every time.

To drive home the need for us to rethink copyright via user rights, Litman argued that the RLVs interact with works and thereby complete the creators’ interests. While I find this notion somewhat romantic, I do agree that the creation and existence of works seems very hollow without anyone on the receiving end. Like having a conversation with yourself, creating a work without an audience is often unfulfilling for the creator.

Litman recognizes that it’s difficult for many people to think about user rights because that’s not normally how we think about copyright. The difficulty I have with thinking about user rights is not the resistance to it, but not knowing what exactly those rights ought to be and which ones are related primarily to copyright.

Personally, I found Litman’s comments about the relationship between the creator and the RLV to be a crucial concept which needs to be explored much more, both within and outside of the realm of copyright. At the Visual Arts Summit, there was discussion of needing to connect audiences with art, and I’m now wondering how much creators have been disconnected with the people for whom they are creating/the people who interact with their creations. Litman likened the trio of creators, publishers an RLVs to an ecosystem which depends on each other, and it was unspoken that there is an imbalance in the ecoystem.

A humorous and true insight from Litman was that while we all agree that there is an imbalance in the amount of power and control allotted to the creators, distributors and RLVs, the disagreement is who has the upper hand. Each side feels that they are being cheated by the other two, and each demands for their rights to be protected. But when their interests conflict, whose rights prevail?

Throughout the lecture, the dominant thought I had was that we need to start rethinking, not copyright, but the entire sphere of creative output and its support systems. To date, most of us have been treating the problems of copyright as the result of changes in technology. But I’m starting to think that we need to see the inadequacies of current copyright law as a symptom of a much greater phenomenon: the very rel change in the way works are created, distributed and read/listened/viewed. Perhaps we can’t come to any resolutions and keep discussing unrelated issues as copyright issues, not because they are unrelated, but because we are starting from the wrong place.

This was also distributed to the delegates at the Summit:

---

Goals:
1. Increase revenues originating from the professional practice of visual arts;
2. Develop a social security net for professional Visual Artists.Actions:
1. Inclusion of the Resale Right in the Copyright Act.
2. Establishment of an Exhibition Right Fund, similar to the Public Lending Fund.
3. Adoption and implementation by the Government of Canada of a Policy for the integration of artworks in the architecture of public buildings (1% Policy) inspired by the Quebec experience.
4. Improvement of the financial and contractual conditions offered to Canadian and Québécois artists for the public presentation of their works.
5. Creation of a social security net for visual artists (collective insurances and retirement fund) based on contributions by artists, presenters, private enterprises and patrons of the arts.
6. Establishment and implementation of fiscal measures to promote the acquisitions of works by professional Canadian and Québécois Artists by individuals and private enterprises.
7. Creation of Regional Contemporary Art Funds dedicated to the acquisition by local and regional museums of works by professional Canadian and Québécois Artists based on contributions by the different levels of government, private enterprises and art patrons, inspired by the French experience.
8. National promotional campaign to present professional Canadian and Québécois Artists and to develop in the public a better understanding of the new artistic movements.
9. Establishment for Artists of a federal tax credit for the first 15 000.$ of copyright and/or net sales of visual art works.
10. Invite banks and credit unions to give loans at advantageous rates and conditions for the purchase of artworks by professional Visual Artists from Quebec and Canada.
11. Net increase by the Canada Council for the Arts of the sums dedicated to the visual arts sector for creation, research, development, production, presentation and acquisitions.
12. Obtain the abolition of the federal income tax on Artist’s awards and bursaries.

For further information contact:

April Britski
Executive Director
CARFAC National
1-866-344-6161
carfac@carfac.ca
http://www.carfac.ca

Christian Bedard
Executive Director
RAAV
(514) 866-7101
christian.bedard@raav.org
http://www.raav.org

Google has finally uncovered that YYZ was also blogging at the Visual Arts Summit. While my posts were mostly reflective and condensed the pages of notes I scribbled, YYZ included what looks like their original notes from the event. And they have pictures!

I realized today that I have not yet distilled Tamara Winikoff’s presentations from the Summit. When reviewing my notes, I realized that most of them were of the stats she provided of and from NAVA. While the stats highlighted the challenges they have overcome and those yet to be tackled, the stats themselves were not the thrust of the content.

The most important thing Tamara had to share was that they have only been able to accomplish as much as they have because NAVA, as “the peak body representing and advancing the professional interests of the Australian visual arts and craft sector”, works internally with the various parts of the visual arts community to reach consensus before taking it to the government and the broader public. It seems like such a simple concept, but I’ve often seen (within the arts community and elsewhere) people let sensationalism get the better of them. I continue to hope that the arts community can maintain the unity initiated by the Summit.

Another strategy NAVA has taken is to demand public/government inquiries into matters relating to the visual arts. Through this and other work done by NAVA itself, they have been able to put numbers to issues and be more effective in their influence on policy and program changes. Figures such as those presented by Hill Strategies will help strengthen our statements of what needs to be done and why.

NAVA has also produced The Code of Practice for the Australian Visual Arts and Craft Sector, which is a publication encompassing all aspects of the sector. This is obviously the result of much work, not merely in the writing of the document but the development of the code itself. I think it would be immensely valuable for the Canadian arts sector to develop a similar document. The exercise would be a useful point of reference but, more importantly, would allow us to work through the many issues which need to be settled so that we can have a better understanding of each other’s concerns and a resolution for our own.

Edit 5-Dec-2007: I noticed in the error log for this blog that some visitors have not been able to reach the files because of the spacing and punctuation in the name. I have altered the names so they are more browser-friendly.

Edit 9-Dec-2007: I have fixed the problem with the blog’s theme, so the full text is now available inline.

Shawna Dempsey has been gracious enough to provide me a copy of her remarks from the Summit and allowed me to share them with everyone here. The text is a bit too long for my blog’s theme to handle, so here are links to it in PDF and HTML format.

---

Shawna Dempsey’s remarks — Visual Arts Summit 2007

When asked to be on this panel, we were each instructed to distill one, important point that was made at the Summit that needs to be remembered as we move forward together. So I’ve been listening carefully. And I’ve been struck by not just what has been said over the past three days, but what has not been said, as should be expected when we only meet every 40 years or so. The list of important topics not yet covered could fill weeks of Summits. However, even given the limitations of time, there has been on essential subject that was only briefly mentioned in the first two days of this conference, although thankfully given further consideration here today.

Building upon the comments of our Australia guest Tamara Winikoff early this morning, Kelly Hill’s meticulous research, and Paul Wong’s presentation on the last panel, I want to explicitly talk about the position and concerns of the individual artist. As Aaron Milrad stated in his comment yesterday, “We must not forget artists are human.” And although this is a cringe-inducing phrase, calling forth images of artist-as-elephant-man, to be pitied, not scorned, Mr. Milrad raised an essential, irrefutable point: we cannot discuss visual arts in this country without grappling with the material, human needs of those who labour to make the stuff upon which this so-called industry is based.

And what I am saying has been said many times before by voice more articulate than mine, yet when confronted by the statistics on how much visual artists earn from all sources (which for me has included activities as diverse as house cleaning and speaking on this panel) — when confronted with the actual amount of artists’ income — we continue to gasp in surprise. It is as if we live in a state of willful, collective denial. In fact this is true: by lunchtime the issue of artists’ wages had all but evaporated from this room.

And perhaps part of the reason that individual artists have been largely absent from the discussions here, not as participants but as a subject, is that we don’t fit neatly into systems or bureaucracies. It is often our intent to dismantle, disrupt, or deconstruct any semblance of order. To recycle a word that Steve Loft used earlier, artists are untidy. We interrupt or intercept the smooth, unquestioned flow of experiences, of acceptable meanings, of “beauty”, and of capital, that are necessary for the systems of education, collecting, and marketing (all topics we have discussed here).

At an elemental level, an artist’s most base, raw materials are images and ideas — things that are neither safe nor static. And working with these fearsome, unpredictable things — images and ideas — scares the shit out of me. Moreover, when I get it right it should scare you, too. So perhaps it is no wonder that there is only limited place for those of us who are unpredictable and even frightening at polite gathering such as this.

Further, if we acknowledge the conditions under which Canadian artists live and produce, we should be ashamed of ourselves that the core producers of what is named as a thirty-nine billion dollar cultural industry (that’s 4% of the GDP) almost always live below the poverty line.

In fact it is nearly impossible to live as a full-time visual artist in this country unless one has the good fortune of international sales. One simply cannot survive on artist fees and grants alone. Small incomes, erratic incomes, lack of basic security such as employment insurance, maternity benefits, training funds, or pensions: we as a community continue to accept and condone — to perpetuate — that this is acceptable if one chooses to be an artist. As well as being inhumane, this is in direct conflict with all our lip service to diversity, for if we truly want diverse producers from diverse cultural backgrounds, economic backgrounds, and with diverse points of view, the profession of being an artist must be financially viable, as opposed financially suicidal.

And when I talk about how “we” tolerate a grossly underpaid creative class (not exactly what Richard Florida had in mind), I don’t mean we the citizens of Canada, but we the arts community: museums who cleave to CARFAC bare minimums even when we can agree on the rate, and all other levels and sectors of the arts including artists themselves.

All that we have discussed here over the past three days, all the systems, all the institutions, all the achievements, on whose back have they been built? Artists, who subsidize the creation of their product to a degree unimaginable in any other sector. My point being: I agree wholeheartedly with Aaron Milrad that we cannot forget who makes what it is that we are talking about. No matter how untidy, uncooperative or uncomfortable-making artists may be, and no matter how awkwardly or ungratefully we fit into the systems you create for us, truly the only thing essential to artmaking is artists. And as we strategize around what should happen as a result of the Summit, all of our carefully worded statements and all of the lovely meetings to come will amount to zero real change if the individual artist is not considered: our human needs, our material needs, and that which enables us to produce art.

 

Hot off the presses!:

Collective Agenda for the Visual Arts

Visual Arts Summit, Ottawa, November 2007
Art is the face of Canada.

We, as artists, curators, collectors, dealers, educators and supporters, are united to enhance the opportunities for Canadian art to be created, seen, understood and enjoyed. We came together in the largest gathering of the visual arts in our history, to proclaim the critical role of the visual arts in an innovative and compassionate society in the 21^st century. We know what is needed: we call on the governments, nations and peoples of Canada to join us in realizing our potential.

The visual arts community acts within an increasingly complex environment, with stagnant or shrinking resources. The growth in public engagement with the visual arts is not reflected in government policies or support. Canadian artists, galleries and museums have been starved for too long. Too many people work in the visual arts without an adequate livelihood or long-term security.

The lack of vigorous and consistent policy, particularly from the federal government, is unacceptable. The visual arts provide a high level of service while receiving an unjustly low level of support from most government agencies and departments. In a time of global challenges calling for dialogue and understanding, the Canadian government has cut support for our international cultural profile. The unique and diverse character of Canada is under threat. The visual arts offer the best opportunity to counter this threat. It is time to recognize the place of visual arts at the centre of society.

We commit ourselves to work together:

• To satisfy the public’s growing demand for participation in visual culture;
• To communicate the sector’s needs with a united voice;
• To provide a secure livelihood for artists;
• To acknowledge the varied cultures of the indigenous peoples of this land;
• To reflect the diversity of our society; and
• To strengthen the institutions that advance the visual arts.

With a united voice, we advocate:

1. To create a new alliance across the sector, to advance the position of the visual arts;
2. To engage public appreciation for, and connection with, visual arts in all their forms;
3. To provide stronger and stable support to artists and to the individuals and institutions that present, preserve and interpret the work they create;
4. To establish a dedicated fund for the payment of artists for the public exhibition of their works;
5. To increase investment in arts education for all ages and from all levels of government;
6. To provide dedicated support for Aboriginal arts; and
7. To recognize and support the leading role of visual arts in strengthening Canada’s international profile.

We envision a Canada that embraces creativity in all its dimensions. We believe in art that challenges us, deepens our understanding, and bridges our differences. Visual arts build a more tolerant, diverse and creative world.
Show your support, sign the statement here, and forward the link to your colleagues:
www.petitiononline.com/visarts/petition.html

For more information:
Canadian Museums Association
613-567-0099
info@museums.ca
www.museums.ca
www.visualartssummit.ca

Summit Partners:
Aboriginal Curatorial Collective: www.aboriginalcuratorialcollective.org
Art Dealers Association of Canada: www.ad-ac.ca
Artist-Run Centres and Collectives Conference: www.arccc-cccaa.org
Canadian Artists’ Representation (CARFAC): www.carfac.ca
Canadian Education Association: www.cea-ace.ca
Canadian Museums Association: www.museums.ca
Canadian Art Museum Directors’ Organization: www.camdo.ca
Independent Media Arts Alliance: www.imaa.ca
Royal Canadian Academy of Arts: www.rca-arc.ca

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.