The following article was written by David Bezmozgis, a promising young writer and a member of the Union.

We artists like to accuse our politicians of being unsympathetic to the arts. In the vernacular, it's said that politicians simply don't "get" the arts. The current Ontario election campaign would appear to contradict this. Outfitted with statistics and figures, our politicians have praised the billions of dollars' worth of revenue generated by
the "artistic sector". The arts have been applauded for their role in fostering cultural vibrancy, creativity, and innovation. There's been a general consensus that a healthy society needs the arts. None of the candidates have, like the notorious Joseph Goebbels, heard the word culture and reached, even metaphorically, for their revolvers. Rather, all the parties have pledged varying degrees of support to the arts foundations, cultural institutions, and the ailing school system, where the province's children, lacking books and librarians - not to mention music, art, and drama teachers - have exhibited is concertingly low rates of literacy.

But if this is the case, why are so many of the province's artists still dissatisfied? Why is it that the broad range of the province's artists - from writers, to actors, to musicians - remain unhappy with the sitting government, and aren't particularly sanguine about the alternatives?

The reason has to do with the simple distinction between the amorphous,
feel-good entity called "the arts," and the concrete specificity of individual "artists." It is the difference between an "economic sector" and the people who comprise it. The problem is that all the gracious talk about the arts largely ignores the immediate needs of the artists themselves. And here, at the risk of losing every reader who is not an artist (and not a few artists), I will refer to something called "The Status of the Artist Act," a piece of legislation drafted in 1980 by UNESCO and intended to address the concerns of artists worldwide.

The Act basically asks that government recognizes and remedies certain hardships and inequalities peculiar to a career in the arts. Examples of these range from the protection of child performers, to some measure of assistance to poor senior artists. They include a provision to allow artists' guilds to negotiate for minimum standard contracts, and
another provision to end discriminatory tax practices against artists. (In essence, to stop taxing writers and artists like plumbers and dentists by making reasonable allowances for the extreme fluctuations in income characteristic of the profession.)

To date, the history of the Act's implementation in Canada hasn't been spectacular. A defanged version was brought into federal law in 1992. I do not exaggerate when I say that its passing did not improve the life of a single Canadian artist. In 2002, Saskatchewan passed its own iteration of the Act, remarkable for its utter lack of any tangible benefits. (It made me wonder just how many such empty gestures are on
the books in this country.) Then in March of 2007, the Ontario government formalized its own much-anticipated Status of the Artist Act. Embarrassed to offer nothing, it offered next to nothing. Reprising much of the language of the Saskatchewan legislation, it added one unique feature: "Celebrate the Artist Weekend." This honour was conferred on the first weekend in June, with the added clarification, lest anyone get too excited, that "a weekend is Saturday and Sunday."

Only one other province, Quebec, has ventured to ratify the Act.
Maybe it will come as no surprise that theirs is the only one that grants any practical advantages. I say maybe, because I've always believed that in terms of art and culture Quebec has demonstrated a marked advantage over the rest of Canada. Maybe it's because of their greater – say compulsive - preoccupation with nationalism and identity? Maybe it's a consequence of a more European approach to such matters? These two
things are, though not always benign, not mutually exclusive. Whatever the reason, the Quebec Act permits artists up to $30,000 of tax-free copyright income a year. It allows artists provincial tax relief in the form of income averaging over a period up to seven years. A further provision enables arts organizations to negotiate minimum standard
agreements on behalf of their members. In short, and in stark contrast to the rest of the country, it tries to level the proverbial playing field.

What relevance does this have for Ontario on the eve of the election? Over the past fifteen years, each one of the major parties has had the Opportunity to enact a meaningful form of the Status of the Artist Act and each has failed to do so. This time around, the Conservatives and the NDP have both promised to improve upon the current legislation,
but the issue hasn't been central to either party. And yet, a compelling fact is that roughly half of Canada's professional artists reside in Ontario. Many of the arts industries - publishing, film and television, dance, theatre - are based here as well. What this means
is that a change here could have a profound effect on the country as a whole. It could send a powerful message to the federal government. But for that to happen it would require a correction to the prevailing fallacy that one can advance the cultural priorities of a society without attending to the fundamental needs of its artists. In short, that one can separate the interests of the "arts sector" from those of the artists themselves.

Until this happens, Ontario's "Celebrate the Artist Weekend" will serve as a sad consolation to the artists it's supposed to celebrate. I recommend we spend that weekend in Quebec.

top