When the Massey Commission began its enquiries in the spring of 1946, there was no world of Canadian arts and letters of the kind that existed in European Countries and the United States, or, for that matter, of the kind that has since developed in Canada. [...] The situation was partly due to the lack of interest on the part of most Canadians , still barely out of the pioneer age, in art. But even more it was due to the lack of the kind of infrastructure which transforms a scattering of people working in virtual isolation into a really functioning artistic and literary world that reaches out to audiences both urban and rural and in all regions. (p. 46-47)

In 1949 the average budget which the National Gallery could devote to purchases of all kinds, of which the work of living Canadian artists was only a part, was a mere $32,000, and other public galleries were faced by similar limitations of scope. At the same time there existed only a rudimentary network of private galleries, and by no means did all of these attempt to sell the works of living painters. (p. 49)

[The Massey Report] showed genuine wisdom in its assessment of the great cultural lacks of Canada in the late 1940s, and the scanty resources that existed to meet them. What impressed me perhaps more than anything else was the way the commission created its own bow wave of interest, not only looking into the needs, but making people think of them, so that by the time of the report's publication the idea that the community had a responsibility towards its arts and artists was accepted without serious opposition. (p. 50)

I have often heard it said that Vincent Massey was an elitist, and that the report was an elitist document. And so, if you think in such barren terms, it probably was. But in the cultural desert of Canada at that time a group of men and women was needed who could act the elitist role and decide what seemed to be good for the arts and suggest what was good for the arts was good for the country. (p. 51)

The upsurge in the arts that characterized the later 1950s was already beginning to stir, and it ran parallel to a postwar economic resurgence which made Canadians look more confidently and more adventurously on the future than they had done at any time since the 1880s, when the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway symbolized the emergence of a pan-Canadian economy which, then also, was accompanied by modest but genuine upsurges in poetry and the visual arts [...] There is no doubt that the success of the Arts Council in Britain encouraged not only the artists but also the politicians, who saw a lively artistic community as a national ornament...(p. 54)

In the speech to the throne on 8 January 1957, the establishment of the Canada Council was first proposed to Parliament, and shortly afterward St. Laurent himself introduced the bill establishing it, and in doing so laid down a principle that, despite the manoeuvres of later Liberal politicians, has mainly guided the council's actions, though lately with dwindling confidence. "Government should, I feel, support the cultural development of the nation, but not attemp to control it." [...] The council, formalized when royal assent was given to the Canada Council Act on 28 March, 1957, was established to "foster and promote the study and enjoyment of, and the production of works in the arts, humanities, and social sciences," and a measure of independence was guaranteed. The council was to set its own policies and make its own decisions within the terms of the act, reporting to Parliament through an appropriate minister... (p. 56)

The history of the Canada Council has been one of finding its way through a changing artistic situation, which has involved over the decades a moving away from imperial models, and a need to cope with the kinds of pressures, often indirectly applied but not for that reason any less irksome, that emerge when politicians confuse art with politics and talk of the democratization of culture, or when bureaucrats attempt to impose on the arts the attitudes of the marketplace and to treat the arts as "cultural industries." (p. 57)

Dear Colleague,

Thank you very much for your letter, which articulates your opinions about the proposed changes to the Grants to Professional Artists: Creation/Production program. We welcome your views, and will take them into consideration before any new program receives final approval.

Let me explain why the Canada Council must review its program of assistance to visual artists. Considering the current situation, in which the success rate is one in ten, the peer assessment committees have repeatedly noted that they cannot recommend grants to all of the artists deemed excellent in a given competition. Of 2,400 requests, the Council was able last year to offer only 220 grants. The Council has lost its capacity to be generous and is therefore less able to support the ³development of the practice², the purpose of the current program as stated 40 years ago. Even the largest grants barely cover production costs. It has become clear that the Visual Arts Sectionıs resources are not adequate to support all excellent individual artists on a regular basis at anything approaching adequate grant levels. We decided some time ago that it was essential to determine how Councilıs current funding can be made most useful to artists at key moments in their practice and career, and we are reviewing our program accordingly. Of course the Council is also seeking all opportunities to increase its parliamentary appropriation and thus its overall support to artists.

Recently, incorrect information has been circulating, and I would like to correct three major points. First, this revision does not impact the program budget; it will remain the same. Furthermore, if the overall Section budget is increased, this new program will be given a high priority to receive additional funds. Second, the revised Grants to Professional Artists program is not being implemented in January 2005. The final version of the new program, once it is approved by the Board of Council, will be implemented gradually, likely beginning in September 2005. Last, in the revised program, you will notice that assistance to creation is maintained. The purpose of the new program is to determine those key moments in a visual artistıs practice and career at which Council funding may be the most opportune. We believe that this is the case when there is an upcoming exhibition. This has created concerns in the community, and we will take great care to ensure that different points of view on this issue are considered before finalizing the program.

We also feel that it is important to provide you with some background as to the process of this revision. As you may be aware, the Visual Arts Section began a formal review of the Creation/Production program in 2003. Last winter, we organized discussion groups with over 250 visual artists in 12 cities across Canada and also received feedback through our web consultation. This was Phase I of the process. After these group discussions, we drafted a proposed new program for the Grants to Professional Visual Artists program. This fall, we presented the revised program to groups in 13 cities across the country, as Phase II of the consultation. The purpose of the consultation was to present the draft, as a starting point for community feedback. For details concerning Phases I and II and an overview of the proposed program, please refer to our website: www.canadacouncil.ca/visualarts/ under the link entitled, ³National Consultations with the Visual Arts Community².

Our next step is to bring together all responses from the meetings as well as the comments submitted through e-mail, letters or the web. After reviewing the reactions from the community, we will be engaged in a process of in-depth, Council-wide discussion and reflection over the next few months. In addition, we will be holding a special advisory committee composed of visual arts professionals which will have a mandate to make recommendations to the Visual Arts Section.

In Phase II of the consultation, it became obvious that we needed more time to discuss this program revision. Therefore, the April 2005 deadline for the current Grants to Professional Artists: Creation/Production program will be maintained.

Again, I would like to thank you for taking the time to write; it is important and appreciated. We want to proceed with the proposed changes carefully, considering all the views of the community we serve.

Sincerely,

François Lachapelle
Head, Visual Arts Section

- sally mckay 12-10-2004 6:44 pm

weasel words.
- L.M. 12-12-2004 1:20 am

Hey there LM ... To my mind there are hree things lacking in this letter: 1) an indication of WHY there is not enough money in the pot for CC to carry out its mandate, 2) an explanation of the generational heirarchy that the new system sets up, and 3) expressed enthusiasm for contemporary Canadian art. Admittedly these are big things, but otherwise it sounds kind of reasonable and un-weasely to me. Am I missing something?

- sally mckay 12-12-2004 2:17 am

Well your point #2 is the big one for me, Sal. (Sadly, I've learned not to expect point #3 from any arts administrators, but am delighted when it is apparent).

In the move away from the peer jury system, we will now be judged on our careers as they are defined by a gallery system, not as they are defined by artistic accomplishment. (An idiotic measurement of position will also come into the equation.)

Bureaucracies love their plans, they aren't going to change them much.
- L.M. 12-12-2004 9:25 pm

FUSE Magazine has joined the fray, with an open letter posted on the front page of their website. They make another good point:

"...we’d also like to know why the Council feels it has been ‘generous’ in the past — does the Canada Council not exist to support the arts? If so, then why are past grants being described as tokens of generosity?"

This kind of gets at the crux of the matter, no? The Massey Commission recommended putting gov't money into art as a kind of public service that was good for one and all, like keeping up the roads and schools. Trudeau beefed up the "national identity" concept, which disturbed people who felt that state-funded art was by default co-opted into political agendas. But nowadays who, besides disgraced Sheila Copps, is gonna venture to say out loud in public that art is maybe good for society? Even the CC's Head of Visual Arts is talking like the Canada Council is some kind of welfare office for a burgeoning, clamouring mob of unpopular cultural freaks.

- sally mckay 12-23-2004 6:24 pm