new band...kinda

Man, have I ever lost interest in talking about art. I mean, after a while it just sounds like complaining. Probably because it is.

So, I’m writing songs for a band that doesn’t exist that I want to play in. I do this a lot. Well, ok, I do it every once in a while, but it feels like a lot. Once in a while I put the band together, but quite often I don’t. This can be for any number of reasons. 1. Laziness. 2. Doubt. 3. The stuff turns out to be crap once I stop romanticizing the idea of the band and actually listen to what I’m writing. 4. Other.

I’ve got four tunes-in-progress for the new band. They’re called newband1, newband2, newband3, and newband4. I’m a song naming genius. One of them is really close to finished. This is usually when I stop listening to what I’m writing and put down whatever because I just want to finish the thing so I can get the rush of finishing the thing. I’m trying to be patient.

I’ve been listening to Todd Sickafoose lately. I’m crediting him for the inspiration to write these four tunes. Much like Nels Cline earlier, although I only got one tune out of him. I know this is a segueway into some sort of review, but I really don’t feel like doing that. Go buy it on itunes. It’s called Tiny Resistors.

Classical music at the CBC

The CBC shouldn’t be playing anything that can be found on other stations. Regardless of genre, it’s easy to find it elsewhere on the dial or (if you have it) the internet. The CBC doesn’t need to be playing it. What it does need to do, based on its mandate and for the health of Canadian culture, is promote Canadian culture regionally and nationally. And the government should be proud to fund and promote it. Period.

Of course, in terms of Canadian contemporary classical composers that means 20th and 21st century repertoire exclusively. Is there an audience for that? There should be, but because people only seem to want what they can find on other stations, the CBC doesn’t program it. And don’t even bother mentioning Two New Hours. Two hours a week? And now they’ve cut that because they’re trying to compete with other radio stations. And yelling about classical music just makes them think ‘audience’, which perpetuates the problem. How about just focusing on helping Canadian artists do their work?

Ideally, the government, through the CBC, should be communicating the idea that Canadian culture is worth promoting, and if there’s no audience, so what? Keep promoting it, make it cool and cutting edge, and the audience will come. We will have something we can be proud of.
Relegating classical programming exclusively to the middle of the day is a problem. An hour in the morning and a one or two hour drive home show seems more reasonable. And up from four hours to six means representation late at night and early morning. Having said that, if we’re promoting Canadian classical music (think Two New Hours), then maybe six hours a day is too much. Not for me, because we’d wind up hearing a wide range of really interesting stuff, from avante-garde to mainstream to different types of fusions, interesting interviews, etc. Unfortunately, because the CBC thinks it has to play Mozart, et al (which, again, can easily be found on other stations) in order to get funding, we don’t receive that benefit.

The idea here is to support a living Canadian culture, not European museum culture. Don’t get me wrong; I love most eras of what we call “classical music”. But when I want to listen to it, I get out a CD and put it on. I don’t depend on the CBC to do it for me, because that’s not what they exist for. And by that, I mean that it’s not within their mandate to play the music of dead white Europeans, as great as that music is. Their mandate is to play the music of living (and dead) Canadians. The more Brahms, Mozart and Beethoven they play, the less they’re doing their job.

Perhaps we should be agitating for quality, cutting edge material from any and all genres representing Canadian culture instead of complaining about less classical music. The knock against “soft-pop” and “sort-of jazz” is snobbery. The people producing a lot of this stuff are hard-working musicians, not manufactured pop princesses and princes (Avril excepted). Of course, just like classical music, the CBC is playing that stuff for the sake of an audience which already has better options on the dial.

And, by the way, “wreaking havoc on the Canadian Classical music scene” is going a bit far. It’s not like all of us musicians are going to roll over and die, or chamber groups and orchestras are going to throw in the towel, or all the contemporary composers are going to quit doing what they do. As a working, regularly commissioned composer and professional performer, I have neither sought nor received support from the CBC (although I did get paid as a sideman for a CBC recording once; good money, too).

We might want to think about putting energy into a sustained letter writing campaign to the federal government demanding more funding rather than attacking the CBC for trying to survive. Reminding the government that they’re responsibility is to promote and encourage the production of Canadian culture regardless of audience seems to me a more constructive approach than complaining that the CBC isn’t playing what some other radio station is already playing. Do we really think that what Canadian artists produce is so crappy that there will be no audience for it?

Potholes

Bear with me here. I’m about to start rambling.

The federal government has given 33 billion over 7 years to cities in Canada for infrastructure. Fine, but what does it mean?

I think most people would say that you get to qualify as a city if there are more than 100,000 people in the immediate area. If that’s the definition we’re using, there are 48 cities in Canada.

But I don’t think that that’s the federal government’s definition of a city, so I’ll go with the 16 major cities.

33 billion divided by 7 years equals 4.7 billion a year. 4.7 billion a year divided by 16 cities equals 2.9 million per year per city.

Now here’s the definition of infrastructure:
The basic facilities, services, and installations needed for the functioning of a community or society, such as transportation and communications systems, water and power lines, and public institutions including schools, post offices, and prisons.

Jim Flaherty says the federal government “isn’t in the pothole business.” That’s a good thing because, since it probably costs more than 2.9 million to fix all the potholes in a city in a year, they’d be doing a crappy job. I guess the communications systems, water and power lines, and public institutions including schools, post offices, and prisons are going to have to suck it up for now.

Now, of course, whenever I read about government funding I naturally think about the arts. Ever the whiner, I wonder why the arts aren’t being considered. In this context, I suppose it’s because it doesn’t make sense. This is about infrastructure; the arts has its own funding programs which we get to whine about all the time. I actually think that governments are trying to support the arts, but they don’t seem to take the following information into account and provide a leadership role by making sure that the creative/knowledge sector of the economy is properly supported.

John Mahon of the Edmonton Arts Council has outlined economic impact of arts and culture, which includes expenditures of $82.5 million on the Greater Edmonton Region and $116.6 million on the province of Alberta (numbers based on 101 arts and festival organizations that applied for operating grants from the City of Edmonton in 2000 and representing only a portion of the possible economic impact). Every city can tell this same story.

According to Mahon, “Communities have integrated the arts into their economic development arsenal to achieve a wide range of direct an indirect economic goals:
They leverage human capital and cultural resources to generate economic vitality in under-performing regions through tourism, crafts, and cultural attractions;
They restore and revitalize communities by serving as a centerpiece for downtown redevelopment and cultural renewal;
They improve quality of life, expand the business and tax revenue, and create a positive community image; and
They make communities more attractive to highly desirable, knowledge-based employees thus stimulating new forms of knowledge-intensive production to flourish.”
“contribute to the economy, generating billions of dollars on investment and expenditure on facilities, equipment, hotels, restaurants, tickets, clothing, transportation, tourism and attract business, industry and a skilled labour force.
Apart from the economic benefits, the arts contribute to livable cities in a number of ways:
“They create social cohesion by engaging large numbers of people in the process of art as participants and artists. The arts contribute to the beautification and attractiveness of cities through festivals, arts centres, environmental and architectural arts, and landscaping…This enhances the uniqueness and personality of cities.” (Meric Gertler. Canadian Policy Research Networks)

What do I mean by properly supported? I mean more than the horse racing industry here in Alberta (there are different numbers thrown around here: 47 million dollar grant for the horses earlier in the decade; 57 million this year. In contrast, the Alberta Foundation for the Arts is getting 27 million this year)

I think that it’s pretty obvious that arts and culture provide a more sustainable economic strategy than horse racing. What contributes more to creating a great city? Art and culture or gambling on horses?

There’s being short-sighted and then there’s being stupid. Which quality do you think is most noticeable in this particular scenario? I think it’s pretty clear that they’re both there, but which one really jumps out at you?

More money, please.

The Creative City part 2

Part 2 – Making it Work: a paraphrase of Antonini Simeti’s essay, The Creative City: Moving form Ideas to Planning Practice

This all sounds great. But in order to make it work, we have to understand the complexities involved. Patting ourselves on the back for having a good idea is dangerous. Let’s think about this carefully and move through the process with the level of awareness and discernment it deserves

First, people are generally resistant to change and wary of risk. Risk implies the possibility of failure, and failure doesn’t sit well in political or bureaucratic circles. The creative city asks not only that a new idea be implemented, but that a whole new way of working be implemented. Who wants to take that on? Persuasive arguments relentlessly applied are necessary, but so are ways of implementing them, and explaining them clearly, in the face of resistance. And there will be lots of resistance.

Organization by those involved – local politicians and advisory boards – is key. Nothing will get done if duties and timelines aren’t absolutely clear. If an advisory board is employed, what is its stated function? Is it simply direction or will it, can it, be involved in implementation?

Given that this is an entirely new way of addressing a problem, old ideas may not work. This is where some degree of risk is necessary. Without a centrally mandated set of prescriptions, people will naturally fall back on old ways of doing things like looking for sources of funding or working within the same old framework. What are realistic expectations for getting things done? How long will each initiative take? Who should be involved? Should the community of decision-makers be widened or will a centralized decision-making structure work?

The creative city concept is influenced strongly by Richard Florida’s book, “The Rise of the Creative Class” which, while an effective document, has to be considered in light of its inherent class bias. Social equity must be stressed if a creative city concept can be implemented effectively over time. Focus on a creative class argument can create perceptions that run counter to issues of poverty, crime, and lack of jobs, economic development and planning needs of a community. The fact that the creative city is not exclusionary and does, in fact, address these issues doesn’t mean that people will naturally see it that way unless effort is put into demonstrating the facts and the intentions.

One way to address the social equity issue is to include marginalized communities in the process and not just as a marketing strategy. Those working in sectors not traditionally considered part of the creative sector must also be involved and efforts must be made to demonstrate how their work is, or can be, creative. Creativity means autonomy and most people want a say in how their lives are structured. This is crucial and an examination of a city’s tradition of social and cultural openness is needed.

The logistical complexity of including a varied group of participants in the decision-making process can be daunting, but also complicating the process is the variety of backgrounds and values. References like “long-haired public artist types” or “suits from city hall” point to real problems in listening and working together. These prejudices need to exposed and dealt with from the beginning of the process.

A creative city approach is not a quick fix, but a complex reframing of planning practice that requires time. Immediate, highly visible results are not the answer and this is a huge problem for a lot of people. Long term planning is essential and this falls outside of traditional economic practice, where it makes more sense to attract corporations that provide jobs rather than amenities that attract the people (ie. creative) that high-value companies are looking for. This means that new measures for success must be found.

Any city can use the creative city initiative to define or re-define itself, creating in the process, clearly identifiable assets that can produce a competitive edge and attract new people and investment. It can be used as a tool for assessment of strengths and identity and for understanding where economic potentials lie.

It must be remembered that a prescriptive model runs contrary to the ideas of the movement. Planners need to know their city deeply and understand its unique strengths and weaknesses. Implementing an inappropriate economic agenda can do more harm than good. Having said that, it should be obvious that a creative approach, which clearly supports the emerging economy, has to be taken into account and be part of the process. How that happens will change from city to city.

The Creative City part 1

Part 1

The creative city is something a lot of people have been thinking about for quite some time now. They usually focus on the knowledge economy when talking about it and how it will play a central role in emerging economies.

Since I consider myself to be a creative worker with some heavy investment in this idea working, I want to agree with everything these people say. And I do, but let’s not assume it will easy. There’s a lot of work to do and a lot of complexities to deal with in order to make it work.

“Ideas will be the most valuable resource in the market place.” This gets said a lot. But haven’t they always been? What have ideas created in terms of driving the economy? Let’s see: TV, radio, electricity, everything. Recognizing this as the truth should be a no-brainer. Why do these things even need to be said, that ideas are responsible for breaking the boundaries, that they are essential for both economic growth and prosperity and the wider, deeper qualities of culture and spiritual well-being that make life exciting and worthwhile?

“As we make the transition from a commodity-based economy to a knowledge-based
economy we must recognise the value of the arts.” Another no-brainer. The arts sector is about ideas, can’t survive without them, and so it has a special reason for learning how to develop them. Let’s not forget all the other creative workers: scientists, architects, teachers, factory workers (if their bosses allow them to be). Really, everyone should be involved if it has any chance of working.

“A lively arts sector helps create a vibrant cultural environment which is attractive to the creative thinkers, innovators and knowledge-economy entrepreneurs.” And everyone else, in one way or another

The internet has eliminated the relevance of location and distance. We live with everyone, we help everyone, we compete with everyone. This is the way it is; old ideas will no longer work in this world.

For the city and for the arts community, the arts can also have a wide community
impact:
Artists are people who use imagination to explore the realms of what is possible
and many artists use these skills to contribute outside of their specific area of
artistic activity.
A vibrant arts scene is part of what makes a city attractive to the new breed of
knowledge-economy entrepreneurs and participants. In a global economy Edmonton’s
competitors are not Calgary or Red Deer. They are Toronto, Sydney, San
Francisco.
· A creative city values the arts for their intrinsic value, provides opportunities for artists to contribute their skills into the wider community, and recognises that a vibrant arts community is part of what makes an environment conducive to a flourishing knowledge economy.
Artists and creative-sector workers work in what are often considered traditional
sector forms (service and manufacturing industries),and their skills are highly transferable into these sectors. Tbese transferable skills and talents are developed and refined in a field of practice (e.g. art making)—and can be utilised in these other fields to bring innovative practice and products to the market.

Recent writing likes to tell us that the future is characterised by accelerating change and unpredictability, but of course it always has been, and it has always been creative thinkers that have been used to meet these challenges. I find it amusing that people are now using the word creative to describe these people. I suppose, on the other hand, that they always have, but it seems that only now are artists actually being looked at (albeit from out of the corner of our eyes) as a resource for expanding the economy.

The arts also function in the present, in the ‘real world’. Together arts practitioners
and arts organisations, and their products and services, are economic
agents in the economy. Through these cultural enterprises the arts contribute to the
economic as well as the cultural life of the city.

In short the arts are significant employers and generators of revenue; and increasingly
important in export earnings. The arts are major drivers of related industry earnings
through fields such as cultural tourism, where they provide cultural experiences for
domestic and international tourists thus forming an increasingly important part of the
regional tourism industry and of regional tourism branding.

Information, learning and technology are the most commonly recognised elements of
this new economy. But knowledge driving economic performance is also dependent
on creativity and innovation. Creativity and innovation have become watchwords in
contemporary understandings of this ‘new economy’. Human cleverness and
imagination are the new resources; creativity the pre-condition from which innovation
develops; innovation the realisation of a new idea in practice.





So what does the creative sector include? How about:
fashion
architecture
landscape architecture
visual arts
object makers
design
designer fashion
film
heritage
music
television and radio
performing arts
literature and publishing
software
interactive leisure software
animation
website design

As well as the construction worker who recognizes a better way of performing a task or a way of boosting morale in the work-place, the factory worker who finds a more efficient way of moving product down the line or of better tool design. If we forget about these people and their very real contribution to the creative city concept, the movement will die.

Since the economy is changing, it makes sense to assume new ways to think about it. One of those ways is to think about the contribution of micro-businesses responsible for much creative development. The independent theatre sector, fashion initiatives, and individual visual artists, choreographers or writers are relevant examples. Nobody is going to forget about theatre and opera companies, art museums, film companies and large television networks which most people tend to see as the most important face of the creative sector.

Creative sector markets are growing and diversifying and analysts are starting to realize that content creation is becoming more important (distribution is currently more profit-making), and that this content will increasingly be used in other industries (music and visual art in computer applications is an obvious example).

The aim of economic development is to generate so-called dynamic efficiencies.
Dynamic efficiencies are created by positive externalities—things that happen through
the process of production, such as linked learning, or development of human intellectual
capital, or development of a market. Such positive externalities are also called spillover
effects, in that they “spill-over” to others and to other activities. Economies that are
dynamically efficient grow—those that don’t can get caught in the trap of a low growth
equilibrium.


Much of what creates positive externalities sits squarely in the knowledge economy;
much of it is human capital and much of human capital comes from tacit knowledge,
the knowledge that is learnt from doing and experience. Tacit knowledge is ‘in built’ knowledge built up over years. The application of tacit knowledge results in products that cannot be readily imitated by competitors and is a key factor in providing competitive advantage.

Polar Bears

I have this image in my mind of polar bears, lots of them, floating on the Arctic Ocean, each on their own personal ice floe and wondering at the warmth as their ice floes get smaller and smaller and finally disappear, leaving them swimming in search of land. This image is both absurd and quite moving to me. The absurdity of the image exists in tension with the reality of our time. And what can art do about it anyway?
Well, as it happens, artists have also been placing their energies on environmental concerns for a awhile. In fact, artists have been well ahead of the curve in this regard with the eco-arts movement being around since the 1960s. The role of art in sustainability isn’t trivial.
Much of the following has been pulled off the Creative Cities Network of Canada website. Check it out. (http://www.creativecity.ca/index.html)
Some artists find inspiration from the environment, while others use art to tackle critical environmental issues. In recent years, relationships between artists and environmentalists have grown stronger, and there has been an increase of creative projects and educational programs.
Eco-arts projects are often collaborations initiated by artists, environmental groups, local musicians, or communities, and they tend to be connected to local concerns over pollution and other specific environmental issues. Artists who are engaged in cultural sustainability often see their creative projects as an environmental practice.
Cultural sustainability, supported by the eco-arts movement, includes the following:
· Retaining and preserving heritage buildings
· Supporting ecologically sustainable art products and services
· Promoting environment-friendly craft products
· Using under-utilized space for arts activity
· Disseminating information on environmental sustainability through arts activities
· Protecting Canadian green space and parks
· Informing community residents about environmental issues and problems facing the globe through art
There are people out there who think that all artists do is hide in their room making stuff. Well ok, some of them do. But an awful lot of them are out there doing whatever it is they do to make things better.
And some of us are thinking about polar bears…

Just Pay Me

There’s an old joke that goes like this: An entrepreneur is having a grand opening for his new store and decides that it would be a good idea to have musicians play for it. He phones the local union to see if he can find someone to do it and the union rep asks how much he’s willing to pay. The entrepreneur says, “Oh, I was thinking that they could do it for the exposure,” to which the union rep responds, “Well, you know, musicians have been known to die of exposure.”

What is it about a culture that doesn’t appreciate the arts (specifically music in this case) enough to offer what it would offer any other profession? Why do people assume you’ll play for free, saying things like, “I thought you enjoyed playing music?” Just because I enjoy doing what I’ve trained myself for over 30 years to do, means I’ll do it for free. I have to assume that doctors, lawyers, psychologists and other highly trained people (and musicians fall into that category) enjoy what they do. Why do I have to put up with being paid $80 (union minimum) for three hours of work when the above mentioned make over $300 for the same amount of time?

There’s an easy answer: music (and all the arts) is seen as unnecessary. Still. In the face of evidence that’s been around for years demonstrating how art drives the emerging creative/knowledge-based economies around the world, people retain this attitude.

Here’s some numbers and some rationale supporting the arts as outlined by John Mahon of the Edmonton Arts Council, which includes expenditures of $82.5 million on the Greater Edmonton Region and $116.6 million on the province of Alberta (numbers based on 101 arts and festival organizations that applied for operating grants from the City of Edmonton in 2000 and representing only a portion of the possible economic impact) According to Mahon, “Communities have integrated the arts into their economic development arsenal to achieve a wide range of direct an indirect economic goals:
They leverage human capital and cultural resources to generate economic vitality in under-performing regions through tourism, crafts, and cultural attractions;
They restore and revitalize communities by serving as a centerpiece for downtown redevelopment and cultural renewal;
They improve quality of life, expand the business and tax revenue, and create a positive community image; and
They make communities more attractive to highly desirable, knowledge-based employees thus stimulating new forms of knowledge-intensive production to flourish.”
And from Meric Gertler in a Canadian Policy Research Networks publication:
They contribute to the economy, generating billions of dollars on investment and expenditure on facilities, equipment, hotels, restaurants, tickets, clothing, transportation, tourism and attract business, industry and a skilled labour force.

No Music Day

Bill Drummond, conceptual artist and former rock star from the UK, has created something he calls No Music Day (November 21) and it’s been happening for three years now. Check out the website: nomusicday.com.

Reaction is mainly positive with remarks commenting on the creation of music as commercial product devoid of any real meaning, that the commercialization of music has reached a saturation point: there’s too much and it’s too easily available. That and the fact that we have to listen to a lot of music that we don’t choose to in the form of Muzak, the band next door rehearsing, music bleeding onto the sidewalk from storefronts, the CBC playing random tunes on talk radio, etc.

Personally, I feel that a lot of people (if not most) take music, and art in general, for granted. I don’t think that a day is long enough and I don’t think eliminating music goes far enough. It should be a week (a month!) long and all things art or connected with art should be eliminated.

No music anywhere, art galleries closed and tarped (don’t want to be looking in the windows), architectural beauty covered, theatres closed, no movies, video stores closed, fashion shows cancelled, radio and tv stations turned off (some of what occurs on tv and radio can pass as art so it all has to go; except for information channels, I suppose), no bands in clubs, etc. Make your own list. And then…

Keep track of world events during that week. I’d stay inside myself, since there’d probably be a spike in violent crime and alcohol intake. But I get the feeling that, after a few days, people (some at least) would start making their own art. Or crafts. Or something. If you’re not allowed to be an audience then you’ll have to be a creator. The void has to be filled and getting drunk and hurting yourself and others is only fun for so long.

Now we just need a name for it. “No Art Week” is boring. How about “Life Sucks Week”? Or “Thank God I Have Friends, I Wish We Had Something Meaningful To Do Week” followed by “Oh, Wait We Can Make Art Week”? But I’m sure everyone can make up their own name for it. Do it. It’ll be fun. It’s like being creative or something.