“Transcript of Phone Interview Between Graeme Dearden and Jason Foster”
Graeme Dearden: So, the first thing I was kind of wondering about was—well I was just reading an article recently that said during a recession arts funding is usually one of the first things to get cut. So I was kind of wondering whether or not you think that's actually something that should be happening or whether there should be other things ahead on the chopping block?
Jason Foster: Right. Well, I think my answer would be two-fold to that. One, is that it's true, usually when money is tight governments cut various support programs for artists and support for art, arts and culture programming, and arts and culture departments. I think they tend to sort of see it as low-hanging fruit that isn't quote-unquote essential. I think there's a bit of an error in that thinking though. Arts and culture funding tends to be quite modest. We're not talking big numbers here. And, so we think about the provincial budget that's going to come down tomorrow; six to seven billion dollars in deficit when we're talking about tens of millions of dollars of funding that goes to the arts from the provincial government, just as an example. So, really arts doesn't make or break the government books. So, there is kind of a false thinking there, but it's because they think this is a group that is not particularly effective at being able to rally political support for their endeavours. Outside of Quebec, anyway. Quebec is a bit of an exception.
So, ya it tends to be what they do; I think it tends to be bad thinking and partly the other piece of the puzzle—and I think this is what some of your question is trying to get around—is basically arts and culture is a significant contributor to the economy. And the reason why is that it's a highly efficient use of money. So, if you give a grant to an artist to produce some art or to a theatre troupe to produce a play, or whatever the form of art might be, that money—virtually one hundred percent—goes into the local economy and stays there. The artists use it obviously to keep a house over their head and feed themselves, but then if they're spending money on supplies; if they're a theatre company, they're spending money on actors; whatever it might be, that money is staying entirely within the economy. As is any revenue that that activity then generates. And so, people buy tickets to go see a play or a movie or whatever and that money too gets recirculated in the local economy, so it's actually a very efficient way to build a vibrant economic development. Which is even sort of setting aside all the important components of arts and culture in creating a viable and vibrant community that aren't monetized. Just having public art, or having creative spaces and people doing creative things makes our communities more interesting and dynamic places.
GD: So, is that kind of what a multiplier effect is? I keep hearing that term being thrown around and I'm never quite sure what it means. Is that kind of what it means? That, you know, somebody returns to the economy more than they take?
JF: Exactly. So, what it means is for every dollar of investment, x-number of dollars gets generated in the economy. It's an economist's term. And that's the number I don't have in front of me, but it wouldn't be too hard to find the multiplier effect for arts and culture, because it has been calculated.[1] And that spin off, and that multiplier, comes straight out of the jobs that get created from whatever the investment might be.
GD: Okay, and I was just recently reading an article that was talking about the multiplier effect, and how the government could just hire people to dig holes and that would be a similar thing [to hiring people to make artwork], but I didn't quite get that, because I thought digging holes wouldn't have as much of an inherent value as creating art work would, because it appreciates.[2] Is that true?
JF: Well partly and also the problem with digging holes is: well okay so you dig a hole, what then? Right? The whole point about multiplier effects is that you give a dollar to an artist to produce some art, if—for example— it's a theatre company, they'd then create jobs with that dollar, which then works its way through the economy, and if it's art, someone might buy that art and even if no one is buying the art, it's a public piece of art, it gets appreciated. The value comes of the fact that the thing that gets created from what you funded has value that is greater than the input that you put in. So, you give an artist a thousand dollars and they make some art, that art piece and the value to the community is going to be greater than a thousand dollars. It doesn't count for a hole; a hole doesn't increase value, it's just a hole. There is a multiplier effect, for example, to hire people to build needed public works.
One of the most interesting experiences in the twentieth century was in the 1930s with the Roosevelt New Deal in the United States. In addition to creating programs to build public works and to build public infrastructure to keep people employed, they actually had a whole program that paid artists to create art. To create plays and write and create public art, and they were doing it as a way of keeping artists employed. And so the 1930s ended up being a really vibrant period in terms of the creation of some public art that sustained itself for decades. And because it was being supported by the government, it kept these people out of poverty and it allowed them to do something that they were both passionate about and very talented at. So, there is an economic and a social argument for investment in arts and culture that's well supported.
GD: And, I know you don't have specific numbers in front of you, but is there many other Canadian industries that have that same type of appreciation for every dollar spent?
JF: Ya, there are. A lot of when economists do this, they do this to make a point for industries and sectors where their economic impact is less obvious. Like, no one makes this calculation for the oil sands. Because, no one needs to make the calculation for the oil sands, because everyone goes “oh, well it's creating jobs and creating value, right?” So they tend to do it for industries where it's harder to see it, and we see it in terms of child care, we see it in terms early intervention programs for children, there's lots of evidence around the value that that creates in society. Arts and culture is not unique in that, but I think it's an argument that worth talking about, because it gets lost. People talk about the aesthetic value of art, but the problem with only talking about the aesthetic value of art is that we lose that sense of what else it contributes to the economy. It's when you only talk about its merit on aesthetic terms that it becomes vulnerable to the argument that during hard times it should be one of the first things cut. Because, it's an extra. It's a frill. Ya, art's nice, but we don't need it in the same way we need healthcare.
The counter-argument is: well okay, it's true, we need healthcare more than art, because healthcare is about life and death, but healthcare is also worth hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of millions into arts and culture can produce lots.
GD: Ya, like by that logic the only thing we should be investing in is healthcare, rather than anything else.
JF: Exactly. So if we're gonna create a vibrant community, one of the essential pillars to building a vibrant society is having a healthy creative class. In its various forms.
GD: That makes perfect sense. The next thing I was kind of wondering about was, given the sort of economic climate right now, what do you think the likelihood is of the Liberals actually making good on their arts and culture policies in the next few years?
JF: It's a good question. This is what I would sort of think; I think there will be a couple of high-profile initiatives. One would be the CBC for example. And there will be some kind of effort to show that they are supportive of arts and culture, but I think anything substantive that will work its way down to actual working artists, I'm a little more skeptical.
It was a non-issue in the election. CBC became a bit of an issue, but in terms of sort of general arts and culture policy there just wasn't sufficient attention and so then there's not sufficient mobilization to kind of hold their feet to the fire on it and so, ya, I'm not personally feeling very hopeful that we'll see a ton of investments. I'm more hopeful on the provincial level to be honest. Both because it was explicitly in their platform and I think it's a government that has more direct connection to that kind of thinking about the value of arts and culture. So, I think there's more hope on a provincial level than on the federal level at this point.
GD: Ya, like recently I was just doing kind of a series of articles about the history of arts funding amongst the major federal parties, and the thing that I was surprised by was that there was even a platform released at all by the major parties this time around. The all released a tiny little one page statement and then kind of hid it in the back and that was the best we've got in the past few decades.
But, the other thing I was wondering about is—the last thing I was trying to get information about—given that there is so many other things that are in the fire right now, like the economy and election reform and climate change and things like that, do you think that the arts could, if there was a strong enough voice, be pushed to the forefront or do you think that's sort of foregone at this point?
JF: Uhm… I mean, I always think there's potential for it. I think it would be a daunting challenge. But, again because of, in relative terms, the number of dollars in the global scheme of federal budgets and government budgets, I think it would require some mobilization on the part of the artists and their supporters. But, it's not impossible. I think it would just take some political will and some political strategizing and acumen to say, “okay, we're gonna make sure this is an issue in the coming term.” So, it's always possible.
GD: That's hopeful!
Resources:
[1] “Portrait of the Arts in Canada: D) Contribution of the arts to Gross Domestic Product (GDP)” by The Canada Council for the Arts
http://canadacouncil.ca/council/resources/arts-promotion/arts-promo-kit/part1#partD
[2] “The economic imperative for investing in arts and culture” by Todd Hirsch
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/the-economic-imperative-for-investing-in-arts-and-culture/article10463290/
Other Related Links:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/turnout-in-federal-election-hits-685-per-cent-largest-since-1993-election/article26883906/?service=mobile
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/harper-gone-now-what-10-trudeau-promises-canadians-need-kept/
http://m.metronews.ca/#/article/features/justin-trudeau-promises/2015/10/22/tracking-5-of-justin-trudeaus-election-promises.html
https://www.trudeaumetre.ca
https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/
