Goodbye white boots.

I have been, it seems, a truly pathetic blogger. It has been more than a year since I last posted anything. It's not that I haven't been writing, I have. I just haven't been posting.

But, today, this evening, I am having a problem with these boots.

The real problem is that I am what polite society would call a pack rat. It could be said that I exhibit the tendencies that would make me ripe for becoming a hoarder. It might even be said that I have demonstrated issues with letting things go. Some might go so far as to say that I affix irrational sentiment to things. All of those things would be true.

Which bring us, or me, to these damn boots. The are not regular boots you see. They are Sorels. And, not just regular Sorels. They are the kind they don't make any more, for true Arctic conditions. They are white, and, unlike most Sorels, do not have that full rubber boot bottom with a fabric top. Instead, they are almost all fabric have a super-soft white rubber tread, with soft rubber cleats that, in extremely cold weather, remain pliable, and grippy. They are far to warm for these southern conditions, and they are no good in slush and wet snow. Indeed, I've replaced them with the fully insulated rubber boot style of winter boot, like fishermen wear. These new boots are perfect for PEI. My feet stay warm and dry, even in a foot of salty slush. The old boots wouldn't stand a chance in those conditions. But they weren't made for it.

What those old boots are, to me, is the embodiment of many, many good memories. They are stained with caribou blood from going on hunts with my friends back in Naujat (that's Repluse Bay on our maps). One has a small tear on one side from where I got it caught on a skidoo tread. The owner of that skidoo was the grandson of the first Hudson Bay company trader to man that station. He was also the best hunter in town, and proudly wore a full polar bear set of winter clothing when travelling or hunting.

I got lost for a short while when I borrowed my friend Richard's rifle and skidoo for my first solo trip. I found myself and got home safely after a bit of a scare. I used what they'd taught me. I learned to pay more attention.

When Paul, who teased me constantly, began to tease me about how kablunaq can't shoot straight, and how he'd been the one to actually shoot all the caribou, I asked him for his rifle and nailed a tiny exposed rock at 200 yards in one shot. He had a beautiful stainless bolt action rifle chambered in Winchester .270. His scope was sighted in perfectly. I remember with perfect clarity the exhale and the steadying pause... before I pulled the trigger. Paul didn't tease me again.

I lay on frozen lakes with ice five, and six, and seven feet thick, my face over a hole we'd chiselled into that ice, taking turns when we were winded. My breath blowing onto the water that had rushed to the top of that hole when we had broken through the bottom and my hood pulled over to keep that heat in, to keep the water from freezing. Of course, it would freeze over, quickly, so I'd pull my hand from my seal skin mittens, and skim of the ice, so that I could peer into that crystal clear water, and see my lure, and see the fish, and jerk the lure just the right moment, and pull up a fat Arctic char.

All of these things I did in these boots.

Their condition is such that I would not take them were I ever to return to the North. They are not saleable. They are meaningful only to me. And now it is time for them to go and there is a physical resistance, even pain, to considering their departure.

Have a transferred enough of those memories, from those boots to these pixels on a screen? I hope so.

The insulating layers inside are worn thin from walking across treeless tundras so silent it was deafening.

Goodbye white boots.

Coulter, Free Speech, and a whole lot of nonsense.

While most of the damage is done, I'd like to think that Canadian, on the whole, are well capable of learning from this sort of mistake.

To that end, I've been wondering why nobody seems to be talking about the difference between inviting someone such as Anne Coulter to a debate, and inviting them to simply speak. Even with an attached Q&A period, there are vast differences between the two.

I simply adore a good debate. I'm not much of a debater myself (although some would argue that), but I have long enjoyed the formal format of the debate and it's ability to both allow for ideas to be expressed, and, moments later, allow for those same ideas to be questioned. A good debate might be considered to be one of the highest forms of human communications.

What baffles me is when an organization or institution seems to forget all about such a format and blithely invites contentious speakers under the general heading (and I simplify greatly) "We believe in Free Speech". Well, so do I, but I wouldn't want Coulter speaking to my kids without reasoned opposition at the same time. Nor would I want someone from the extreme left having the same access, again, without reasoned opposition from the other side. And that means a debate.

I cannot help but think that if organizers or officials had taken some time and energy to invite Coulter to a proper debate, the host institutions, their students and faculty, and citizens alike would have been glued to the proceedings. Some to see if Coulter would hold her own, some to see if her arguments would fall apart, some just to enjoy the spectacle. But the need for protest would have been largely, and appropriately, negated.

It is important for all of us to hear the voices of left, right, and centre. Sometime it's more important still to hear, or at least be aware of the voices that fall more to the extremes, as to think that these voices don't have followers is to be unbelievably naive. How better to understand the scope of belief systems operating on the continent than to hear those voices out... and hear them challenged at the same time.

When we do as we have done, we invite the systems in place to fail. We invite the protest, we invite the shrieking from the soapbox. And now, what was really a couple of hundred protester has turned into two thousand protesters threatening with "rocks and sticks". A little planning and wisdom could have showed Coulter for what she is. Instead, we handed the right-wing a couple boxes of ammunition. And more ammunition is the last thing the right-wing needs.

To close, I'll invite you to view a little bit of Coulter...  Enjoy.



And here's an interesting bit:



Really, you can find whatever you need about Anne Coulter with a quick Google or YouTube search. You don't need a speech at a University.

Calling all artists: GET THE FLU SHOT

For whatever it's worth, this is my call to action to try to encourage all artists to get their H1N1 flu vaccine shot. With conspiracy theories zinging about the internet with all the fury of a balloon boy hoax it seems that more and more people are buying into unsubstantiated hype, and fewer and fewer people are making informed decisions based on the available facts.

Well here are some facts regarding the arts community:

Artists tend to be among the poorer elements of the population - and their low income level is significantly chronic. This is reflected in their ability to get, and maintain, a high level of health care, and their ability to follow up that care with prescription medications and other ancillary care. Most do not have drug or comprehensive health and dental care.

This is significant enough that when I have tried to arrange group coverage for arts communities, the insurers have been hesitant for precisely these reasons. On the whole, artists tend to have more complicated (read expensive) health issues as many issues have gone undiagnosed or untreated. It is community that scares them. So, for many artists, their health may already be somewhat compromised by way of economic circumstance.

Among artists, and economically speaking, women are particularly hard it, according to available statistics. Certainly, and quite sadly, women artists are among the lowest income earners, particularly here on Prince Edward Island. At the very same time, women seem to be amongst the most vulnerable to H1N1.

Not only that, but many of the people in the arts community, especially those in the high risk demographics, have families and children to support and care for. If they become ill, this could have a devastating impact on their families ability to simply make ends meet.

And so, I am calling upon every member of the arts community to get the H1N1 vaccine. I don't want to see anyone in this community fall seriously ill, let alone, perish. I also don't want to see anyone from this community spreading this virus amongst the community, and potentially endangering someone whose health may already be compromised, and whose family is relying on them.

In short, do your part, and help protect yourself and our community.

Theological discussion between me and my six-year old

So, today, I picked up my six-year old after school and was taking him to the shops to look for a proper fall jacket. On the way, we were listening to Beck (the iPhone was on shuffle) and one of his lyrics contained the word "afterlife".

L. "What's afterlife?"

Me "For some people, it's where they believe your spirit goes after a person dies... when they are old."

L. "Is that what you believe?"

Me. "I don't know what I believe - I do think that maybe part of your spirit does keep going after your body dies - but I don't know for sure. Nobody knows for sure. I think that part of you lives on in all the people you've loved."

L. "Do other people believe that?"

Me "Lots of people believe in lots of things. Some people believe in god, some people don't. Some people believe in lots of gods, some people don't. Some people believe in fairies, some people don't. That's the good thing about being a human. You get to decide what you want to believe in, and nobody can tell you your wrong."

L. (long pause) "But we all believe in Santa Claus... right?"

Me "Of course. Santa Claus isn't even up for discussion... we ALL believe in Santa."

L. [with big smile] "OK" [returns to his dot-to-dot book]

End of Discussion

A Canadian Story - Part I

Those reading this on Facebook will recall that, on the day my Grandmother passed away recently, I said I might write down some of the stories she shared with me. I've been putting it off, perhaps because I fear not doing the stories justice, or that I'll forget parts, or tell them incorrectly. At the same time, part of me knows that if I don't write these, nobody else will, and these stories will be lost. Forever.

So, for better or for worse, here's my best shot. The stories are short, but, to me, tell of important points in our collective, Canadian, history.

My Grandmother, Mary Lowe (nee Chic) lived the life of a Prairie child, sibling, then wife through the early part of the 20th century and lived right through to the early part of the 21st century.

She was born, literally, in the bush near Selkirk, Manitoba in September of 1910. Her birth certificate reads November, however, that is simply when her father finally made it into Selkirk to register her birth. Her mother was 15 years old, and her father was not much older. Her parents were Ruthenian immigrants who'd arrived a few years earlier.

Theirs was a tough sort of existance. The home was a sod-roofed log structure common to the time and the place. Here's an image from the Manitoba Archives of a Ruthenian home c. 1910.

The 1916 special census of Manitoba, Saskachewan, and Alberta shows her family. As mother tongue they listed Ruthenian, as place of origin Austria (then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), and their religion as Greek Catholic. She would later be excommunicated from the church for marrying my Grandfather, a protestant. You'll find my Grandmother, Mary, on line 38 of this census document.

This story begins two years after that census, in 1918 when the Spanish Flu was making it's worldwide sweep, killing millions of people. This flu, unlike most influenzas targeted the young, not the old, and affected, primarly, those between 15 and 40. As a result, in farming communities, those most responsible for farming and all the duties that went with it, were those most likely to be stricken.

In Selkirk, that is precisely what happened. The Ruthenian community of the day would have been tightly knit, bound by language, culture, and ancestry. It is certain that Mary's family knew all the other families in the area - the 1916 documents show that everyone in the area was Ruthenian from Austria.

An so, it is this community of scrub bush and farmland carved out of the bush, that Mary, eight years old, found herself to be the oldest, healthy person when the flu arrived. Everyone else was sick.

This meant that this little eight year old would spend months in the early part of 1919 waking before the crack of dawn, to do all the chores on their farm -milk the cows, feed all the livestock, take care of her younger brothers and sisters, and parents.

It is hard for me to image an eight year old doing that. I don't think I could keep that up for long. And yet, she did it because there was no-one else left to do it. It simply needed to be done, and she was the one who had to do it.

Remarkably, no one in my family had aver heard this story until I began to retell it. And I was lucky to hear it at all. In fact, it was one of a few stories we heard from my Grandmother when Gail, my wife, and I spent some time with her in Austin, Manitoba, the summer of 2000 in between trips to and from Rankin Inlet, Nunavut. She was still in her little house in Austin (she and George - my Grandfather - had long since sold the farm near Carberry) and the early signs of Alzheimer's, while present, were not yet great enough for the family to send her to the MacGregor Nursing Home.

That visit was my first and last visit as an independent adult - free of parents and siblings myself. I'm glad we spent those few days with her, and it's those memories that I'll cherish. To close this story, here's a photo of my Grandmother, probably taken in the 1930's.

So, thanks for reading. In the coming days I'll post part II which continues with another story from the days of the flu pandemic.

Growing despite everything

One of the RSS feeds I follow (Lifehacker) listed, today, a conversation they’d had with Adam Savage of Mythbusters fame. I am a huge fan of Mythbusters and decided to give the interview a read.

As part of that interview, which described Adam’s workflow and methods, as well of that of the shows, it was listed that he’d done a TED talk, and there was a link on Lifehacker to that talk. So I watched it, and loved every minute of it. Adam was as excited through it as he is typically though a Mythbusters episode.

(You can go there directly too: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/488)

I won’t give away the talk, other that to say that you simply must watch it. But at the end, I was thinking, once again, about Bruce Mau’s Incomplete Manifesto for Growth. Written in 1998, I come back to it time and time again. I was introduced to it through a Time-Based Art course I was taking at NSCAD at around that same time. I’ve posted it before, and I’m posting it again. Here, take directly from Bruce Mau’s website (URL: http://www.brucemaudesign.com/manifesto.html) is the complete text.

Bruce Mau’s An Incomplete Manifesto for Growth

1. Allow events to change you. You have to be willing to grow. Growth is different from something that happens to you. You produce it. You live it. The prerequisites for growth: the openness to experience events and the willingness to be changed by them.


2. Forget about good. Good is a known quantity. Good is what we all agree on. Growth is not necessarily good. Growth is an exploration of unlit recesses that may or may not yield to our research. As long as you stick to good you'll never have real growth.


3. Process is more important than outcome. When the outcome drives the process we will only ever go to where we've already been. If process drives outcome we may not know where we’re going, but we will know we want to be there.


4. Love your experiments (as you would an ugly child). Joy is the engine of growth. Exploit the liberty in casting your work as beautiful experiments, iterations, attempts, trials, and errors. Take the long view and allow yourself the fun of failure every day.


5. Go deep. The deeper you go the more likely you will discover something of value.


6. Capture accidents. The wrong answer is the right answer in search of a different question. Collect wrong answers as part of the process. Ask different questions.


7. Study. A studio is a place of study. Use the necessity of production as an excuse to study. Everyone will benefit.


8. Drift. Allow yourself to wander aimlessly. Explore adjacencies. Lack judgment. Postpone criticism.


9. Begin anywhere. John Cage tells us that not knowing where to begin is a common form of paralysis. His advice: begin anywhere.


10. Everyone is a leader. Growth happens. Whenever it does, allow it to emerge. Learn to follow when it makes sense. Let anyone lead.


11. Harvest ideas. Edit applications. Ideas need a dynamic, fluid, generous environment to sustain life. Applications, on the other hand, benefit from critical rigor. Produce a high ratio of ideas to applications.


12. Keep moving. The market and its operations have a tendency to reinforce success. Resist it. Allow failure and migration to be part of your practice.


13. Slow down. Desynchronize from standard time frames and surprising opportunities may present themselves.


14. Don’t be cool. Cool is conservative fear dressed in black. Free yourself from limits of this sort.


15. Ask stupid questions. Growth is fueled by desire and innocence. Assess the answer, not the question. Imagine learning throughout your life at the rate of an infant.


16. Collaborate. The space between people working together is filled with conflict, friction, strife, exhilaration, delight, and vast creative potential.


17. . Intentionally left blank. Allow space for the ideas you haven’t had yet, and for the ideas of others.


18. Stay up late. Strange things happen when you’ve gone too far, been up too long, worked too hard, and you're separated from the rest of the world.


19. Work the metaphor. Every object has the capacity to stand for something other than what is apparent. Work on what it stands for.


20. Be careful to take risks. Time is genetic. Today is the child of yesterday and the parent of tomorrow. The work you produce today will create your future.


21. Repeat yourself. If you like it, do it again. If you don’t like it, do it again.


22. Make your own tools. Hybridize your tools in order to build unique things. Even simple tools that are your own can yield entirely new avenues of exploration. Remember, tools amplify our capacities, so even a small tool can make a big difference.


23. Stand on someone’s shoulders. You can travel farther carried on the accomplishments of those who came before you. And the view is so much better.


24. Avoid software. The problem with software is that everyone has it.


25. Don’t clean your desk. You might find something in the morning that you can’t see tonight.


26. Don’t enter awards competitions. Just don’t. It’s not good for you.


27. Read only left-hand pages. Marshall McLuhan did this. By decreasing the amount of information, we leave room for what he called our "noodle."


28. Make new words. Expand the lexicon. The new conditions demand a new way of thinking. The thinking demands new forms of expression. The expression generates new conditions.


29. Think with your mind. Forget technology. Creativity is not device-dependent.


30. Organization = Liberty. Real innovation in design, or any other field, happens in context. That context is usually some form of cooperatively managed enterprise. Frank Gehry, for instance, is only able to realize Bilbao because his studio can deliver it on budget. The myth of a split between "creatives" and "suits" is what Leonard Cohen calls a 'charming artifact of the past.'


31. Don’t borrow money. Once again, Frank Gehry’s advice. By maintaining financial control, we maintain creative control. It’s not exactly rocket science, but it’s surprising how hard it is to maintain this discipline, and how many have failed.


32. Listen carefully. Every collaborator who enters our orbit brings with him or her a world more strange and complex than any we could ever hope to imagine. By listening to the details and the subtlety of their needs, desires, or ambitions, we fold their world onto our own. Neither party will ever be the same.


33. Take field trips. The bandwidth of the world is greater than that of your TV set, or the Internet, or even a totally immersive, interactive, dynamically rendered, object-oriented, real-time, computer graphic–simulated environment.


34. Make mistakes faster. This isn’t my idea -- I borrowed it. I think it belongs to Andy Grove.


35. Imitate. Don’t be shy about it. Try to get as close as you can. You'll never get all the way, and the separation might be truly remarkable. We have only to look to Richard Hamilton and his version of Marcel Duchamp’s large glass to see how rich, discredited, and underused imitation is as a technique.


36. Scat. When you forget the words, do what Ella did: make up something else ... but not words.


37. Break it, stretch it, bend it, crush it, crack it, fold it.


38. Explore the other edge. Great liberty exists when we avoid trying to run with the technological pack. We can’t find the leading edge because it’s trampled underfoot. Try using old-tech equipment made obsolete by an economic cycle but still rich with potential.


39. Coffee breaks, cab rides, green rooms. Real growth often happens outside of where we intend it to, in the interstitial spaces -- what Dr. Seuss calls "the waiting place." Hans Ulrich Obrist once organized a science and art conference with all of the infrastructure of a conference -- the parties, chats, lunches, airport arrivals — but with no actual conference. Apparently it was hugely successful and spawned many ongoing collaborations.


40. Avoid fields. Jump fences. Disciplinary boundaries and regulatory regimes are attempts to control the wilding of creative life. They are often understandable efforts to order what are manifold, complex, evolutionary processes. Our job is to jump the fences and cross the fields.


41. Laugh. People visiting the studio often comment on how much we laugh. Since I've become aware of this, I use it as a barometer of how comfortably we are expressing ourselves.


42. Remember. Growth is only possible as a product of history. Without memory, innovation is merely novelty. History gives growth a direction. But a memory is never perfect. Every memory is a degraded or composite image of a previous moment or event. That’s what makes us aware of its quality as a past and not a present. It means that every memory is new, a partial construct different from its source, and, as such, a potential for growth itself.


43. Power to the people. Play can only happen when people feel they have control over their lives. We can't be free agents if we’re not free.
    

Enjoy,

Darrin

Facebook considered dangerous?

Note to Facebook readers from my “Notes” section. If there are updates to this post, you won’t ever see them on Facebook. Instead, go to my blog directly, as updates will appear as they are made. I'm at http://mudderings.blogspot.com/.

How many of you have been following the recent debate (firestorm) over Facebook and its new Terms of Service (TOS) – recently rolled back but soon to reappear? I’ve been concerned about Facebook for a while, and this latest news gives me even more to worry about.

Not many of us, including me, read over those TOS when they pop up (often as just a link) when we sign up for something. But maybe we should be taking them more seriously.

You see, in the Facebook TOS it says, even now:

By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide licence (with the right to sublicence) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorise sublicences of the foregoing. You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the licence granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.

In essence, Facebook says if you post content here, we can use it however we want, and you’ve already agreed that that is “A- OK”.

Is it?

Is it “A-OK” with you that your images might appear in an advertisement, or a flyer, or anywhere else without your previous knowledge or permission?

According to Facebook, you’ve already agreed that it is, and you’ve also agreed that you will receive no compensation for the use of those images.

Now, the good thing (if there is a good thing) with this is that last sentence in the TOS. It says if you take stuff down from your Facebook site, the license that allows Facebook to use that stuff expires.

But… a couple of weeks ago, that last bit vanished. Gone. Now, by becoming a Facebook user, you’d granted permanent license to Facebook. Forever.

Didn’t they need to tell you that? Nope. You’ve also agreed that they don’t. It’s your responsibility, under the TOS, to keep checking the TOS in case they’ve changed anything.

Under considerable pressure from the Facebook community, Facebook has reverted to the former TOS. But even its CEO states that this is temporary.

Did I just hear you say, “Oh, crap! That’s bullsh!t?"

I think I did. Or perhaps that was me saying it again. I’ve been saying it a lot.

So, fellow artists. What to do?

Many of us, particularly artists, just might want to reconsider how we’re using Facebook. And there are a couple of excellent options that I’m going to outline below.

If you now store images in your Facebook account and want to continue to do so, start by taking all your images down while Facebook is still operating under the old (current) TOS. As soon as you do that, the Facebook license expires on those images.

Now, for any image you wish to put back on Facebook, do this:

Resize your image to no more than 500 pixels wide. This makes the image unusable for anything but the web. At 300 dpi (printing standard) it makes a print about 1 21/32 inches wide. Remarkably useless. Now, put a watermark or text on the image. Put a copyright, and a date, and your name. If you have a website, put that on it too.

You see, Facebook will accept images up to 5 megabytes (5 MB). When you load up an image at that size, or close to it, that’s what you give them to use – a big image with lots of detail – just fine for printing in any number of ways.

However, if you reduce the size before you upload, you give them much, much less. Indeed, an image properly reduced, and saved as a jpg file, should be about 100 kilobytes (100 KB) or 1/10th of a megabyte. It’ll also upload much, much faster.

Now your reduced, watermarked image can be uploaded to your Facebook account. It is suitable for viewing by your friends, family and followers but has been rendered pretty useless to Facebook overseers. Or anyone else for that matter.

You don’t want your images ripped off Facebook and used for anything other that what you allow… do you?

Almost any contemporary computer will have some software on it that will allow you to do what I’ve described. You do not need Photoshop to do this. If you don’t know how to do this, ask a friend or colleague. Unfortunately, lessons in how to do the photo editing are beyond the scope of this blog.

What are your other options if you don’t want to put anything back onto Facebook?

Why don’t you consider using on online photo/image sharing organizations like Flickr or Picasa? Facebook does let you “link” to other sites (making your links outside the scope of its TOS) and you can create galleries there, and link to them from your Facebook account.

What do these organizations have to say in their TOS?

Flickr, which is owned by Yahoo!, states (and this is actually in the Yahoo! TOS):

With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Yahoo! Services and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Yahoo! Services.

Is there a difference? There is. You’ll notice no mention of commercial use, instead, it says “…solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available.”

Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I’m reasonably sure this means that they can do all of the above in the context of this being a photo sharing service. They can share your photos, since you’ve uploaded them to share. If you delete them, it’s over. And no permanent archive.

Picasa Web Albums TOS (Google) is a little less friendly. It says:

11. Content licence from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

11.2 You agree that this licence includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.

11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this licence shall permit Google to take these actions.

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above licence.

Granted, 11.1 sounds a lot like Flickr… but 11.2 is a little disconcerting. Furtherdown you’ll see that you have to terminate the terms in writing and:

13.5 When these Terms come to an end, all of the legal rights, obligations and liabilities that you and Google have benefited from, been subject to (or which have accrued over time whilst the Terms have been in force) or which are expressed to continue indefinitely, shall be unaffected by this cessation, and the provisions of paragraph 20.7 shall continue to apply to such rights, obligations and liabilities indefinitely.

– which seems to say the legal rights never end anyway.

So Flickr seems the safest bet (with its current TOS). I was going to mentionPhotobucket but a quick look at its TOS reveals such things as:

“including without limitation, via the Site or third party websites or applications (for example, services allowing Users to order prints of Content or t-shirts and similar items containing Content).”

which is pretty bad. There may be other photo sharing networks with even better TOS (for you). Please feel free to send them and I’ll update this blog post with the new information.

If you go the Flickr (or other) route, make sure you “link” your Facebook account to your images, or galleries of images (probably your best bet) on a regular basis and include your public Flickr (or other) address in your Facebook profile.

You might even want to create an image to stick in your Facebook Photos section that simply has the text “My images are now all at [your account address].” That way, someone looking for your photos will get a clue as to where to find them.

The very best option would be to have your own website and host your images there. You can post your own copyright messages and retain all rights yourself.

Then, you can “link” as above, these images or galleries into your Facebook profile. Do it regularly, as in when you add new images, and your Facebook followers will get a steady diet of your art and images.

Is Facebook is dangerous, especially if you are an artist? I believe this to be so unless you take the proper precautions.

Should you go through all the trouble of doing something about it? You probably should. After all, you’re not in the business of giving your art away for free.

Harper/Nope Poster

(quick note for Facebook readers: Facebook removes images and video - read this post in it's orginal format at my blog http://mudderings.blogspot.com/

Following the Canadian Election then the American Election I was, well, dissapointed in what we, North of the Border, were able to generate in terms of excitement and vision and blogged about it in the post "Voting for Vision: How I wish I could have."

That wasn't quite enough for me, it seems, and I started work on a poster that encapsulated my feelings. I based it on the work of Shepard Fairey who had done the HOPE Poster. I had intended to include it in a recent show here in Charlottetown but, quite honestly, sort of forgot when I was hanging the show and then it was too late to include.

So now, inspired by yesterdays inauguration of Barack Obama, I've decided to post it for all to see and anyone to download and share.

So, you can grab it off my website here: http://darrinwhite.ca/en/harper/ in PDF format.

Please feel free to post your feedback. And please feel free to become involved in the political process and make the change you want to see.

Voting for Vision: How I wish I could have

Barak Obama’s victory, less than two weeks ago, and indeed the election itself, was a stunning defeat for Politics… in Canada.

Over the past few months (years), I, a Canadian, with no impact on the US Federal Election, was completely engaged in the US election process. So, it seems from Facebook status updates and blog posts, were most of my friends and peers.

While the same was true for the Canadian Election the previous month, with posts and blogs, newsletters, calls to action and more, we were all voting against Stephen Harper far more than we were voting for Stephane Dion, for Elizabeth May, or for Jack Layton. Had any of these others won, I don’t think I would have been, as I was the night of November 4th, dumb-struck and in awe, eyes welling with tears, as the networks announced President Elect Barack Obama. No, I would have sighed, declared it a victory for nobody and gone to bed. Just like it did do on our (Canadian) Election night.

I HATE voting against something. It makes me sick. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth and churns my stomach. When I cast a vote that is against, I do so knowing I must, knowing that to not vote against a party, platform, or person who stands for so many things with which I disagree is akin to voting for that person. I vote against knowing that to not vote is not just akin but fundamentally the same as voting FOR this person or people with whom I disagree (not voting is actually quite abhorrent to me – too bad that about 40% of Canadians think not voting is just fine, thank you). And so I vote, as I must, against that person. But not FOR someone else. Not really. My votes become strategic, like so many others. Strategic to keep someone else out of power. Strategic to keep a lid on ideas fundamentally different from mine. Strategic to cripple in some small way one party’s ability to rule without check or balance. But, not, sadly, not for a different vision, and not really, for the person or party beside whose name I place my “x”. Certainly not, as so many US voters were lucky to have, for a vision of a new, rejuvenated, Canada.

All through the day, November 4th, so many people stood in long lines to vote FOR Barack Obama or vote FOR John McCain. True, some voted for McCain perhaps out of racially based fear, or other fears promoted by the McCain team and perhaps also some people voted for Obama out of anger stemming from the economic meltdown, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or otherwise. But so, so many people voted for a vision, and they were offered visions from which to choose. They were offered options and choices. And they were able to walk into their polling stations, exercise their civic duty, and vote for one of those two visions. And they did.

How I wish I could have voted for a vision of Canada on October 14th that I believed in. How I wish I could have shared with my friends and peers that feel of comraderie, of collective hope for the future. Instead, we were all “faceless for the arts” and promoting letter campaigns, and supporting a vision of Canada that was “Anything But Harper”.

That is so fundamentally sad that I am ashamed now to admit it and put in it writing. Oh, it worked alright. But it was Stephen Harper, mostly of his own doing and not a much more than a pinch of ours, who kept himself from the majority he so desperately wanted. Had he not blown his chances in Quebec with his stupid cuts and comments on arts and culture, he stood a good chance of winning the few extra seats he needed for that majority. Instead, his appeal to a perceived western base that centred on knocking the arts lead to a resurgence in support for the Bloc leading to the saving of the nation from a conservative majority by the one party whose constitution seeks the separation of a big chuck of that same country. How, my fellow Canadians, did we manage that?

So here’s my call to action. If you are not a member of a political party, please consider joining one. I don’t care which one, but all the party platforms are available online. Read them, understand them, and pick one that is reasonable close to what you believe.

Then, take part in that party’s programs and consultations. Make your voice heard, and share your thoughts and opinions. Make yourself part of any leadership races or reviews. Help pick someone in whom you believe and for whom you will volunteer to spread a message or vision you honestly support. Do your civic duty, and on the day when you are called to that duty and get off your sofa go vote. Maybe if we all do that, we’ll be able to walk into our polling stations at the next Canadian election and make our mark beside a name and party in which we believe, and not feel sick or disgusted, but smile as we leave the ballot box because we know we’ve voted for something.

Like they did.

Arts Cuts, Social Conservatism, and very different versions of Canada.

Hello Everyone,

For today's post I decided to try my hand at a video blog post or "vlog". Please ignore my ugly mug.

Darrin.

Culture Spending Cuts - CCA Bulletin

Dear Island Artists,

You may have heard, or read, about recent cuts to certain Federal Arts and Culture funding programs. It goes without saying how I, and I'm sure you, feel about this. I've written in my blog, been in touch with the press, spoken directly with MP Wayne Easter's staff, written to the PM and Minister Josée Verner, and been quoted in the Guardian. All good in terms of raising awareness, but all of little consequence compared with what you all could do if you did the same things.

I am urging you, imploring you, to please take action on this matter. Please read the clear and succinct bulletin below from the Canadian Conference on the Arts then make your voices heard.

Darrin White
Executive Director

CCA Bulletin 27/08

August 20, 2008

Culture Spending Cuts

Part One: Trade Routes and PromArt Cuts in Context

 

While many of us were enjoying the summer, the federal government has announced a series of cuts of around $40 million to cultural programs and the elimination of others. Today, the CCA is publishing a comprehensive list of the programs that are affected by those cuts and we will be providing further information on these measures in the next few days. Today, the focus will be on the elimination of the PromArt program at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) and the phasing out of the Trade Routes program at the Department of Canadian Heritage (DCH).

 

Just the Facts

There has been a steady stream of criticism about the recently announced budget cuts to the TradeRoutes Program and PromArt program. The vast majority of newspaper, radio and television commentaries have been negative regarding these decisions.

 

The Department of Canadian Heritage has said that the decision to abolish TradeRoutes was based on the results of a value for money review. The program resources ($9 M) are largely consumed by the salaries and living expenses of cultural trade officers stationed across Canada and various major cities around the world. While a relatively small amount of money was actually dedicated to making grants and contribution, artists, producers and arts professionals who use their services have indicated a high degree of satisfaction with the assistance provided.

 

The DFAIT PromArt program ($4.7M) is also abolished without explanation, apart from the curious spin the government decided to give to the announcement. It follows the initial 2006 cuts to the program of $11.8 million over 2 years. 

 

The often relatively small amounts granted under both programs have had a leverage effect for many artists and organizations as they sought support to develop markets abroad, contribute to our national image and lend valued support to other general trade development efforts of our missions abroad.  At the time of writing, there is no clear indication that the government intends to replace these programs with more performing ones.

 

Tell me more

When the Hon. Sheila Copps, former Minister of Canadian Heritage, announced the TradeRoutes Program, she outlined specific outcomes that program would achieve – targets for export increases of television, film, sound recording, etc. The value for money review likely assessed actual program performance against these anticipated results as a part of the decision-making process. If that is indeed the case, it is surprising that the government did not refer to such reviews to explain its decisions.

 

While theTradeRoutes Program may have had some design flaws, the objective of developing international markets and audiences for Canadian cultural goods and services is an entirely worthy one consistent with the role of the federal government. With the Vancouver Whistler 2010 Olympics on the horizon, the need for a strategy to capitalize on the huge world audience for the Games both before and after the event should be apparent. Australians have noted that the lack of a follow-up strategy to their hosting the Olympics was a serious strategic error that could not be corrected.

 

Preoccupied with the impact of the cancellation of TradeRoutes, the CCA has invited the Chair of the Standing Committee on Heritage to call Minister Verner to provide much needed information on the reasons of the government to cancel the program and on its intentions, if any, to continue supporting the development of cultural markets abroad, as it does for almost any other sector of the Canadian economy.

 

The PromArt program at the DFAIT is another matter entirely. Ever since the 2006 severe cuts, rumours have persisted that the program was headed for the scrap heap. Over the past year, the CCA has been addressing the issue of public diplomacy and the role of the arts and culture sector in any national strategy. It is not a purely Canadian idea: amongst other nations, the United States and Great Britain have renewed their commitment to supporting the arts as an effective tool of public diplomacy.

 

Government spokespersons have mentioned groups like “Holy Fuck” and commentator Gwynne Dyer or filmmaker Avi Lewis as indications that the recipients of support from the program may not reflect well on Canada internationally.

 

There are two critical errors in this rationale. First of all the program is operated by public servants who make funding recommendations to senior officials and all such decisions are ultimately made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is not a case of some “wonky” peer assessment process deliberately trying to be outrageous or casting the Department in an unfavourable light. If the recipients appear controversial, it is not their fault – they did not jerry-rig the system to receive support. Secondly, it has been established that with a number of the “outrageous” examples quoted, recipients had not in fact applied for the travel grants but had responded specifically to an invitation made to them by the Department itself!

 

Just as unexplainable is the fact that the Department has also signaled that it will no longer contribute to the Canadian pavilion at the Venice Biennale, leaving the National Gallery and the Canada Council for the Arts to foot the bill out of their existing budgets. This international event is one of the most prestigious visual arts exhibitions in the world and Canada made a very forceful impression at the 2001 Biennale when Janet Cardiff and Georges Bures Miller has been awarded the jury special award. Similarly SweaterLodge, a project by Pechet and Robb Studio of Vancouver, drew a lot of international attention at the 2006 Biennale. Foreign Affairs now seems to be content to leave the task of building Canada’s reputation and image abroad as a creative nation to other players who are apparently expected to make the difference out of their existing funds.

 

Furthermore, whatever has happened to our much-vaunted commitment to cultural diversity? The ability of Canada to demonstrate not only racial, ethnic and linguistic diversity to the world must also include creative and artistic diversity. DFAIT has always had some discomfort with the arts and with Ministers such as the Hon.Lloyd Axworthy, the Right Honourable Joe Clark and the Hon. Flora MacDonald who were champions of engaging the arts in the pursuit of foreign policy objectives.

 

It is clear that some serious thinking is required to facilitate the promotion of Canadian artists, creators and arts professionals on the international state. The CCA is calling upon the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to urgently address the issue of the arts and culture in foreign policy and public diplomacy.

We have too much to lose if we merely shrug our shoulders – the real value for money in these programs cannot be measured without an appreciation of how our artists, creators and arts professional enhance the image of Canada as a sophisticated, diverse and creative nation.

 

What Can I Do?

 

Please consider a letter to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs   and the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage asking them to urgently address this issue. This is clearly not a question we can afford to lie fallow.

 

You can also write to  Prime Minister Harper, to Heritage Minister Josée Verner and to Minister of Foreign Affairs David Emerson

 

The CCA is also contacting the leaders of the other federal political parties to determine their position on this issue. You might also consider doing the same. If rumors are correct we are headed for a fall election – let us now ensure all political parties understand the importance and urgency of this matter.

 

You can also contact your MP to register your opinion, and if you are in one of the four ridings where by-elections have been called, you can ask each candidate to clearly state where they stand on the issue. Follow this link to find contact information for your MP. 

Artistic Insanity at 80 Wellington Street

80 Wellington Street (Ottawa) is where you’ll find Stephen Harper’s Office. In this office, or in offices near to it, some painfully wrong-headed decisions are being made regarding the arts and culture in Canada. At the same time, the Stephen Harper version of the Tories appear to be setting the stage for an election. This is scary folks. Really scary.

I’d been typing for the past few days trying to find the right words to portray my utter dismay at these recent decisions, but, this morning, I came across a wonderful column by Heather Mallick who says it all far better than I was going to. So, "shift delete" to my stuff and send you all off to read Heather's.

Here’s an excerpt (reproduced without permission from CBC or Heather… sorry) – PLEASE go read the whole column here http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/15/f-vp-mallick.html.

Heather writes:

It isn't hard to figure out why a government wouldn't like documentaries. They're about facts, and facts have a liberal bias, as the satirist Stephen Colbert constantly points out.

But it is hard to understand why Ottawa is making the cuts in such a shyly vicious way, not even announcing them but merely posting them on obscure web pages, breaking hearts quietly.

Again, do yourself a favour and go read the whole article.

Then, send a copy of the link to your MLA, and your MP and voice your disgust.

Somebody said, "Fair Warning! Lord strike that poor boy down!

Don’t be drinking a hot beverage when you jump to CBC and read this (I don’t want you to choke or burn your lap):

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2008/06/25/vanhalen-charlottetown.html

So... the Government was considering $1.6 million to bring a bunch of aging (aged) American rockers to the Island in the same year that they provided less than 10% of that amount to Music PEI that assists Island musicians? Big events should run on tickets and merchandise. If we're going to spend money on musicians, let's spend it on our own. I can hardly imagine what our Island Musicians could accomplish with $1.6 million dollars helping them with recording, marketing, promotion and more. Who knows, maybe the next Van Halen is right here right now.

Of course, maybe that's the Government strategy, force our musicians to leave, get famous (maybe) somewhere else, then, if you've made it big (preferably in the US – à la Aerosmith and, apparently, Van Halen) the Government will pony up hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. Yeah... that's it.

As I read it, the Government was seriously considering the $1.6 million, pulling back only when the amount escalated. Even considering the $1.6 is utterly ridiculous.

Now, I must be clear. I was a huge fan of Aerosmith back in the day. I hand-painted the back of my demin jacket with the Aerosmith logo. I saw them three times in concert. I saw Van Halen pre-Sammy Hagar, then again with Hagar (oh, the humanity), and saw David Lee Roth as a solo act (mostly to see Steve Vai who was on guitar – awesome). I was, and suppose I still am, somewhat (1981's "Fair Warning" remains an incredible album), a fan of those two bands. For those who are curious “the day” I refer two was back in the mid-eighties where both these bands probably belong. I don't listen to either except for the rare, nostalgic, moment. Want to hear some incredible contemporary music? Here you go:


(If your reading this on Facebook follow this link to YouTube)

Or you could watch this one: http://youtube.com/watch?v=S02bqXuntE0
or this one: http://youtube.com/watch?v=orJw7N9gRDM ...and so on, and so on, and so on...

Now, to be even clearer, as I note some of my blog posts are becoming more strongly worded when referencing this current Government, I AM a member of the Liberal Party. Seriously. Got a card and everything. “Wow” you’re saying. “Really?” you wonder.

Yep. Really. Don’t even really know why anymore.

So what’s up with me then? I’m gobsmacked, flabbergast, and many other two and three-syllable words, with where Arts and Culture have fallen this past year. Let’s face it, the funds for Music PEI were generated under the last Government, the agreement to assist with the Council’s property tax mess was achieved under the last Government. The Council’s 2006 Community Consultations report was mentioned on the floor of the Legislature by the, then, opposition critic Carolyn Bertram (now the Minister responsible for Culture)…

…now… well, what now? A few extra dollars for Music PEI. No increase at all for the Council. A $50,000 program that came out of nowhere to partner artists with Seniors (not a bad idea but this did come out of left field, we have no idea where it’s going and – to put not too fine a point on this one – there is already an organization, the Council, who is rather expert at implementing programs and who has, in our strategic plan, to promote “Lifelong learning in and through the Arts”). Yes, there’s now some in-kind partnership to move ahead with one of our own projects – appreciated but clearly nowhere near what is needed as a comprehensive set of supports and programs for the arts.

Back to the Music. If the Government has any plans, and I mean any plans at all to spend money on artists, PLEASE let it be on, or in support of, our own artists. How will we ever know if there’s a super group in our midst? Who will be the next Lucy Maud? Is the next Robert Bateman packing their bags right now, leaving for Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver, never to return? Probably.

Implicit message from Government: We value Island Music at 10% of the value we place on American super groups.

Message from me to Government: Support your artists here on PEI at 10 times the value you place on American super groups.

Van Halen… are you kidding me?

Don't shoot the philanthropists!

Shayli Vere forwarded a comment to me (you’ll find it in the “comments” for my post “Free Art” from a few days ago) that is a message from Carl Phylis to Marty Murphy of Saltdance Productions. Carl is clearly angry, and I understand where he’s coming from.

This model we’ve come to adopt of artists donating their art to raise funds for other things, receiving little in return (if anything at all) has got to be rethought, revised, remodeled, revisited. BUT, and yes, this is a shouted "but", we have to remember that we (artists) have been just as complicit in the model and those on the other side. I know I’ve donated pieces, and I’ll bet you have too. And when you did, if you’re like me, you probable muttered something like “Well, it’s for a good cause… I’m happy to support it.” all the while, you were probably thinking something like “Maybe it’ll get my name out there/drum up some interest in my work/lead to a sale…” and maybe it did and maybe it didn’t. Point is, you/we/I participated in the scheme. Now, you/we/I are rethinking the scheme.

Rethinking the arrangement is abundantly possible, and, given the philanthropic nature of most, if not all, of the fundraising types, it’s a conversation I’m sure they’re willing to engage in. I’ll bet we could come to a general understanding, and, as I write this, I’ll just bet that if we arranged a formal meeting between level headed members of the arts community and equally level headed members of the fundraising community, we could hammer out some commonly accepted principles. Most of the fundraisers probably are unaware of the low average incomes of Island artists and have never intended to worsen the situation. What would be the point of that?

What I’d suggest we need to do is work with, not yell at, the fundraising community. We’ll find some who are happy to agree and implement changes right away. Those people will find they have easy and pleasant access to the arts community and the artwork they seek. Those who don’t will not have the same access and will soon realize the benefits of working together.

What we absolutely cannot, as a community, afford to do is alienate this group of people who have excellent pull and contacts in the public sphere, good if not excellent access to the decision makers in their local and provincial political spheres, and remarkable support from their communities.

How much better would it be to CONVERT (and yes that’s a shouted "convert") them to supporters and advocates for the arts, to have them understand the plight of artists, and to promote the fact that the art being sold/auctioned/raffled is being done so in partnership with the artist who made it who will be donating part of the sale proceeds to the cause in question through the organization holding the event.

If we’re angry, then let’s express that in ways that don’t widen the already wide chasm between our understanding and the fundraising community. Let’s extend a hand or two, invite them into the conversation, and make some friends. We can mutually benefit from working this out.

Summer is a busy time for everyone and for me, it’s my time to take some vacation and then catch up on work. So, I’ll propose that this September, once the kids are back in school and things have started to settle down, the I/the Council, will host a discussion on this topic. I’ll send out a date and time once we have a space booked. This will be an initial discussion to sort out and appropriate model that we can then try, first, to get the arts community to endorse, then, second, get the fundraising community to adopt.

Are you with me?

Fathers Day and a $25.00 Challenge to Dads

Today is Fathers Day. I’ve been pretty lucky in the “Father” Category. My own dad, Gary White, is still around – a number of my friends can’t say the same thing. As far as fathers go, I think he ranks right up there. Didn’t drink, didn’t swear, didn’t use violence or intimidation to run the household. We all grew up knowing right from wrong and knew we were safe at home. Thanks Dad - you're still a source of sound advise and wisdom, and much of what I know about being a father came from you.

Me, well, I never thought I’d be a dad, although it was always something I truly wanted. Thanks to Gail, I have two fantastic little boys. Loudon (who turns 5 later this month) and Brennus (who is a raging 2 and a half). Fatherhood is both glorious and terrifying. I understand now that expression “I never knew what fear was until I had kids”. At the same time, the kids bring absolute joy (well, mostly – Brennus just got sent to time out for defiantly marking on our new chairs).

For this Fathers Day I got a new Batter Bowl (made by the wonderful Ellen Burge - if you follow the link you can see my bowl, it's the one with the spout), a new whisk, two beautiful hand-made cards – the first containing an orange hand-print that Loudon made a school, the second made by the boys and “Taunte” our nanny extraordinaire – and a touching card from Gail. I also got a great “me-sized” dad-apron and mitt for BBQing.

As I sat down thinking about my great day (sipping on some nice fresh-ground coffee from Burundi care of the Farmers Market) I starting thinking about the other Dads I know and wondering how their mornings were going. There’s John, Michael, Stephen, Peter, Bill, Matt, my brothers Kevin and Brad and many more, all of us with small or smallish kids. Just as I did, an email popped up from KIVA. It was notifying me that a payment had been made by one of the people I’ve been a microloan lender to. In this case, it was “Identity Protected” who is trying to run an electronics shop in Kirkut. You can see his profile here.

“Hmmmm” I thought. KIVA. KIVA, for those of you who don’t know it, is a microloan coordinating organization. You create a profile, and make loans into third-world business, typically at around $25.00. KIVA takes your $25, and the $25’s from other lenders, and makes the loan through a development agency on the ground. I’ve made it my policy to make my loans to dads – dads who seem, to me, to be doing there best to support their families in far worse situations than mine. And so, in honour of this Fathers Day, I picked out a dad, Siyavush Shukurov, who, according to KIVA:

“…is a 38-year-old father of three living in the Imishli region of Azerbaijan. For nearly two decades, he has earned a living by breeding cattle for beef. Meat is a staple in the Azerbaijani diet, so Siyavush has many regular clients.

He has earned a good profit, but prices for supplies have increased dramatically recently. To expand his business and support his family, Siyavush has applied for a loan of $1,000 to purchase a dairy cow and two calves. He is confident that he will be able to repay the loan.”

Then I thought, I wonder if I could get some of the other dads I know to dish out $25.00 today and make their own loan. Perhaps, too, there’s the odd mom who’s still looking for a gift for their fellow. So, Dads, please consider pulling out your wallet and going here:

http://www.kiva.org/app.php?page=businesses

You can sort be any number of criteria to find a person who needs your help. It’ll feel almost as good as a hug from your kid to allow another dad to keep feeling hugs from their kids.

If you're curious, here's my "Lender Page":

http://www.kiva.org/lender/darrin7313

And Siyavush, as I right this, still needs $550.00 for his loan to go through.

Free art (well... from the artist) and Co-ops

A day or two ago, I received a very interesting email message from Island Artist and Entrepreneur Shayli Vere. Here it is, included with her permission:

I have been asked many times to donate art to local charity/nonprofit fund raisers.
I've just got to pass on to you my concerns about this practice. We are asking OUR POOREST people on the Island to give and support all the charities on the Island. Many artists work sell for hundreds more than they would ever get themselves. In such a small population, we have only so many sales of art all year. IF our paintings are being sold to our 'elite' in charity auctions, I doubt they would buy another painting all year! and our artist have no sales and are just continually asked to work for nothing and give all the artwork away.

Please. We need to be heard!!

What about a yearly 'Support Local Arts and (maybe Prince County Hospital) auction where a percentage/predetermined amount goes to the artists and all monies over this amount goes to the charity?
Artists are givers, and want to support their community but we need to also be supported.

What about creating a job here where the arts administrator's job is to help artists market and sell their work???

As for the first point – I couldn’t agree more. While it seems nigh on impossible to garner proper support for the arts (a plug for more arts council funding), artists seem to be the first people that communities turn to when help is need. Someone has an illness, let’s have a fundraiser – who will play the fiddle? Some building needs renos – let’s have a fundraiser – who’s art will we expect to get for free and sell for money? I’ve not often seen a free roofing job up for auction. And when was the last time you saw a free root canal and crown on the auction block?

Exactly how do we shift perceptions and engage the “requestors” in our overall advocacy? How do we ensure artists work is valued by those who make these requests and how do we ensure that artists see SOMETHING in return? I don’t rightly know – but I’m so glad that some has started the discussion.

This just in (and right off the top of my head), Island artists could donate works for charity, when requested, through a central body (like the Council) who, in turn, makes the arrangement for, upon sale, X% to come back to the artists and Y% to the charitable event? …? I like the idea BUT would anyone go for it…. Essentially a way for artists to take one step back from the process and donate (for example) 70% of the value of their work to the charitable cause, instead of 100%.

Moving on to the idea of someone to market work for Island artists…

I think what you’ve proposed is a great idea and matches well with some other conversations I’ve been having recently with other organizations and partners. It’s certainly something to pursue over this next year, and I look forward to some support from the arts community for this measure.

There are a few different ways to implement this type of idea regionally, nationally, and worldwide. The model that seems to work best is that of a cooperative (and there are positively brilliant examples out there – I was blown away by a UK cooperative for music that was the subject of a paper last year). The reason I like the cooperative model is that it firmly rests the control in the hands of the users, not Government directors, or non-profit execs (like me). At the same time, it doesn’t preclude support from the agencies, and doesn’t preclude the hiring of someone reasonable expert in the area. Europe is already well down this path, and let’s not forget the Canadian Francophone experience. Of course, the biggest reason to use a coop model is that it can be as exclusive or inclusive as the coop participants desire – something very difficult to do if you are a Government employee, or an non-profit exec (like me). Don’t like someone’s work? Don’t include them. Love someone’s work? Invite them it. The power of the cooperative model.

If anyone is interested, there is a coop model working now in Fredericton (based around a gallery) with a paid staff to market and promote. I’d be quite happy to look at a road trip and take a few people up for a discussion.

What think you all?

Darrin

A quiet day for a budget (maybe)

Today, maybe, is budget day on PEI. I say maybe, because Opposition MLA and Critic for Agriculture, Fisheries & Aquaculture, Tourism, Environment, Forestry, and Provincial Treasury Jim Bagnall, is in the midst of delivering his response to the speech from the Throne. I suppose he has every right to do so, that’s the point of the legislature, and I do hope that his lengthy reply is not a move intended simply to hamper the smooth running of the place. (Having been the target of a filibuster myself, last year, I know it can be frustrating. The opposition says this is not a filibuster, so, let’s all tune in for ourselves and make our own judgments.)

Budget… budget, budget, budget. Will this be the budget I’ve been looking for and working towards for four years, or will this budget be the one of been dreading for an equally long time. For today, I’ve done what I can do. Like you all, I’ll sit here in my office and wait (watching streamed from the leg). About half-way through, I’ll start drafting my email to the Dept. of Community and Cultural Affairs, and Labour, and ask the Director for confirmation on this years allocation. At some point, he’ll respond, I’ll share his response with the Board of Directors, then after their feedback, draft a message to the membership, the general arts community and anyone else who will listen. I imagine we’ll have a press release or two to go with that. I’ve got great staff for that part.

All of this, even with the potential for great things, for (and I know this seems like hoping beyond hope) a budget increase that will allow the PEICA to do what it wants to do, what it needs to do, what its been tasked and asked to do, I am, today, quite tired. I’ve got pneumonia, for the second time since January – the antibiotics are starting to kick in and I am feeling a bit better thanks.

So, while I hope to god (small “g”, I know, I’m an atheist so I’m not really “hoping to” anything) we see good news, I’m preparing for a fight. If you’ve read my “I am an angry man” post, you’ll already know the basis for the argument. Today though, today I’ll rest a bit. Listen to some good music, go find a quiet spot in a coffee shop, and read my second-hand copy of the “The Outsider” by Albert Camus (also known as "the Stranger").

If you’d like to join me in some metaphysical music sharing, please take a listen to my musical pick for a quiet day. I love this guy – Justin Vernon. Sometimes you just need a guy and a guitar. For those who read this on Facebook and can’t see the embedded video here, you can travel to my blog to see this post in it’s proper format here: http://mudderings.blogspot.com.

I am an angry man.

I am an angry man, although, probably not for the reasons you might think. I recognize also that I may be angry prematurely. That said, I have a sinking feeling, a deep seated suspicion, and that, my friends, is the root of my discontent.

I am not angry that the Council of the Arts will probably not see the funding increase we've asked for and so desperately need. No, I'm not angry. That leaves me feeling sad. Sad for the Island, sad for the arts and artists, sad for the cultural community, sad for the diverse and under served communities we'd created programs for, sad for the children who we'd hoped to start forming into artists, or more creative thinkers, or appreciative audiences (and leaders) for the future. No, that would just make me sad. Sad and tired, for, with each passing year that these areas are not addressed, the job becomes harder, so much harder.

I am not angry that those programs we (and I mean the collective we) worked so hard to create will play second fiddle to programs created elsewhere - momentary responses to perceived immediate needs. Surely, there will be happy people here and there, some progress may be made. I will not be angry, but I'll be experiencing something that grows close to outright cynicism. I'm starting to see this province (to use a health care analogy so as to make the point more meaningful) as a patient riddled with cancer who's treatment has been to cover the visible signs of disease with band-aids. Oh look, there's a Sponge Bob band-aid... how cute.

What will make me angry, indeed furious, will be this:

For four years I have told the creative community on Prince Edward Island that we need to collaborate, we need to discuss, talk, communicate, and partner. I've told my successive Boards of Directors that we need to consult. Where people are willing to engage in productive, results based discussions we must leap at the chance.

I've said that we must research, we must become local experts in regional, national, and international best practices. We must innovate. We must not be afraid to toss out old paradigms and mechanisms. We must not be afraid to embrace new ideas and new models.

I have all but promised the arts community that, by working together, by being responsible to and for ourselves, by acting out not with shouts and angry letters but with thoughtful, considered, reports and plans, we would see success and our accomplishments would have to be recognized.

What makes me angry now is that, after doing it all a manner that bespeaks of professionalism, of quiet incremental, cooperative progress, of incredible responsibility and competence in this community, it will come to naught.

What makes me angry is that, after consulting across the province, after starting from scratch and building a Strategic Plan that was resoundingly supported here and drew nods of approval from our national peers, after building an implementation plan that directly addressed that strategic plan and also directly addressed the Province's own Cultural Policy, we will have achieved somewhere between little and nothing.

In effect, the message from Government becomes:
1) We say we want communities to work together and present common goals and needs but we don't really mean that. What we will respond to is loud squeaking voices and opportunities we perceive will bring more instant gratification.
2) The health of the arts on a Provincial level mean less than the health of a specific group or organization in a specific town, region, riding, that we like or someone we know is supporting.
3) We're quite happy to see you take up a few years of busy work if it keeps you off our back - care to return to that?
4) Shut up already. Here's a little bone. Don't like it? Maybe we'll take all the bones.

My friends, what makes me angry is that I made you all a promise. A promise that, by working together and presenting to Government a set of commonly agreed upon priorities and a set of commonly agreed upon initiatives, that we would see success - that we simply had to see success. What makes me angry is that, as we'll find out shortly, I was wrong.

Let's all wait for Budget day and see... Have a misspoken? Have I gone off on a rant where none was needed? If there is anything I'm wrong about, please let it be that. I'll gladly eat crow.

The Gallery is full… for you.

As I write this, the Government is preparing to deliver the speech from the throne, and I’m just back from the Legislature where I had planned to hear it delivered.

I suppose I wasn’t surprised to walk in and be told “We’re sorry, the Gallery is full. You’ll have to watch from the Theatre.” by the security guards. I’d left it a little late, it was 2:30 and the show was to begin at 3:00. What did surprise me was that, for the group behind me, the Gallery was no longer full. For the couple behind them, it was full again, and for the group of six behind them, there was again room.

I suppose also, that it could be, however unlikely, that the Gallery was expanding and contracting rather randomly (due perhaps to some Star Trek like anomaly in the space/time continuum), and that someone else was observing the moment-by-moment expansion and contraction and was also, by some secret means, sharing that information with security who, in moments of expansion, would then allow a few more people in. I presume that, in this scenario, I had the misfortune of arriving during a contraction and was barred. Had I taken a moment longer to greet the Mayor outside, I would have, instead, arrived at a fortuitous moment of expansion and been granted entry.

Perhaps, though, there were some other criteria in play (however likely my spatial contraction/expansion theory) at play and, for whatever reason, I didn’t merit admittance to the Galleries. Of course, such a suggestion borders on the ridiculous, but, on the very off chance that it is, indeed, this second theory, I’m left to wonder what criteria were used to bar some, and allow others.

Bill C-10 - Who gets to decide?

Enough people are saying all the right things about bill C-10 which proposes to, among other things, withhold important tax credits for project that are contrary to public policy - veiled censorship if there ever was any.

It comes as no surprise that this government, "Canada's (not so) New Government", is following on the heals of some old US legislation that was led at the time by none other than Jesse Helms, right-wing, republican, who tried the same thing back in the 1980's. Those of us old enough will probably remember that. C-10 doesn't quite go as far as that bill, but it certainly is a giant step in that direction.

It got me thinking about an old Loudon Wainwright III song, "Jesse Don't Like It" from the album (yes, it was an album) Social Studies. Here's a pretty messy version (I mean messy - some guy filmed it in his hotel room on his TV - lyrics are here) on YouTube. If I had the skills, I'd re-record it and change "Jesse" to "Stevie".



Boo to you Stephen Harper. Stuff like this isn't suppose to happen in "my" Canada. And the last thing I want is for you to be in charge of the moral/good-taste federal police squad.