PLANETOF THE ARTS vol.4no.2 © ~~ '8™ FREE TRADE; (The following is the text of remarks made by the author during a panel discussion on Free Trade and Culture sponsored by the 1988 Vancouver Fringe Festival). Being the sole supporter of free trade on this panel, probably in this room, and indeed among the entire “cultural community”, makes me feel a little bit like a Christian among lions. In order to minimize how much I am torn limb from limb, I will restrict my comments entirely to how free trade may affect the arts, particularly the visual arts. I would like to begin by examining some of the assumptions underlying the debate on free trade, beginning with the assumption free trade will have a major impact on our “culture”. Usually people making this assumption are critical of free trade, and they're critical because they have in mind a scenario of what this impact will be. This scenario has a curious resemblance to descriptions of infection by the AIDS virus. We Canadians (the victims), carelessly and repeatedly indulge in acts of pleasure. We watch American films, we read American books, we listen to American rock stars, not caring where they come from. If we do so “unprotected” by our government, a mysterious “viral organism” enters the body politic. This organism rapidly multiplies and as it does so it mutates and becomes harmful, destroying our “Canadian culture”, our “natural” defense mecha- nism. Eventually, our national identity withered, we tragically expire as a sovereign nation. If we push this scenario a little bit we might conclude the CBC is the equivalent of “safe sex”, perhaps not as satisfying as the “real thing”, but nonetheless “good” for us, something we all “should” do. Touching as this scenario may be, it begs the question as to exactly what the nature of the “virus” carried by the big boy to the south is. The most common answer to this question, put very simply, is that the virus is all the effects associated with consumerism, or more precisely, the high intensity exchange of commodities. What then are the problems critics associate with commodity exchange? The most obvious characteristic of relations in a market is how things are not only usable, but exchangeable as well. As the frequency of exchange increases so too does the preponderance of charac- teristics making exchange possible — quantifica- tion, predictability, measurability, uniformity — over those characteristics associated with use — uniqueness, small scale, irrationality. The critics of free trade and the arts derive two criticisms from this tendency. The first suggests the preponderance of exchange values neglects essential aspects of life. In the arts this is translated into the idea that art, treated as a commodity, fails to generate back to the artists who produce it enough money to survive. This criticism has been coined the “cultural extinc- tion theory”. It’s actually quite a poor argument because it lacks any proof. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence suggesting there have been a lot of artists in Canada for a long time, there are certainly many now, and our numbers seem to be if anything increasing, not decreasing. The second criticism suggest that while « commodity relations may not threaten human life, they do possibly threaten aspects necessary to a life worth living. This argument is bandied around so frequently and so carelessly that we have to be very careful about what exactly is meant. Usually this argument, applied to the arts, equates the quanti- tative relationships of exchange with superficiality, uncritical attitudes, historical perspectives and so on, and are therefore “bad”. This equation is itself superficial since it ignores considerable research documenting the rich and varied ways sub-cultural groups are molded by, and in turn mold, the commoditized/culture with which they come into contact. But the criticism of commodity relations has a deeper aspect, which for now I will character- ize as a sense that relations based primarily on exchange provide an unsatisfactory examination of moral considerations. If that is what is meant by critics of free trade then I agree with them; insofar as free trade expands commodity relations, and those relations in turn undermine moral considera- tions, it is bad. At the same time, however, there are two arguments for free trade requiring brief explana- tion. The first argument suggests “culture” is not a “thing” like widgets or hockey pucks. It is an inadequately understood set of relationships between humans and between humans and things. Since we don’t know what culture is we cannot know what “protects” it. Therefore, as a society, we should attempt to provide people with as many choices as possible, and let them make up their own minds. And what better mechanism is there for providing choices than the unfettered marketplace? This argument misses the point however, which is the contention that the market only provides choices of a certain quality. No matter how numer- ous those choices may be they are still all of a certain kind. Critics point to small-scale uniquely Canadian choices as examples of ones the marketplace may be unable to provide if left alone. The second argument for free trade is more powerful. This states that if the danger everyone is so worried about is how the market tends to “rationalize” i.e. render uniform, predictable and measurable, then surely there have been no more effective agents of this rationalization than the bu- reaucracy. This is certainly true in the visual arts where I work, which have become overwhelmed by the shuffling of resumes and slides among agents, brokers, dealers, bureaucrats, juries, curators from alternate galleries to the apogee of state culture, the National Gallery. In all this paperchase after “professionalism” the mysterious and unique confrontations of individuals and works of art has almost been lost. There is another danger associ- ated with the bureaucracy. In western countries at least, state patronage is largely organized around the principle of peer evaluation, where artists decide whether or not other artists should be funded. Unfortunately, artists are a notoriously self-indulgent lot. They must be or they wouldn’t produce art. But when artists are given free reign, with no outside measure to restrain them, they devolve into the arcane, pedantic nonsense largely passing for art, and art criticism, in Canada today. Therefore, insofar as free trade will tend to under- mine the bureaucracy, it will benefit the arts. So, it seems to me, both sides in the free trade debate are equally correct in pointing out the weaknesses of their opponents’ arguments. Both the so-called “free-market” and the state-supported art bureaucracy have seriously adverse conse- quences for the arts. As an artist I would prefer to reject both alternatives. But no, the two camps insist we must decide between them, for this agreement is a watershed moment for Canada, the forces of light arrayed against those of darkness. This bovine obstinacy is ironic, because it blinds both sides to how in one crucial way they agree with each other. Both share the fundamental principle that freedom is the greatest good of our society. The more freedom everyone has the better off they are. In practice this pursuit of freedom has undergone a subtle yet significant change since its origin in enlightenment thought to now being the pursuit of unlimited freedom of choice. Debate on free trade rages around this more technical ques- tion. Is the free market or the state best able to provide us with the most choices? Neither side now admits of the existence of the ethical, qualitative problem the pursuit of freedom was designed to solve: what is good? In the artistic sphere this question takes the form, what is good art? When forced, both sides justify this abdication of evaluation by pointing out what is good always depends on human interests, there- fore what is good art depends on who is asking. There are no universal criteria. Since there are not, more art equals good art. What this fails to take into account is that while good art may indeed depend on who is asking, not everyone asks. In fact, only a relatively small, relatively coherent social group ever does. This usually unadmitted orientation of art is born out by many of the arguments made in defense of “Canadian culture”. These arguments rarely mention waterslides, Canada’s Wonderland, r.v. parks or painters of ducks and barns, all arguably part of our “culture”. Usually they refer to support for symphonies, or art galleries, or Stratford or performance artists who want to chuck chicken feathers around. In short, the “culture” ARTS everyone is talking about is really that hoary bogeyman “high art”. The attempt to substitute the term “culture” (by definition, of interest to every- one) for “high art” (of interest to a few) is mystifica- tion, pure and simple, obscuring what would otherwise be obvious: the.proponents of “Canadian culture” want everyone to pay for the enjoyments of afew. The right has gained considerable mileage by pointing out this hidden elitism of the left, but their doing so is hypocritical, since they know perfectly well their so-called “free-market” operates just as much to the advantage of the few at the expense of the many. So why not drop the hypocrisy? Why don’t pro- and anti-free-traders just come out and admit it? Art is of interest to a group not only relatively small and coherent, but also relatively wealthy and relatively well-educated, in short the elite of our society. Why can’t we stop pretending all the galleries and theaters and CBC relay stations we have built have changed that basic fact, or ever will? Once we do we can see that “good” art is art that expresses most clearly the values of this elite. I should say a few words about the nature of this elite audience. It is not defined solely by wealth, education, race, etc. although usually those characteristics coincide. For example, some of the wealthy dislike art, while others, clearly not from advantaged backgrounds, passionately support it. More fundamental is a concern with the values of society, how it expresses its spirit, how it perceives problems of being, and how it sees overcoming those problems. The art elite perceives itself to be providing the moral leadership of society, and art is a key element in expressing that leadership. (Just as an aside, I should mention I do not believe this elite really does “lead” society, morally or any other way. Rather I believe society ex- presses the direction it is going in anyway through its leaders.) Be that as it may, to me the problem boils down to whether the elite is going to clearly express its moral leadership, or is that expression of leadership, which must appear in some form, to be muddied and mystified? From this perspective the argument about free trade is not about economic questions since we are already locked into an economic pattern — most fundamentally the explosion of the world of commodities. Rather the debate is about a moral question between members of the elite: what form will their elite leadership take? Pro-free-traders want clear responsibility for the direction of society as a whole. Anti-free- traders want to disavow responsibility, and pretend they are not part of an elite, restricted group which will provide leadership regardless of pluralist. rhetoric. Since I believe clarity is preferable to mystification I therefore support free trade. I do not expect many here today to support such an argument. I do hope however I have implanted the seeds of a question I believe is being largely ignored in Canada today: what is good art? If people begin to address that difficult question then all the “sound and fury signifying nothing” around free trade may have have been worthwhile. Derek Simons ee PLANETOF THE ARTS vol.4no.2 8 FREE TRAD (The following is the text of remarks made by the author during a panel discussion on Freo Trade and Culture sponsored by the 1988 Vancouver Fringe Festival). Being the sole supporter of free trade on this panel, probably in this room, and indeed among the entire “cultural community", makes me feel alittle bit ike a Christian among lions. In order to ‘minimize how much Tam torn limb from limb, I will restrict my comments entirely to how free trade may affect the arts, particularly the visual arts, I would like to begin by examining some of the assumptions underlying the debate on free trade, beginning with the assumption free trade will have a major impact on our “culture”. Usually people making this assumption are critical of free trade, and they're critical because they have in ‘mind a scenario of what this impact will be. This scenario has a curious resemblance to descriptions of infection by the AIDS virus. We Canadians (the victims), carelessly and repeatedly indulge in acts of pleasure. We watch American films, we read American books, we listen to American rock stars, ‘not caring where they come from. If we do so “unprotected” by our government, a mysterious “viral organism” enters the body politi. This ‘organism rapidly multiplies and as it does soit mutates and becomes harmful, destroying our *Canadian culture”, our “natural” defense mechs nism, Eventually, our national identity withered, ‘we tragically expire as a sovereign nation. If we push this scenario a little bit we might conclude the CBC is the equivalent of “safe sex”, perhaps not as satisfying as the “real thing”, but nonetheless “ood” for us, something we all “should” do. ‘Touching as this scenario may be, it begs the ‘question as to exactly what the nature of the “virus” carried by the big boy to the south is. The ‘most common answer to this question, put very, simply, is that the virus is all the effects associated with consumerism, or more precisely, the high intensity exchange of commodities. What then are the problems critics associate with commodity exchange? ‘The most obvious characteristic of relations in ‘a market is how things are not only usable, but ‘exchangeable as well. As the frequency of exchange {nereases so too does the preponderance of charac- teristics making exchange possible —quantifica- tion, predictability, measurability, uniformity — over those characteristics associated with use — ‘uniqueness, small scale, irrationality. The crities of free trade and the arts derive two criticisms from this tendency. ‘The first suggests the preponderance of exchange values neglects essential aspects of life In the arts this is translated into the idea that art, treated as a commodity, fails to generate back to the artists who produce it enough money to survive. ‘This criticism has been coined the “cultural e tion theory”. It's actually quite a poor argument because it lacks any proof. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence suggesting there have been lot of artists in Canada for a long time, there are certainly many now, and our numbers seem to be if ‘anything increasing, not decreasing. ‘The second eriticism suggest that while « ‘commodity relations may net threaten human life, they do possibly threaten aspects necessary to a life worth living. This argument is bandied around so frequently and so carelessly that wo have to be very careful about what exactly is meant, Usually this argument, applied to the arts, equates the quanti- tative relationships of exchange with superficiality, uncritical attitudes, historical perspectives and so fon, and are therefore “bad’. This equation is itself ‘superficial since it ignores considerable research ‘documenting the rich and varied ways sub-cultural ‘groups are molded by, and in turn mold, the ‘commoditized culture with which they come into ‘contact. But the criticism of commodity relations )has a deeper aspect, which for now I will character- {no.as a sense that relations based primarily on ‘exchange provide an unsatisfactory examination of ‘moral considerations. Ifthatis what is meant by critics of free trade then T agree with them; insofar 1s free trade expands commo arguments for free trade requiring brief explana- tion. The frst argument suggests “culture” is not a “thing” like widgets or hockey pucks. It is an inadequately understood set of relationships ‘between humans and between humans and things. ‘Since we don't know what culture is we cannot know what “protects” it. Therefore, as a society, we should attempt to provide people with as many choices as possible, and let them make up their own ‘minds. And what better mechanism is there for providing choices than the unfettered marketplace? ‘This argument misses the point however, which is, the contention that the market only provides choices ofa certain quality. Nomatter how num: ‘ous those choices may be they are still all ofa certain kind. Critics point to small-scale uniquely Canadian choices as examples of ones the marketplace may be unable to provide if left alone. ‘The second argument for free trade is more powerful. This states that if the danger everyone is 0 worried about is how the market tends to “rationalize” i.e. render uniform, predictable and ‘measurable, then surely there have been no more cffective agents ofthis rationalization than the bu- reaucraey. This is certainly true in the visual arts where I work, which have become overwhelmed by ‘the shuffling of resumes and slides among agents, brokers, dealers, bureaucrats, juries, curators from alternate galleries to the apogee of state culture, the National Gallery. In all this paperchase after “professionalism” the mysterious and unique confrontations of individuals and works of art has ‘almost been lost. There is another danger associ- ated with the bureaucracy. In western countries at least, state patronage is largely organized around ‘the principle of peer evaluation, where artists decide whether or not other artists should be funded. Unfortunately, artists are a notoriously selfindulgent lot. They must be or they wouldn't produce art. But when artists are given free reign, ‘with no outside measure to restrain them, they devolve into the arcane, pedantic nonsense largely passing for art, and art criticism, in Canada today. ‘Therefore, insofar as free trade will tend to under- ‘mine the bureaucracy, it will benefit the arts. So, it seems to me, both sides in the free trade debate are equally correct in pointing out the weaknesses of their opponents’ arguments. Both the so-called “free-market” and the state-supported art bureaucracy have seriously adverse conse- quences for the arts. As an artist I would prefer to reject both alternatives. But no, the two eamps insist we must decide between them, for this ‘agreement is a watershed moment for Canada, the forces of light arrayed against those of darkness. ‘This bovine obstinacy is ironic, because it blinds Doth sides to how in one erucial way they agree with each other. Both share the fundamental principle that freedom is the greatest good of our society. The more freedom everyone has the better off they are. In practice this pursuit of freedom has undergone a eubtle yet significant change since its, origin in enlightenment thought to now being the pursuit of unlimited freedom of choice. Debate on free trade rages around this more technical ques tion, Is the free market or the state best able to provide us with the most choices? Neither side now admits of the existence of the ethical, qualitative problem the pursuit of freedom was designed to solve: what is good? In the artistic sphere this question takes the form, ‘what is good art? When forced, both sides justify this abdication of evaluation by pointing out what is good always depends on human interests, there- fore what is good art depends on who is asking. ‘There are no universal criteria. Since there are not, more art equals good art. What this fails to take into account is that while good art may indeed depend on whois asking, not everyone asks. In. fact, only a relatively small, relatively coherent. social group ever does. ‘This usually unadmitted orientation of artis, born out by many of the arguments made in defense of Canadian culture”. These arguments rarely mention waterslides, Canada's Wonderland, rv. parks or painters of ducks and barns, all arguably part of our “culture”. Usually they refer to support for symphonies, or art galleries, or Stratford or performance artists who want to chuck chicken feathers around. In short, the “culture” THARTS everyone is talking about is really that hoary bogeyman “high art”. The attempt to substitute the ‘erm “culture” (by definition, of interest to every- ‘one) for “high art” (of interest toa few) is mystifica- tion, pure and simple, obscuring what would ‘otherwise be obvious: the proponents of “Canadian, culture” want everyone to pay for the enjoyments of ‘afew. The right has gained considerable mileage by pointing out this hidden elitism of the let, but ‘thelr doing so is hypocritical, since they know perfectly well their so-called “free-market” operates Jjust as much to the advantage ofthe few at the ‘expense of the many. So why not drop the hypocrisy? Why don't pro. and antiree-traders just come out and admit ie? Artis of interest to a group not only relatively ‘small and coherent, but also relatively wealthy and relatively well-educated, in short the elite of our society. Why can’t we stop pretending all the galleries and theaters and CBC relay stations we hhave built have changed that basic fact, or ever will? Once we do we can see that “good” art is art ‘that expresses most clearly the values ofthis elite. should say a few words about the nature of this elite audience. Itis not defined solely by wealth, education, race, ete. although usually those characteristics coincide, For example, some of the wealthy dislike art, while others, clearly not from advantaged backgrounds, passionately support it. More fundamental is a concern with the values of society, how it expresses its spirit, how it perceives problems of being, and how it sees overcoming those problems. The art elite perceives itself to be providing the moral leadership of society, and artis ‘a key clement in expressing that leadership. (Just as an aside, Ishould mention I do not believe this elite really doos “load” society, morally or any other way. Rather I boliove society ex- presses the direction itis going in anyway through its leaders.) ‘Be that as it may, tome the problem boils down to whether the elite is going to clearly express. ‘moral leadership, or is that expression of leadership, which must appear in some form, to be ‘muddied and mystified? From this perspective the argument about free trade is not about economic questions sinco we are already locked into an. economic pattern — most fundamentally the explosion of the world of commodities. Rather the debate is about a moral question between members ‘of the elite: what form will their elite leadership take? Pro-free-traders want clear responsibility for the direction of society as a whole. Anti-free- traders want to disavow responsibility, and pretend they are not part ofan elite, restricted group which will provide leadership rogardless of pluralist, rhetoric. Since I believe clarity is preferable to mystification I therefore support free trade. 1 do not expect many here today to support such an argument. Ido hope however Ihave {implanted the seeds of a question I believe is being largely ignored in Canada today: what is good art? If people begin to address that difficult question then all the “sound and fury signifying nothing” around free trade may have have been worthwhile. Derek Simons