What's in a Word?
As I seat hearing the outcome of yesterday’s workshop, one interesting common theme that seemed to have emerged is that there is a problem with the way we currently define certain things. We heard that “artists” are also creators, and that with the help of new technologies they now have become producers and distributors. On the other hand, some people are not comfortable with the use of the word “customers” due to its correlation with the pecuniary objective for cultural production; instead, they believe we should use the word “participants.” Finally, when we attempt to define the “needs of the sector” for policy initiatives, how we define the “sector” is at the root of the possible results.
At this point, we may think that the issues raised by these terminology concerns are not of great consequence, but I believe that they are. Anyone who has applied for funding knows that applications are very specific, and that the funding that is granted is generally directed to one aspect of cultural creation, production or distribution. So, if the lines get blurred, and we are no longer able to make a distinction between artists, producers, etc… does this mean that we need to re-design the funding infrastructure? But, if that is the case, what do we do about those that still hold their traditional roles? How can we be responsive to their needs?
In relation to the idea of replacing the consumer paradigm for a new an updated participant’s approach, what could be gain is a new understanding by those “participants” about their role in the arts and cultural community. If this idea was adopted by all Canadians, maybe we could increase their commitment to support Canadian content and cultural creations, as well as their involvement in their communities. Ok, this may be considered a long shot but I think that understanding your role in the process, and feeling like you a part of it may increase your interest.
Finally, the way we define the sector is very important. Each interest group tends to present a very narrow definition of the sector when outlining what it is that they want. Of course, the narrower you define it the better because it would seem that less compromises must be made. But, what do you do when you are the government and have to consider the position of everyone? Or better yet, what do you do when you are the CCA and you are trying to present a position that would not offend anyone and that would still be beneficial for everyone? Having such a broad and fragmented sector to represent is the biggest challenge faced by the CCA everyday. It may be hard for its members to understand this, and they may be against some of their actions, but what is the solution?
We often hear the expression “what’s in a word?” and having considered these relevant issues, I would say that it is more than what we would like to think.
At this point, we may think that the issues raised by these terminology concerns are not of great consequence, but I believe that they are. Anyone who has applied for funding knows that applications are very specific, and that the funding that is granted is generally directed to one aspect of cultural creation, production or distribution. So, if the lines get blurred, and we are no longer able to make a distinction between artists, producers, etc… does this mean that we need to re-design the funding infrastructure? But, if that is the case, what do we do about those that still hold their traditional roles? How can we be responsive to their needs?
In relation to the idea of replacing the consumer paradigm for a new an updated participant’s approach, what could be gain is a new understanding by those “participants” about their role in the arts and cultural community. If this idea was adopted by all Canadians, maybe we could increase their commitment to support Canadian content and cultural creations, as well as their involvement in their communities. Ok, this may be considered a long shot but I think that understanding your role in the process, and feeling like you a part of it may increase your interest.
Finally, the way we define the sector is very important. Each interest group tends to present a very narrow definition of the sector when outlining what it is that they want. Of course, the narrower you define it the better because it would seem that less compromises must be made. But, what do you do when you are the government and have to consider the position of everyone? Or better yet, what do you do when you are the CCA and you are trying to present a position that would not offend anyone and that would still be beneficial for everyone? Having such a broad and fragmented sector to represent is the biggest challenge faced by the CCA everyday. It may be hard for its members to understand this, and they may be against some of their actions, but what is the solution?
We often hear the expression “what’s in a word?” and having considered these relevant issues, I would say that it is more than what we would like to think.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home