What do we have to do?

Last year, when we received municipal funding for the two organizations to use for operating, it was the difference between staying open and closing. The 2009 Direct Access cuts were far too devastating to recover from, and the reduction in BC Arts Council funding of 40% was an additional blow. The crisis spurred our generous supporters to donate funds for the "Buy a Day at the Gallery" program. After a year and a half, things have settled out now that we appear to not be in crisis, donations have dropped off. That proposal to the City was for a service agreement to provide secure funding for all the cultural services we provide. It wasn't exactly what we wanted, but it saved our behinds.

Last month I prepared the proposal to the City again, stating how happy we are to be the recipient of some stable funding, and I was just today told "that was a one-time grant." Hmm. Apparently, my 2010 proposal for a service agreement was voted down, and they approved $25,000 as a one-time grant. Me and my limited thinking, I thought that just meant I had to come every year to show what we've done with their money, ask them for more and we'd have this lovely relationship. I guess not. My stomach is in knots. What does an organization have to do to get a commitment from funders? I had hoped 18 years of providing excellent services in visual arts, performing arts, community engagement, children's programs and maintaining an beautiful cultural venue would be enough. Perhaps not. Perhaps we should on slap on some ice skates and ask for $6 million to build one more skating rink. That seems to get approval. The real question is, what does the budget line "Recreation and Culture" really mean? Nearly $3 million operating funds is in that budget each year for the Recreation Centre. Are we not the Cultural Centre? $25,000 is only 1% of that budget. A measly 1%, which is quite in line with the crumbs the arts and culture sector is accustomed to receiving. What do we have to do to get 1%? I'm open to suggestions.

The Pillar That Wasn't

I'm not worldly.  I've never been to the Louvre, MOMA, or the Tate.  I've been to our National Gallery, which was a total hoot, as a supplement to my Canadian Art History course in my fourth year of university.  I'm a member of Vancouver Art Gallery, and get down there at least twice a year to see the exhibitions. However, I still feel a certain, how shall we say... backwardness? when it comes to knowing what contemporary art looks like. I guess I mean relevant art. It's easy in hindsight to see what was important art, but to know it in its time?  How many masters died in poverty because they weren't recognized in their time... it's a funny little quirk in our industry - not to know what's great when it's current.  Blah, blah, what I'm really trying to say is that "Peak Year" is awesome, and I think I'm looking at some of the greatest contemporary art being produced today.  With every drop of melting ice that I hear hitting that metal bucket, every person I see leaning over the viewing platform railing, and every visitor who walks by Otto's white pillar thinking it to be another white pillar and finding on their third pass that it's a sculpture... I marvel.  This is it folks, this is what it's like to look upon art that is relevant to its time.  This ecological crisis is one of many crises that our species is facing, and who knows which will take us all in the end, but for now, these ten works are doing what excellent art does - stares us in the face and dares us to think about it.