Richard: "Arts councils and federal funding agencies are being told what they can and can't fund based on moral standards that have nothing to do with artistic merit or talent."

Censorship is when the government bans something, not when it denies funding.

I oppose censorship, but I also oppose government arts funding. There's no way a government agency can objectively judge "artistic merit or talent," so arts councils to a large extent end up as in-bred groups that fund their friends (cronyism), or promote their ideological biases.

I've noticed that some artists get grants every year or so, whereas most never get one.

Then there are the artists who get grants not for "artistic merit or talent" but because their sex or race or ethnicity "contributes to diversity."

By all means, let there be no censorship. But let's end government arts funding (which is inherently subjective and biased) as well.

Interesting point on political correctness. I see this unfortunately serving the interests of the neo-conservative agenda when it comes to depictions of Islam in inflammatory cartoons. And some on the "left" have happily joined in the march on this point.

I think the most important thing is for us to oppose censorship with a clarity that calls things by their rightful names--art, satire, propaganda, incitement, etc. Otherwise, we are allowing for a censorship of sorts to take place in the form of official regulation and sanction.

Loved the article. One correction I think needs mentioning. Janet Jackson's nipple was covered by a rather large piece of metal jewelry. Some how the conservative right grew X-Ray eyes and saw it as a "bare nipple".

Mr.Sipos

I would humbly sugest that anytime anyone has their opinion supressed by another it is censorship no matter who is responsible for the doing. When any group, on the left or the right,or what ever their affiliation, moves to block the opinions of someone, that is in disagreement with them that is cencorship.

What else would you call it when a group forces the the closure of piece of theatre, the cancellation of a T.V. show, the banning of a book, etc, due to their actions.

I worked and made my living in Canada for as an arist for ten years, and helped others apply for grants in the interim. All arts councils in Canada are arms length groups separated from the governments and made up of individuals whose responsibilities are to assist the artists in applying for the grants.

Grants are awarded in individual diciplines by ever changing jurys made up of professional in the fields. The applications are judged according to set standards against which they are all measured.

They include, the professional stage the artist is at, his or her history of actual work to offer proof of their ability to accomplish the project, samples of their work, a very complete project description, including objectives, how it will assit their development as an artist, what benefit it will bring to their community, budget showing at where you are getting the rest of your money from (no arts council will be responsible for sole funding of anything, you must show that you are capable of securing other sources of monies.)

You also must provide letters of support from three reputable artists in that field that will speak to you abilities to complete the project.

Certain levels of Arts Councils, the Canada Council for the arts for instnace, have grants that are geared towards people at various levels of development in their career, both for companies and individuals. New artists must prove capabilities before being award any type of sustaing grants by having worked professionaly or a minimum of five years (professionaly being making the majority of your income from your art, not any other sourse)

All arts councils are also required to ensure that monies are distributed equally across their regions of coverage, so that monies will not end up being given to one centre alone.

There will of course be a deal of subjectivity, art is a subjective field anyway, but decisions are based on more than just whether sombodies work is liked or disliked. No jury member is supposed to deal with any application where they have more than normal awareness of the artist in question's work. If it is found after the fact this wasn't the case and a grant was awarded, the circumstances will be examined to decide whether a the decision should be reversed. In that case the artist will be made to repay the money and will be disqualified from applying for future grants...in other words it ain't worth it.

I don't know where you are getting your information, but that's not the case in Canada, and without arts councils there is noway for artists to develop independantly of outside influences.

From my experiences the people who complain the loudest among aritists about the arts councils are those who never take the time to properly fill out the applications, or who don't qualify for lack of abilities or other reasons.

I have tried to explain to many people you can not just approach an arts council and say give me money so I can do something, but they prefer to complain then make the effort to understand the idea that the councils bear a responsibility to all artists and the community to ensure that funds are spent on projects that will be completed and will at some time have an impact on the community.

I have sheperded many an application through the doors of arts councils, and have been able to predict fairly accurately which applications will succeed and which won't based on the merits of the applications.

Arts councils are the fairest means of supplying artists who need support with arms-length funding and without them the continued growth of the arts in countries like Canada would be seriously threatened.

Its when a government moves to exert more influence on the councils, as happened in the 1980's under Ronald Regan with the National Endowment For The Arts Program in the United States that things start to go bad. Once political considerations enter into the process at the highest levels it seeps it way down into all levels from every side.

One group desides that they must counter the influence of x with their own influence and so on. For an arts council to be viable they must operate without interfearance from any political influence, in all aspects of that word. Once they have any sort of agenda they are betraying their trust.

Richard Marcus

Richard, great article! Yeah, your statement is my whole trip. Artists are some of the best sociologists or psychiatrists around as they observe society and individuals then write a thesis using the medium of print, canvas, music, installatation of odd items, etc...I'm sure the words of Bob Dylan has been heavily studied by the soc/psych departments of major universities and used his analysis in course structures. An example.

And the best part is the ability to reach masses of people and create social movement. 'Are you on the bus or off the bus' as an example. It gives the common man the quickest access to mass media.

It is all about art and love at this point of society.

Your voice in this article is art, dude. Rock on!

peaceloveguidance

Terrific article, Richard. It put me in mind of the "degenerate art" that was produced between the wars in Germany and environs. Some of the most vibrant, experimental, and incisive art was of course condemned by those who knew all too well that art promotes individuality and unfettered creativity in both the making and the interpretation.

Richard: "anytime anyone has their opinion supressed by another it is censorship no matter who is responsible for the doing. When any group, on the left or the right,or what ever their affiliation, moves to block the opinions of someone, that is in disagreement with them that is cencorship."

You use strong words like "suppress" or "block," but I don't think those words properly describe a mere denial of arts funding.

No one's subsidizing me with grant money. Does that mean my opinion is suppressed or blocked, or that I've been censored?

If any publisher or producer rejects my novel or screenplay, does that mean I have been suppressed, blocked, or censored? I think not.

Rejection or denial of subsidy is not censorship. It's only censorship if you're forbidden by law from expressing yourself.

There's a big, qualitative difference between not getting support, and being actively forbidden.

BTW, it's weirdly funny what qualifies for arts grants in Canada. I saw a paperback sci-fi novel by a Canadian writer, published through a regular American publisher, and it said on the copyright page that the book had received an Ontario Arts Grant. The horror films of David Cronenberg have also received Canadian arts grants.

For what it's worth, while I admire Cronenberg, this sci-fi book was real bad (I refuse to plug the author) and full of pointless Canada references. I wondered if there was a quota of Canadian plugs to qualify for the grant.

Richard. When we began as photographers in the early 80s, we specialized in performance photography. It didn't earn much but it was great fun and connected us to musicians, composers, theater companies, dancers and rock groups.

Then came the Reagan Years and the money for the arts dried up. The Republicans and radical right began to win the battle against freedom -- which begins with the battle against the arts for they are, as you point out, the front line in the fight to find new ways to see the world.

I don't know if the people who seek to control artistic expression are doing so because they understand that or not. It is more likely that they are doing it because they don't see the world they want to exist depicted. With their efforts to control expression they are trying to form a false picture of the world for their own peace of mind.

Unfortunately neither the world nor the artists are co-operating, and they never will. Perhaps there will come a time when people realize they can't enforce their vision of existence on either the world or the artist. Instead of trying to control art, they need to accept the fact that it tells them, with far more honesty than any newspaper, what is going on in the world.

I agree with Sipos. Much of the best art was done without public or governmental approval. It wasn't censored, but it wasn't well received from the start.

Censorship, in some of the cases herein discussed, has become a vehicle for impatient or mediocre artists to demand recognition from their time and place. Neither prophets, nor poets, philosophers or artists are loved in their own home (town).

"Those who destroy funding for the arts..."

I don't think art has an automatic right to financial support. It's like free speech. I have the right to speak, and you have the right to not listen.