Art IS Exclusionary (but not in the way you think)

Hey all,

I'd like to preface this by saying that I haven't given up on The Daily Jason by any means; my internet has been causing me problems. I would've like to have prefaced that by professing my love for the word "preface," but I didn't, so here we are.

Ahem. The reason for this post is Prime Minister Stephen Harper--specifically something he said. Last week at a press conference, he made a comment about how "ordinary working people" essentially don't care about the arts (what he actually said was that they don't feel sympathy for artists, but the distinction is moot). What he was trying to connect, without saying it, is that the average person doesn't care about art because of the exclusivity of the arts community. I've heard this argument a lot and think it's utter bullshit. I find more people are exclusive towards the arts (like Harper is being) than the arts are exclusive to them.

Now I would argue that, for all intents and purposes, I am an "ordinary working person." I guess the fact that I went to college excludes me from actually being "ordinary" in Alberta, because as of 1999, only 50% of Albertans between 18 and 20 went into post-secondary* (the lowest in Canada) and significantly less graduated (and I would guess those numbers have dropped, given our current economy). But I was born and raised in Alberta and I know the people Mr. Harper would call "ordinary." Even more, I know why these people think art is exclusionary.

These people don't have an interest in the arts. They don't go to independent movies, art galleries or local theatre productions because they undoubtedly assume one of the following:
a) They won't like it
b) They won't get it
c) They will feel excluded because they don't know anything about it

In the first two cases, it seems pretty obvious to me that the "ordinary person" is the one being exclusionary--he/she not willing to try something different because of perceived boredom. In case two, you could probably argue for an intellectual exclusivity, and I will try to argue that in my blanket assessment of case three.

When I was writing my article on vegetarianism for the journal, Meatless in a Sea of Cattle, I interviewed the organizer of the Vegetarian Meetup group. She gave a quotation that I loved about a review of a vegetarian restaurant. “The author basically described the other patrons as overly pious and pretentious,” she says.
“I’m pretty sure the other diners didn’t get up to smugly declare to her that they, as vegetarians, were doing ‘the right thing.’ It’s all perception, I guess.”

I find most often when people talk about exclusion, it's almost invariably the perception of exclusion that they're actually talking about. Outside of school, I find most people are pretty accepting. And in terms of intellectual discourse, almost 100% of the time, people are too focused on what they are saying to really pay any attention to whatever stupid thing you might be saying. In other words, when people leave a social situation, they almost invariably replay their own part of the conversation. There are some art snobs out there, but unless you go talk to them, they probably have their snob friends to talk to. Which brings me to my next point: people tend not to talk to strangers.

How often is it that you're walking out of a movie (even an independent movie) and a complete stranger asks you what you thought? Or someone walks up to you and asks you what you think of a piece of art? I would wager that this is a fantastically rare occurrence, especially if you're with someone. If you actually wanted to see the art gallery/independent movie/play without talking to a single person, you could do it easily. That's why I say people exclude the arts; the arts don't exclude people.

Now you may notice a lot of my discussion revolves around hypotheticals. And that's because I rarely participate in the local arts scene. So what's the difference between me and the aforementioned "ordinary working person?" The difference I am aware that it is my exclusivity--not that of the arts scene--that keeps me away.

And I acknowledge that funding for the arts is important, because all art comes from amateur arts. Those junior musicians who get funding from the Alberta Foundation for the Arts will be one of my favourite bands some day; that writer who gets funding will write my favourite book. Without arts funding, those musicians would never be able to afford to be musicians for more than a couple of years. That writer would have sold his typewriter and gotten a job on the rigs.

I support the arts--at least theoretically. And I definitely support arts funding.

*http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/020123/d020123a.html