Unfettered Artistic License

There are many in the arts who feel that government funding is by its very nature stifling of the arts. That the arts community, no matter the vehicle, should be self-funded, or funded by private interests. Investors who make use of their capital to fund the arts based on anticipated returns. That many countries do fund their art communities and see that as a priority speaks volumes about the value seen to society by a vibrant art community.

But when government funding is extended to a country's arts communities, sight cannot be lost of the fact that this is taxpayer funding. Most people tend to be conservative in their appreciation for the arts. Most people don't regard the avant garde expression too highly. While artists themselves might feel compelled to stretch the limits of art expression, their auditors might not appreciate the results.

Artists who permit themselves and their art products to be carried along on public funds are by that very fact, not independent. Their production choices must, as a result, take into due consideration the tastes and values of the culture they pursue their art within. The government of Canada is currently presenting Bill C-10 with a view to passing it into law. And getting quite a bit of flack from members of the art community, as a result.

Bill C-10 is seen as being artistically repressive in nature. Artists who see it as a challenge to push the envelope of public acceptance in the production of films, for example, that boast excessive violence or blatantly offensive sex scenes, even verging on child pornography, claiming it to represent artistic expression, naturally consider this proposal to be tantamount to censorship.

For the simple reason that the bill would permit government to refuse tax credits to films and television shows that the public might consider to be offensive through the portrayal of gratuitously excessive anything insulting to social mores and traditional cultural values. That still leaves a lot of room for manoeuvring. If cutting-edge represents manifestations of social conduct that leave its viewers disgusted, perhaps it is censorship to refuse it funding support.

There is always the option of approaching the private sector for funding. Why call on government to fund, on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer, artistic productions they consider distasteful and offensive. The simple fact is, artistic creation is appreciated by the public, and the public is therefore amenable to having government use tax money to fund it. But once government funding is applied, artistic autonomy flies out the window.

They're mutually exclusive. There's a vested interest by the investor, and it's not illogical or onerous or unreasonable for someone making an investment being interested in the end result of that investment. If we enact publicly-administered laws to ensure that public morality expresses mainstream expectations, we're not really an oppressively repressive society, for there is ample room for accepted expression within Canadian societal mores.

To be completely fair, however, this government initiative should extend further, inclusive of films made in this country by foreign film developers as well.