to Day of Absence.
A word here: Patrick wrote this response to the excerpt from the full post that was circulated, faulty dates and all (it’s actually 42 years after Majority Rule and 36 years after Independence — my bad), not the original post, which you can find down the page. So some of what he says doesn’t relate to the full post. Still, I think he makes some interesting points. Check below the fold for the full exchange between Patrick and me.
Pat’s response:
Now that the day is over and I won’t be accused of trying to stop something, I will share my response to the Day of Absence. It is sad that we have reduced ourselves to behaving like a bunch of unionists. Jobs are NOT what being an artist is about. Noone owes any of us a living. If we are, as we claim, creative, we are in a better position than the rest of the community to make a living. The fact is that the reason most artists are broke (including me) is that there are other things in the world that are more important. As you noted, it is those things that will make the world of our grandchildren worth living. This constant suggestion that somehow the community should make it easier for artists to make a living is nonsense. It is the result of years of conditioning by governments that we should be taken care of. We are valuable. We must learn to make use of that value. The way to do that is not to beg (like we allow our children to do at intersections and outside businesshouses) but to use the creativity that manifests itself as painting, sculpture or poetry to create income-producing devices. I certainly don’t want anyone top feel sorry for me because I didn’t make the kind of money I could have. That would suggest that what I did do with my life (the music, poetry etc.) was less important than the money. It is not. I choose to do what I do. So do the rest of you. If expressing yourself in the forms you do does not reward you in the ways you wish, then perhaps you should do something else. The world would not stop if people who make their living in the arts did not show up. It would be a poorer world, for sure, but it would roll right on without you. I am an architect, and I must accept that while I might express myself creatively in that realm, the vast majority of this community finds my concerns of little interest. They are content with the crudest built environment they can have, as long as the price is the cheapest they can have. If I waited for the majority of the community to appreciate the creative efforts of architects, to reward me for being passionate about the way a porch works, I would never work. But I have no choice. This world is not mine. I hold it in trust for future generations of Bahamians. My income is not important in that picture. Si it is up to me to use the creativity with which I say I am gifted to create businesses, the unit of measure in the world of money. In any case, in this Information Age, the JOB is obsolete.
Ironically, there is a play that uses the “day off” idea to show white people that they need black people. Bahamians don’t “need” Pat Rahming. It would be the height of arrogance for me to threaten them with my withdrawal.
Pat Rahming
My response:
Thanks, Pat!
May I post your response publicly? I’m sure it’ll engender some useful debate.
Between us, though, (as usual) I think we’re talking at cross purposes.
Clearly, you disagree with the method used by Day of Absence, which was taken straight from the Douglas Turner Ward play for the very purpose you object to. I don’t agree with you that the world would go on turning without artists and the arts; I believe that the creative urge is too fundamental and too human. Without it there is no human society, there is no human world. The fact that we have divided human activity into basic/ugly/functional and beautiful/frivolous is, I believe a nineteenth century error that we don’t need to perpetuate. I believe if the artists disappeared the human world would stop. I believe the world absolutely needs artists.
But that’s just me.
On the other hand, when you say
“We are valuable. We must learn to make use of that value. The way to do that is not to beg (like we allow our children to do at intersections and outside businesshouses) but to use the creativity that manifests itself as painting, sculpture or poetry to create income-producing devices. I certainly don’t want anyone top feel sorry for me because I didn’t make the kind of money I could have. That would suggest that what I did do with my life (the music, poetry etc.) was less important than the money. It is not. I choose to do what I do. So do the rest of you.”
you aren’t so different from us at all. The Day of Absence is not about withdrawal, about begging, about making money or getting jobs; it is about respect. On the one hand respect is earned. On the other hand, though, it comes from a deep appreciation of what it means to be human. We use the language of jobs and employment because it is the language that most of us understand.
On the other hand, there is a very important economic aspect of the arts and culture that our society’s perpetual disrespect for arts, culture and artists (which is more profound in actuality than it is in most other societies) ignores. In the information age, the job is indeed obsolete. But culture and the arts are the information that makes up the Age. The fact that our society does not invest in any production of that at all will render us economically marginal in a very short time indeed.
The full article about Day of Absence is here: http://nicobethel.net/blogworld/2009/01/30/day-of-absence-11th-february/
You may want to append your comment in the discussion thread, because your response is predicated on what was circulated, not on the full article itself. I think it’s clearer there that it’s not all about jobs or money.
Pat’s Response:
Nico
I am not going to get into any debate on this subject. The reason is not because I would not enjoy it. It is because there are too many issues it clouds. I did not say the world would get along without artists. I said it would get along without us. We both know that, money or no, respect or no, there will always be the crazy folk who create because they can do no better, and while we ALL may find them strange, they are the very ones we use for direction. Their work neitrher relies on money nor respect. It does, however, rely on a personal honesty. If they believe the politicians are mismanaging their country, those “crazies” say so, loud and clear. They DEMAND respect, although most often they get it too late for their own sanity. For example, it is difficult to respect a community that allows its government to ignore the preparation for Carifesta on the excuse that there is no money, then brag that we can afford a 3-million dollar ad during the Superbowl. Not a single (creative) voice was raised to help the community understand that that was indicative of misplaced priorities. The money would obviously been better spent, even for touristic reasons, on the reason anyone would want to visit this place. I might seem to be hard on the creative community, but my background suggests that music, poetry, drama etc. are weapons of mass influence, and if we are ineffective, it might mean that we are not using those weapons as they should be used. Artists are not just another political constituency that should lobby for influence, they are the makers of influence. Unfortunately, with that title comes responsibility, perhaps too much for most of us.
I am reminded of the religious community, where the leaders have given up their power to pursue political prominence, perhaps because they envy the politician’s stardom. The price they pay is the suspicion that their motives may be other than souls, and their message rendered ineffective at best. Artists have the same problem. Their “message” is not contained in any political package, but in the act of creation. An artist’s union is an oxymoron.
And that’s it for me.
Pat
PS You have my permission to share any of my thoughts, as long as you blame them on me.
P
And my final response:
Pat, thanks, that clears up your position.
I hear you, and I agree.
However, conflating the idea of Day of Absence with calling for an artists’ union is mistaken. I was the person who thought of it and I didn’t think of it from the perspective of unionizing. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I will post your posts and attribute them accordingly. I think this debate is important.
I have deliberately stayed away from a discussion of CARIFESTA because I don’t want to sound like I’m chewing on sour grapes, which is perhaps the reason for you to stay away from it as well. But perhaps you’re right about calling attention to misplaced priorities, and I should raise it.
Take care
Nico
{ 9 comments }
Spot on Mr. Rahming.
I could not agree more.
Hopefully through the Day of Absence protests the artists might come to realise it depends on them. Not the government as I alluded to in a previous comment.
There are buyers and sellers and they can and do both mutually benefit from each other.
The arts is no different.
What does bother me though, is the arts, and not only here in The Bahamas, expect government handouts for them to practice their craft.
Rick, I wonder if you read all of Mr. Rahming’s points. He and I are in more perfect agreement on the fundamentals than it might appear on the surface — where we differ is in execution.
Did you read this part?
For example, it is difficult to respect a community that allows its government to ignore the preparation for Carifesta on the excuse that there is no money, then brag that we can afford a 3-million dollar ad during the Superbowl. Not a single (creative) voice was raised to help the community understand that that was indicative of misplaced priorities. The money would obviously been better spent, even for touristic reasons, on the reason anyone would want to visit this place.
He’s talking about government expenditure there, and misplaced priorities. He and I are of a single mind there. Where is your mind? Or are you one of those people who does not question the spending of Bahamian taxpayers’ money on Madison Avenue cultural industries instead of spending that same taxpayers’ money on our own?
Thanks Nicolette:
I read and understood Mr. Rahming’s points quite well.
I object to government spending where only very few people, like those connected, benefit.
As I have said before, the cultural community is diverse enough, talented enough and wealthy enough to do things to make themselves more relevant.
Why get caught up in the same government bureaucracy that screws so much else up in this country by accepting taxpayer dollars?
What am I missing?
You’re missing the point that we’re not asking for taxpayers’ dollars without a real reason (and in this case the real reason would be to invest in enriching the tourist experience on the ground, rather than on the poster or on the commercial). We aren’t even asking for anything that isn’t already being spent. We are asking for consideration to be given to spending it better.
Let’s say that Honda stopped producing great cars. Let’s say that Honda in Japan decided that it was going to invest most of its money in advertising the cars, but not in the production of the cars. That the advertising did bring in customers, most of whom were disappointed because the experience did not meet the expectations created by the advertising campaign. Wouldn’t it make more sense for Honda to reallocate those resources to improve the product so that the two — the advertising and the product — would work better together?
We’re saying that is what currently exists in The Bahamas. We invest over 100 million taxpayer dollars in packaging and invest only (I’m going to be generous here) 5 million on the cultural element of the product. And the facts on the ground — from the many surveys collected by the Ministry of Tourism and from word of mouth — are that the Bahamian vacation is hollow, superficial, and not worth the money you pay for it.
We’re also saying that a really quick and dirty way to improve that vacation experience is to shift some of the money that is currently being wasted on promotions — our taxpayers dollars going into the pockets of Americans who don’t need them (this in addition to the sales tax we all pay when we buy our products in the USA as well) into the creation of an environment where Bahamian cultural activity can flourish. The kind of spending our government is doing right now is the kind where only the connected benefit. If any of that comes back, it goes right back out again because it comes through resorts and cruise ships, and it does not get to the pockets of people not directly employed in the industry until it has been filtered and whittled down in many many ways. The economic facts are frightening — I don’t have them to hand, but it’s something like of every tourist dollar spent in The Bahamas, 60 per cent or more leaves again. But cultural products are unique, one-off, special products that can capture and hold revenue in the country. The government is wasting my money and is not giving me a damn thing. I’m not asking for handouts. I’m asking for my money back.
Thanks Nicolette:
Everyone that asked for tax payer money has a legitimate reason.
It’s the old King for a day dilemma.
Your analogy about the Honda product PR is just as relevant to the local culture. Why should the government give our tax dollars to the product that is here?
Where is the consistency of the product?
Where can we find it?
How often is it available?
There must a business case somewhere?
Business people invest to make a profit. Without profit, there is is no business.
Just because we appreciate culture (art and music) does not make it viable. And if it’s not viable, why should all taxpayers pay for it?
On the one hand you tell me you don’t want taxpayer money and then you offer a case for it.
The objective for the cultural community in my not so humble opinion, is to build the mousetrap.
Here’s a couple other suggestions.
Get some business people involved with you if you don’t think the cultural community has the business acumen to get some local cultural scenes going that most people feel comfortable visiting.
Really examine why Bahamians don’t support, at least not in the way you prefer, and then change the experience to make it work.
And if the product is great, produce that advertising and PR like the Honda people do :0)
I know when we visit other countries, we seek out cultural experiences and I do not find them paid for by the government generally.
Which countries would they be?
Only in the USA are they not funded by the federal government. But municipal governments put huge amounts of money into culture in the USA.
In virtually every other country in the world, taxpayers’ money is channelled into cultural production.
And the returns, and the profits, are there, and more quickly than in other businesses. We can turn a profit with a single play really quickly. The problem is that cultural production is different, and more volatile, than car production. One product may sell and another may flop, and the process of creating them be just the same. Your formula is a pipe dream in a community that does not give artistic people who seek to invest in culture the same breaks that it gives hard-headed businessmen who seek to invest in “business”. The latter can get bank loans, to begin with; cultural people can’t. It’s not that we don’t have the business acumen. It’s that we don’t get the same treatment to begin with.
I’ve heard your arguments before, but they don’t bear water. Wherever incentives are provided for people to invest in culture, the returns over time are impressive. In St. Lucia, the Jazz Festival (seeded by government) has a ratio of 9:1 return on investment — but the investment had to be made, or at least guaranteed, at a scale that would allow for its success. In Edinburgh, the Festival (seeded by municipal and national governmental funds) has a ratio of 11:1 return on investment. Even Trinidad carnival, which has a huge government investment, and which is relatively wasteful when compared to these others, has a ratio of 4:1 return on investment.
Where businesses succeed, it happens in part because profits are invested back into the product, am I right? That does not happen here. Tourism revenues are not invested back into the country in any way that makes sense. Our tax money pays in part to advertise Atlantis; the profits they reap from my dollars go — where? to Dubai?
It’s absurd, and all the ideology in the world won’t convince me otherwise. When you show me that the numbers make sense, you’ll have a chance of convincing me. But all I can see is a looking-glass world.
Nicolette:
Do you expect me to believe that there is not enough talent and money in the cultural community to establish a business to host an annual jazz festival here for example? I don’t buy it.
Why did the summer jazz festivals here fail? They were seeded with government money.
Is it because people did not attend in enough numbers to make it pay?
I don’t think we should get caught up in the ideology that the government should fund everything.
Its up to you to convince me the numbers add up. I’m suggesting you should be able to come up with a group to make some of these happen. You keep telling me the only way if can happen is with taxpayer dollars.
According to http://stluciajazz.org they are sponsored by BET Jazz and Digicel. It seems the St. Luicia government’s contribution is staff and duty exemptions. The web site tells us:
“the Government of St. Lucia makes a significant contribution to Jazz through waiver of import duties and taxes. With the limited infrastructure available on the island, patronage of Jazz is limited. Hence contributions from gate receipts are not expected to exceed 30% of the Jazz’s production costs.”
So they experience limited patronage like The Bahamas Jazz festival did. Should the government continue to fund something that makes a few people feel good even though they can’t cover their expenses from the gate and sponsorship fees?
One final point from me on this. Most state governments are going bust according to press reports from the US, so will funding for these events continue at the level you suggest?
By the way, I don’t think the government should be funding advertising for Kerzner either. Atlantis should fund that themselves from their profits.
This has been fun, but we are obviously looking through different ideological glasses.
I believe the cultural industry can pull some of these things off without government funding and you don’t.
Rick, please let’s get one thing straight before we continue, otherwise we cannot ever hold this discussion on any level. I AM NOT LOOKING FOR GOVERNMENT FUNDING. I AM LOOKING FOR LEGITIMATE EXCHANGES OF MONEY FOR SERVICES. They are two different things. I am sure you would not regard the sale of Hondas to the government for any particular purpose government funding; you would consider it a sale. I am talking about that, first and foremost; a willingness on the part of any Bahamian to pay other Bahamians for their cultural production, and to stop asking us to donate our time, expertise, and art. Let us clear that up right now.
I am not so sure whether you would consider government investment in an industry such as (say) tourism “government funding”. I don’t consider it such. I am not looking for any more expenditure at all. In fact, I suspect we could invest less money than we currently do, and more efficiently, and generate more revenue than we do, if we shifted some of the money invested in promoting a tourist product that mostly does not exist to investing in the creation of such a product — by something as simple as commissioning a Bahamian to create a show for the tourist market (i.e. paying somebody market prices to do such a thing, instead of crying poor mouth and asking us to do it “for love of country”, which is what normally happens). GET IT STRAIGHT. (and for those of you who are reading this exchange, if Rick doesn’t get it (his choice), please understand what I’m talking about — I’m talking about trade, exchange, not handouts. Clear?)
Now. Re St. Lucia: the common mistake made by people in traditional businesses is to judge the economic success by cash sales alone (gate receipts). What St Lucia Jazz provides for BET is content and audiences, and so the investment by BET is a major part of the festival’s revenue. It’s a mutually beneficial arrangement, because BET probably invests as much or less in the Festival as it would in creating new shows from scratch, but it gains its own revenue. Digicel is the same; the festival provides it with a different and more tangible way to spend its advertising dollars. And at the same time, the festival generates spin-off revenue for the entire country, through visitor arrivals (and departure tax), room occupancy rates, car rentals, food expenditure, and employment. The ratio of benefit to investment is, as I say, 9:1.
With regard to state govermnents, I have no idea what they will do. It’s city governments who invest in culture. And if trends continue as they have done in the past, I suspect that municipal governments will not cut off investment in festivals and other things that generate revenue for their cities. New York increased its investment in its cultural product after 9-11 (through special advertising campaigns, price reductions, etc), and so did New Orleans for the Jazz and Heritage Festival after Katrina. I suspect more cities across the US will begin to invest money in creating festivals that, unlike the various companies that are closing down plants across the mid-west, will bring a more varied sort of revenue into the cities. It’s a bit like Feel the Rush/Just Rush in Freeport, only under better management.
But time will tell.
And further, Rick, how do you know that the summer jazz festivals were seeded with government money?
I’m not sure which ones you’re talking about — the ones run by Roscoe Dames or the ones run by Freddie Munnings. Both were private. Whether they were seeded with government funding or not I can’t say (though I can say that something like the Cat Island Rake n Scrape Festival is, as is the Green Turtle Cay Festival, and Andros CrabFest, etc, and those have run for many years). Perhaps Roscoe or Fred could respond to this. What evidence do you have to assume that they were seeded in any different fashion with government funds?
As far as I can tell, the festivals failed not because of government support but because of lack of ongoing continued private sponsorship. Private businessmen were expecting from the festivals what the did not expect from their own businesses — instant returns the first, second or third years out, and they withdrew their support when the festivals “failed”.
If cultural industries are like other businesses, then they need to be treated as such, and given the same amount of time to succeed or fail, to build brand loyalty, and to take off. The turnaround time is usually shorter than in standard businesses, especially with festivals, for which capital investments are not as crucial. But they still exist; miracles don’t happen. The first year all one can hope for is good word of mouth and, ideally to cover one’s costs (or, alternatively, to lose very little). The second year one hopes to build. By the fifth, there should be some return on investment for those who stick with the idea. But standard businessmen generally don’t believe in culture and expect it to fail, and their scepticism and lack of respect (along with, often enough, poor business decisions by organizers, I will admit that) become self-fulfilling prophecies.
And yet imagine if something like Jollification or the Bahamas International Cultural Festival were run not as charities or activities but as businesses. The returns on investment are clear.
Comments on this entry are closed.