CARFAC comes out with surprising statement against Artists.

On July 12 a press release (link) was issued by CARFAC (RAAV / CARCC / SODART) in response to the open letter (link) sent to the Ministers of Industry and Canadian Heritage from Appropriation Art: A Coalition of Art Professionals. The CARFAC press release takes a surprising position against many artists, and displays a lack of understanding about contemporary art practice. The CARFAC press release contains several strategic omissions and misrepresents many of the issues addressed in the Appropriation Art letter.

CARFAC fails to acknowledge that it is responding to a letter from a large coalition (link)of artists and art professionals. The press release mentions only two Coalition founders. This omission attempts to marginalize the Appropriation Art coalition which carries 600+ signatures (including Governor General Laureates, RCA members as well as artists who have represented Canada in the Venice Biennale). Signatories also include hundreds of concerned educators, art professionals and organizations including CAMDO – Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization, CMA – Canadian Museums Association, and IMAA-AMMI / Independent Media Arts Alliance. Those in the coalition reflect the reality of Canada’s art community. Clearly “creative access” for artists is an issue of critical importance.

CARFAC takes a stand against a legitimate and significant group of Canadian artists and art professionals. Such a drastic shift in their policy should have been brought before CARFAC members prior to issuing the press release. The open letter sent by the Appropriation Art Coalition to the Minister of Heritage was approved by each signatory prior to sending and clearly represents an issue of vital concern to members. Across Canada, these individuals are amongst those who support, represent and shape our cultural future. Where Associations have signed the Appropriation Art letter, their support does not constitute a deviation from their mandate.

CARFAC – “The letter, however, was alarmist in tone.”
This misrepresents the tenor of the Appropriation Art letter. The urgent nature of the open letter from the Appropriation Art Coalition stems from the simple fact that copyright legislation is being drafted now. Artists who wish to have a voice in the drafting of copyright revisions must make their views known prior to new legislation being drafted. Urgency is not alarmist – in this instance it is prudent.

CARFAC – “Appropriation, a term understood in the art community but not much outside it, is the use of existing artworks in the making of art that comments – often by way of parody or criticism – on some aspect of art or culture.”
By implying that ‘artworks’ are the sole source material and omitting the mention of other sources, CARFAC misrepresents appropriation as a major threat to other artists. The practice of appropriation is internationally recognized as a long standing, historic art practice. It includes works of collage, found footage and conceptual art. Works that use appropriation are collected and exhibited by major galleries and museums internationally, are written about in virtually every art history book and taught in universities and colleges throughout the world. Works that use appropriation are legitimate works of art. Period. Contemporary sources of appropriation are found in film, radio, television, advertising, text, character, situation, cast off material, found material, quoted material, borrowed material, …and on and on. Artists use this rich vein of source material because it is meaningful; because it holds and reflects popular, cultural or civic memory, because it conjures personal associations or connects us together in a profound way. These works question, push boundaries, advance technologies; they encourage experimentation and invention. They tell new stories. Contemporary culture should not be immune to critical commentary. Without this new work our cultural environment would be much the poorer. It is surprising that an organization that claims to speak for Canadian artists can be so out of touch with contemporary art practice.

CARFAC – “Appropriation without permission, or credit, or by the taking of parts of works, tramples on Moral Rights.”
CARFAC overstates the law. The Open Letter from the Appropriation Art Coalition calls for recognition of appropriation under the law. It says nothing that derogates from the moral rights of artists. CARFAC misrepresents the nature of moral rights. Moral rights can only be asserted under certain circumstances; criticism and parody are not considered a violation of moral rights. The simple fact that someone or something holds a copyright does not make them an artist nor is all copyrighted work art. Many within the arts community believe that critical discourse lies at the heart of contemporary art education and professional practice. Copyright holders are not, nor should they be, above criticism. This is particularly true in Canada where so much of popular culture is imposed from outside the country. Fair treatment of a work does not “trample” on moral rights.

CARFAC – “Many of the proposals put forth in Bill C-60, the last attempt to reform the Copyright Act, were agreeable to artists.”
We know of no published results that would lead CARFAC to such a sweeping conclusion. It is more likely that artists are unfamiliar and uncertain of the contents of Bill C-60.

CARFAC – “The reforms that would put Canada in line with the World Intellectual Property Organization agreements are a good thing…”
Ratifying WIPO treaties would greatly benefit the American content industry (film, music, TV, and broadcast) and harm Canadian artists. These treaties would increase foreign royalties leading to hundreds of millions of dollars of cultural spending leaving Canada and going to predominantly the USA. Supporting legislation that would further increase Canada’s cultural deficit (link)hardly seems, as the CARFAC mandate states, “to promote a socioeconomic climate that is conducive to the production of visual arts in Canada…” Issues dealt with in WIPO treaties should be covered in other, better, and more inclusive Canadian legislation.

CARFAC – “…if he or she seeks the permissions that the law requires.”
With fewer and fewer works entering the public domain, the CARFAC suggestion to seek permissions from the often hundreds of sources that go to make up a work of art that uses appropriation is unworkable and again aligns itself with the American content industry. CARFAC support a legislative trend that favors corporate creativity over individual creativity, and a system in which one’s ability to create (and learn) is exclusively related to one’s ability to pay for the ‘privilege’ – privileges that were once Rights. The CARFAC suggestion that it should ‘work like it does in movies’ is disingenuous or naive to the point of being absurd. CARFAC endorses a system that is so financially ‘privileged’ that five companies control 85 percent of American media sources, budgets run into millions of dollars per production with fees of approximately $10,000 per film song or clip. This is a system that is crippling many filmmakers in Canada. The Appropriation Art letter has been signed by a number of independent filmmakers, film associations and collectives, a testament to how well it works ‘in the movies’.

CARFAC – “If artists do not themselves respect the law, how can they expect others to do so?”
The difficulty here is not with an Artist’s respect for the law, but with the law’s respect for art. The law simply does not reflect the reality of contemporary art practice. Artists working with appropriation do so now under a blanket of apprehension and misapprehension. The Appropriation Art Coalition request is modest. We have asked for a voice in the drafting of new legislation.

CARFAC – “The law, if used properly, can protect artists who appropriate.”
We would argue that the law, if drafted ‘properly’, should protect all artists.

CARFAC – “Furthermore, if artists are not paid for what they create, why would anyone make art?”
This suggests that appropriation threatens the ability of artists to earn an income. This is not and has never been the case. The Appropriation Art Coalition is supportive of all artists in Canada having the freedom to earn a living. CARFAC rightly advocates that artists must be paid to exhibit their work, yet at the same time they support legislative changes that makes it impossible for artists to produce and exhibit their work. This is inconsistent.

The Appropriation Art Coalition is fueled by passion; a belief in rights for all artists and for Freedom of Expression. Canadian policy on copyright is at a critical juncture. We can be inclusive without destroying the advances already made. Effective copyright laws should offer artists the legal means to enforce their rights in their work, but should not overreach and stifle or even destroy creativity. The balance has tipped; laws originally intended to protect now prevent. In Canada we have the chance to reexamine. If we do not understand or recognize the critical issues; if we do not accept that policy is increasingly stifling creativity, then we risk closing a door on a vibrant cultural future. If artists do not defend their Rights to Freedom of Expression then who will?