Hi MSP,

VANOC is a corporation, but it is not the same as Bell, or Coca-Cola, and that is why I made the perhaps sophomore comparison to the actions of totalitarian states. I think I made the point that the ramifications of this gag order are very different than writing an anti-capitalist jingle for Coca-Cola, and then being shocked that they rejected my song, wanting their money back.

The difference is that private corporations are autonomous, privately-funded entities that answer only to their shareholders. VANOC is directly and publicly funded by our tax-dollars. David Eby makes this point; I’m just picking up on it–it’s very different than if Bell had commissioned a sculptor to make a private statue for their lobby. It’s more akin to FACTOR demanding that none of their touring grant-recipients ever criticize or make negative statements about the Canadian government or recording industry.

The reason that this makes “us” angry is that, in Canada, our politicians do not dictate the form and content of art. The reason for this is varied; politicians don’t know what art is, etc., etc., but the reason is also partly historical. There’s a bad precedent. Thank you for giving me a chance to hopefully clarify–I don’t mean to say that this clause is in any way equal to the actions of totalitarian regimes, but that it has the ugly whiff of a state dictating artistic content. But this argument of mine hinges on the premise that VANOC is a public corporation, right? It might become a really pressing question.

And as for the clause not requiring the bands to speak highly of VANOC: remember that when these artists will be performing, the stage will be decked out in olympic icons and images. Their very presence is a tacit, visual boost. They don’t have to say anything positive, as the venue and the context of their performance says it all.

Here is a list of government sponsors for VANOC:

http://www.vancouver2010.com/more-2010-information/about-vanoc/sponsors-and-partners/vancouver-2010-government-partners/

So what is VANOC? If it receives direct government funding, then isn’t it a public corporation?
And if so, then should it be allowed to use tax funds to shape artistic expression? Please remember that arts-funding has been so thoroughly decimated in BC that accepting an arts grant in 2010 essentially means accepting olympic money.

Thanks to everyone for commenting. One of the comments here actually tipped off Marsha Lederman, the reporter who first wrote about this clause, to write this article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/vancouver-orders-removal-of-anti-olympic-mural/article1396541/

I couldn’t help but be a bit proud that our collective discourse tipped her off, and also a bit cheery about discourse in general. So thanks!

Hi all, I am happy to see some dialogue here!

The 6 billion figure doesn’t actually represent the total estimated cost of the games. This is just the amount of tax dollars that the government will inject into this event. The total amount is estimated at around 12 billion dollars, according to the Trotsky-Leninist website 2010watch.com A large portion of the rest of that 12 billion comes from corporate sponsors.

Given that money isn’t infinite, it stands to reason that this 6 billion figure is drawn from all kinds of sources. It is up to you to draw a causal link between this tax-gash, and the subsequent slashing of the following public services:
-homeless and women shelters (read David Eby’s open letter to the Olympic organizers on their absolute failure to live up to their promise to provide social housing)
-arts funding (this is ironic given all of the back-patting over the cultural olympiad).
-public school sports events (the funding here for tournaments, etc, was totally eliminated. Is this ironic that it was done the same year as the olympics?)
-education (special education slashed, operating costs slashed, etc.)

I haven’t even addressed the heavy-handed and likely unconstitutional policing tactics being employed in our festive province in the name of “security”.

The Olympic Committee actually is responsible for providing affordable housing. This was one of the promises made to the city of Vancouver, a city that actually had to vote on whether or not to host the games. The outcome of the vote was a response to many of these promises.

Thus, it is my assertion that having a 6 billion tax-dollar elite party, while the rest of the locale and its poverty-line inhabitants shiver and watch their schools and their social programs wither, is sick and medieval.
And for an artist to not to be able to draw this causal link, whether or not they are participating in the cultural olympiad, is very wrong. I do agree that it is a bit reckless to have signed any olympic contract without a fine-toothed comb, but maybe these artists’ fatal flaw was trusting that, in a “free and democratic society”, any public corporation would not attempt this kind of pre-emptive restricting of expression. I am not sure if the artists can actually respond here, given the clause.

And lastly: David Eby makes a very important distinction here about “not biting the hand that feeds you.” If Coca-Cola asks me to produce a jingle for them, and my lyrics contain a line like “Coca-Cola is actually the blood of the oppressed workers, so drink up, you first-world pigs”, then it will probably be rejected and I will be asked to return my money, right?

But VANOC is not a private corporation, it is funded by tax dollars, and they haven’t asked for a specific commission. They’ve asked vital, relevant, “cutting-edge” artists to be part of their cultural olympiad. This is really key as to why this clause totally sucks.

So: a visual artist has been commissioned to create a work that celebrates their community and the cultural olympiad. But, like many Vancouver artists, he or she lives in East Vancouver. He or she sees the lack of social housing, the lack of addiction counseling. He or she is impacted by their immediate environment, and, like many artists, wants to reflect this environment through his or her work.

The artist cannot afford studio space. Artist grants have been slashed. So he or she accepts the commission, but is unable to draw a causal link, a linkbetween the conditions that make his or her immediate environment so unbearable, and a public agency that has vampirically siphoned billions of dollars from the agencies that could provide a remedy to this situation.

It’s just really ugly to ask these artists to take part in a public work, then announce to the world what a great thing is this “cultural olympiad”, and then place serious and restrictive limitations on what they can and cannot express.