The image of the sacrificial artist ready to do anything to honor the creation that pulses under his wing is tenacious. Especially in the world of performing arts, where performing at a discount or at a loss seems like a necessary step. This fall, however, tongues are loosening and indignation is heating up at what some perceive as a point of no return in terms of the precariousness of artists. How far can a society go in its stubbornness to confuse vocation and self-sacrifice?
Apparently very far away, we see when diving into theState of play of the dance sector in Quebec. The impoverishment of dance professionals is revealed in a disturbing crudeness: we are talking about an average annual income oscillating between $22,859 and $27,334 in recent years. The thing moves neither the crowds nor the decision-makers, who thus send a devastating message to creators, namely that “it is normal that they sacrifice themselves to be artists”, believes the general director of the Regroupement québécois de la danse ( RQD).
However, this message no longer gets through, warns Nadine Medawar in an interview granted to Duty. “Continuing to work in these conditions” is “unworthy”, says the DG. It would also be potentially unsustainable, and not only in dance, but for all living arts. Take the example ofIphigénie in Pointe-aux. The production came to the same conclusions as the RQD regarding its play which denounces the systemic exploitation of people in precarious situations. You can not make that up !
Due to a lack of decent funding, Les Stations sordides and the Théâtre Prospero dared to withdraw their marbles so as not to impoverish the emerging artists who constitute the beating pulse of this play. The hope now lies in a hypothetical next round.
This heartbreaking and radical decision, taken a few weeks before the first, may seem anecdotal. She is not. Productions carefully chosen by institutions or broadcasters, but shunned by grantors at midnight to one, are commonplace in Quebec. If we don’t know this, it’s because the vast majority of affected creators make a good choice against bad luck by agreeing to produce at a loss in the name of Art, with a capital A.
This trend would be significantly increasing, we whisper in well-informed backstage rooms. However, we should be able to see these potential “holes” in our programming in broad daylight. If not through their sad cancellation, at least through information shared with everyone. More transparency on the part of granting organizations, broadcasters, producers, the ministry and the community itself would allow us to paint a more accurate portrait of the phenomenon.
That a team loudly denounces this impoverishment by decreeing that, this time, enough is enough, already opens a precious breach. We must be attentive to these very rare speeches. They confirm to us that there is potentially something flawed in the subsidy cycle. The fact that the ax falls so late in the so-called “normal” cycle of creation, while production is so advanced, with display with great fanfare, indeed appears to be nonsense.
Especially since it is the most fragile in the chain, the young and the margins in the first place, who pay the highest price for this rickety building. This deficit art, even fortified with a capital letter, does not put bread on the table. For this, there are also jobs more “food”, some pragmatic minds will object. True, artists make money thanks to TV fees, for example.
But the jobs additional food, the real ones (catering, editorial, services, etc.), abound. In the RQD survey, we learned that nearly eight out of ten dance professionals hold more than one job. Nearly two-thirds of them have three or more jobs.
This is another problem, collateral, but just as acute, because it seriously limits the creative deployment of our artists. Culture is not something to be cultivated as a dilettante. It requires experimentation and research in places dedicated to creation through sustained exchanges. It requires a state of mind and availability which is incompatible with the economic violence suffered by many artists in very precarious circumstances.
The Caquistes dusted off the status of the artist last year, it is an important step taken. The crux of the matter, however, remains the financing of creation, which suffers from having been subjected to so many overhauls in addition to being shaken up by inflation. Last September, let’s remember, it was the entire show programming sector that pleaded for improved programs.
The living arts are among the first to fall when a national culture is forgotten. Let us take better care of these essential sentinels by rehumanizing our relationships with them. Let’s review our models of support for artists, let’s strengthen the institutions that welcome them. Instability cannot have the last word.