CURRENT ISSUE | SUMMER 2017: KINSHIP
Current Issue Cover
Features

On the Politics of Staying in Canada

In this year of social-media call-outs, my favourite might be what happened last week with Apple and the iPhone 7—a call-out of a corporation, not a person, although the distinction seems increasingly moot. The new iPhone has no headphone jack; Apple is encouraging users to buy expensive, wireless Bluetooth headphones as an add-on. Jacobin magazine’s disgruntled response, one of hundreds, was to post a photo of the Rube Goldberg–like dongles and cords that one would need to charge the phone while also using traditional headphones (the adapter for which comes with the phone but uses the same port that one would use for charging). “Where would we be without capitalist innovation?” read Jacobin’s snarky, ironic caption.

Apple has been widely mocked for describing, at the iPhone 7’s press conference, this so-called innovation as an act of “courage.” And so my digressive segue to the theme of our new issue, “Satellites,” a loose term we arrived at to describe Canadian artists working abroad, and non-Canadian artists whose practices do or have orbited around this country. Though this is certainly a phenomenon we wanted to acknowledge and explore, I do wonder: are Canadians who move abroad for professional reasons—typically privileged, white Canadians—after an Apple-style life upgrade, one seen as courageous but with similarly convoluted, aspirational, late-capitalist dimensions?

Yes, it is difficult, even as a middle-class person, to leave one’s home country to live and work elsewhere. It is alienating, marginalizing, psychologically punishing. It is expensive. During my short time living in New York, it quickly became clear that the highs were always accompanied by demoralizing lows. Such a narrative of setting out, despite hardship, to further one’s success has tended to be glossed by a truism (however false, skewed) that one cannot succeed in Canada unless one moves away—and the catch-22 flipside that in doing so one may be judged by diehard Canadians as a traitor. As a Canadian culture worker in my late 30s, I have spent much of my adult life saying goodbye to friends who have had it, for whatever reason, with Canada. Sometimes, often, I don’t blame them. Sometimes, often, I listen to them throw shade at Canada when I get the chance to visit them. I grant them this, assuming their non-Canadian residencies have been hard won.

Mea culpa: if I had had the means to leave Canada in my early 20s, I probably would have. I was young. It was the ’00s, Harper’s horrible neoconservative Canada. Arts and culture funding was being cut. Outlets where my writing could appear were shrinking. Artists understandably feel a similar pull: the art world proper is elsewhere, and to move is to engage with it, to have more exhibition opportunities, to learn, (perhaps) to be connected to a wider community of creators. But I didn’t leave, couldn’t. And after years of wondering if somehow my life would be different, better (“better”) if I had done this, I have finally become confident in my decision to remain. And as someone who has been lucky enough to find a fantastic job in my chosen field in this country, I have the luxury to say this. Yet before this job, when, for years, I wrote and taught and struggled to make ends meet, I was engaged in a long process, not of falling in love with, but of falling in interest with, the country in which I happened to be born. I am far from a nationalist, but I can say that I am now deeply interested in Canada, specifically in the city I’ve (alternately, mostly) been in for the past 14 years: Toronto.

What are the political implications of thinking of Canada as a less desirable place to live than other Western countries with presumably more visible, active culture industries (i.e. stronger economies), such as the US, the UK, France and Germany? What are the political implications of assuming someone who leaves Canada is somehow more innovative, braver, actualized than someone who remains? And of assuming that someone who remains is doing damage to their career trajectory?

Floating in the charged online ether this summer were two articles pertinent to such questions. One was a Globe and Mail interview with ex–Museum of Contemporary Art Toronto Canada CEO Chantal Pontbriand in which she called Toronto a “city of emergence,” a term, according to the piece’s writer, James Adams, that she uses to describe places “we’d never thought could become a centre of international attention with regard to the development of contemporary art.” A week earlier, Stephen Marche published an article in the Guardian with the cheeky title, “Welcome to the new Toronto: the most fascinatingly boring city in the world.”

Both Pontbriand and Marche have more nuanced things to say on this subject than such quotes and headlines suggest. Marche’s piece in particular fleshes out ideas of Toronto as a site of negotiation, with which I agree, and to which I shall shortly return. But the cursory interpretation of these sentiments is profoundly tricky, even offensive. Are cities merely in “emergence” until the contemporary art world deems them fully formed? I respond to Marche’s title with a quip from Joan Collins: “If you’re bored, you’re boring.” If you are convinced that you are, or have arrived, in a backwater, instead of leaving, why not ask: What am I not seeing and why? What am I not offering that might in turn be impairing my sight?

Toronto is hardly a place in which one need feel trapped, like some doomed patrician heroine trying to escape provincial torment in a Modernist melodrama. As Marche points out in his piece, Toronto, along with many places in Canada, is a haven. And though it is expensive, Toronto is a city where marginalized people can find a degree of diasporic community. It is important not to overstate this: like many Great Lakes cities, Toronto is unbeautiful and workaday, its winter bleakness often a shock to those seeking refuge here, many of whom come from places where a culture of aesthetics and community is more ingrained. As with other large cities, gentrification has pushed Toronto’s non-white populations to its margins. Toronto has a race problem. But to denigrate Toronto (and Canada) as boring, as void, is a caustic, entitled act of arrogance and ignorance. I’m not talking about WASPy, who-do-you-think-you-are, tall-poppy stuff we see in classic CanLit (or Joni Mitchell albums), where the yokels dismiss the ambitions of young, critical intellectuals. I’m talking about racism, classism and neocolonialism—glib blindness to one’s own privilege. Calling Canada boring is disturbingly apolitical, giving the mistaken impression that nothing happens here—nothing bad, and nothing good.

“Experiencing something as ‘nothing’ is an act of misrecognition…It is a leftover of the colonial mentality,” says artist and curator Luis Jacob in our Fall 2016 issue, about his just-opened survey show of Toronto artworks at the Art Museum at the University of Toronto. As Caoimhe Morgan-Feir, Merray Gerges and I pointed out in our review of the Art Gallery of Ontario’s Lawren Harris show this summer, an understanding of Canadian culture, especially of art, as defined by some sublime, so-called uninhabited land, a terra nullius—the blank space of a colonial purchase document from which anyone but the most hardened, intrepid, masculinist explorer would want to flee—ignores and denigrates Indigenous cultures and histories. For one, it casts a deaf ear on the rich communications, indeed interrogations, offered by nature, by land.

Nowhere is perfect. Canada’s significant baggage is the stultification—the paralyzing, toxic and historically murderous social fear—brought on by its colonial-monarchist origins. On my more optimistic days, I hope that, recently, we have made a progressive change from a Molson Canadian–style “I Am Canadian” identity, with its stupid, isolationist bravado, to the collective “We the North,” the Raptors’ slogan. These latter words implicitly acknowledge black Canada, which has supported the Raptors before it was cool. More broadly, they appear to uphold collectivity, collaboration and hybridity.

I have travelled a lot over the past few years. This year, largely due to my job, I have decided to stay home. As a result I’ve greeted many travelling friends from other, sexier cities—New York, Berlin, London. All of them were impressed, some envious, of my home. One, a writer born and raised in New York, visiting in June, a glorious month anywhere in Canada, said, after I hemmed and hawed about not leaving Toronto: “What reason would you have?” Conversely, months earlier I had received an email from an ex-Torontonian now living in New York, in which she self-consciously urged her remaining, interesting friends to entertain a visiting artstar: “He is bored and would be happy to meet you.” I didn’t oblige—why should I have to prove that there is a here here? (Earlier this year, an American critic approached me with what he seemed to assume was a compliment about Canadian art and culture, and it came off as extrapolated manifest destiny: “So much is going on here; you need an ambassador to tell the world about it.” Do we now?).

Last month, Canada ostensibly rallied around the Tragically Hip’s last show. As a white queer, I felt numb. This wasn’t at all my thing, my Canada—and as an insightful conversation among Anupa Mistry, Chantal Braganza and Navneet Alang on TVO’s website suggested, I wasn’t alone. (Mistry: “I didn’t watch the final concert; I was at a friend’s house on a quiet Bloordale street, dancing to soca and Afrobeats with my friends who grew up across the GTA in very Canadian communities, like mine.”) However admirable or complicated their artistic intentions, the Hip offers an easily digestible and definable Canadian identity, one forged in a rural-colonial whiteness from which it is understandable to want to exit. (Kaari Sinnaeve, Canadian Art’s Partnerships and Marketing Manager, cleverly described the problematic, caricatured nationalism around the Hip’s farewell concert as “Cansplaining.”)

On the title track of his new album, Views, Drake attempts a braggadocio that characteristically ends up existential and self-effacing: “I get a blank page when I try to draw a comparison.” This is my Canadian pride. Uncertainty, uneasiness at nationalism, which sets the stage for its political deconstruction; contestation and questioning; an amorphous understanding of self that comes from assiduous, quiet observation—none of this is boring. To borrow a phrase from Chicago artist Theaster Gates: I am interested in the politics of staying.

David Balzer is editor-in-chief at Canadian Art. Our Fall 2016 issue, “Satellites,” is on newsstands across the country from September 15 to December 14.

Print Friendly


Comments

Duncan Weller says:

Can you send me a link with commentary for this section, please. Would love to see how people respond.

Hans says:

You’re interested in the ‘politics of staying’? Sounds like you’re interested in rationalizing your own irrelevance

Molly Shore says:

Can we please change the article’s name to “On the Politics of Staying in Toronto”? Y’know, for the sake of accuracy and relevance. Good read, though!

crys says:

As an artist who has been going back and forth for 30 years – exhibiting -and working – NYC to Toronto and back – coupled with significant times in India – Japan and Germany – I have now decided to base my self more in Toronto – WILL it will be interesting/ – I do think so – although i do have Athens in my side pocket if I get bored . Best to stay and then go and then return and stay and go again – like the wheel of time ….

Lisa says:

Hmm. I’m a New Yorker expat in Montreal — and I’m far from the only one. Montreal has comparatively cheap rent (good for the impecunious artist life), Cirque du Soleil/National Circus School, an international video game industry hub, a vibrant indie music/club scene, a really exciting film industry (Xavier Dolan, et al), and a great university that costs way less than comparable U.S. schools. Plus Montreal has the glamour of a francophone/European-style city without being THAT different from the U.S.

The kind of Americans who would have gone to Prague in the 90s are here now. We’re not “staying in Canada” — we’re actively coming here.

justwondering says:

“A great university”? Which one?

Ollie says:

My boyfriend and I left Canada in 2000 to live in London (for what we thought would be 12 months but turned out to be 15 years.) We are dying to get back now. London’s gentrification has pushed out all of our artist friends and we are barely holding on by a thread. It’s not only the cost of living but the way everything now revolves around the wealthy. Some of the government’s policies against the poor are downright nasty and it’s hard to stand by and just watch it. I’ve heard similar complaints from friends living in New York.

tata says:

Interesting that previous comments are gone ..?

Clarke Riedy says:

Flocking to the perceived market centers is a big mistake for creative artists. You’re seeking indoctrination into a game that WILL consume you and then spit you out. If you have a shred of integrity, then stay in the community that you came up in, and make Art that reflects the ethos of that place. Elevate your culture, the best Art is and always has been the product of an authentic connection to one’s ground of being.

Seymour Hamilton says:

Same old same old. For more than half a century, I’ve been listening to and reading these personal musings about Canada that in fact are about Toronto, as if any art from anywhere else in Canada must first be discovered by competent (central Canadian) authority before being ceremoniously dipped into Lake Ontario at Harbourfront and declared truly Canadian by the self-appointed arbiters within the 902. People who live in Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary, Halifax, St. Johns are sick of it. Also people from Bowen Island BC to Fogo ND, with points in between. Ruminations such as this article contain no facts, and make no attempt to find them. They are cringe-worthy passive-aggressive first person opinions. Artists of all kinds have always gone abroad from wherever they started. Americans (example: Hemingway) went to Paris, English (example Ruskin) to Italy. Artists travel! Some of them make good somewhere other than their birthplace and stay there. Some come back. This hooey about Canadians staying or going (to the USA, that great big bugaboo too the south where the iPhones come from) is particularly foolish in that the culture vultures in the CRTC and the Canada Council claim as “Canadian” all kinds of literature and art by people who were born somewhere other than Canada. Except if they come from the USA. Then they’re ignored as ex-pat genre authors, wetbacks — even after half a century of paying taxes. (Yes, I am thinking of Spider Robinson) We’re a nation of immigrants, for goodness sake! And we emigrate, as well. It’s one of the qualities that make some of us citizens of the world, unlike the ultra-nationalists who cling to their nation, race, language or geography — or rather to some politically correct version thereof. Oddly enough, when people do emigrate from Canada (or anywhere else) they frequently do their best work out of memories founded in the country where they were born. And then there are the people who reclaim their country of origin one or two generations later, voyaging to Scotland, Ireland, France, Holland,Jamaica, Armenia, Ukraine, Iceland… all the many places from which Canadians originate. For goodness sake, let’s stop this nonsense of searching for The Great Canadian Novel or the Iconic Canadian Artist or the Definitive Canadian musician. We’ve go plenty of them. It’s just that they’re not all living in Toronto.

Eunice says:

Hahahaha Kaari, Cansplaining!

Leave a Comment

*

*

Note: Fields denoted with (*) are required.