Art [S Big Business

By Ted Kingan

n 1979, the arts were a $6 billion

industry, bigger than steel, bigger

than pulp and paper. Last year. the
National Advisory Committee on Culture
Statistics gave the arts an $8 billion value
. tothe Canadian economy, reporting that
while in 1981 there were 273,000 people
employed in cultural enterprises, more
than 300,000 jobs exist in the cultural
industry today.

The Committee also reported that
there has been a 74% increase in jobs
in the cultural industry over the past
decade, compared to only a 39%
increase in the general labour force.

In Ontario alone, the cultural industry
has surpassed the steel industry both
in dollars generated and in the number
of people employed. It contributes $3
billion annually to Ontario's economy
and returns $200 million in taxes to the
provincial coffers while providing 50,000
tull-time jobs. In 1983, Bruce McCaffey,
Ontario's Ministery of Culture, stated:
“We know that the economic benefits
— in plain English, the jobs — at stake
and created by every dollar of funding
we give to the arts exceed the economic
benefits of that same dollar given to just
about any other industry.”

“The best argument for the
arts in hard times is not the
artistic one but the eco-
nomic one.”

McCaffey went on to say: “The best
argument for the arts in hard times is
not the artistic one but the economic
one. It's best because it can be proven.
We can calculate how many jobs are
created and how labour-intensive the
arts are. We can gauge what these jobs
mean to restaurants, hotels, souvenir
sellers. We can determine the economic
spin-offs: the millions of dollars paid to
those who build facilities for the arts.”

The economic spin-offs mentioned by
McCaffey are an aill-too-frequently
ignored aspect of the arts industry, but
beneath the visible tip of every arts event
or facility there lies a vast pyramid of
supply, support and service industries,
which rely on the arts for their economic
survival. The arts do not function within
an economic vacuum and, in terms of
jobs and dollars, the spin-offs are
enormous.

Every item sold in an art supply store,
for instance, generates revenue in the
form of taxes and makes a profit for the
retailer, wholesaler and immediate
supplier, not to mention the innumerable
companies which provide raw materials
and a host of ancillary services. A
beneficial economic chain-reaction is
triggered each time a purchase is made,
a fact which should be obvious but which
is often forgotten.

Christopher Dafoe, in addition to
perpetuating the popular myth that the
arts have little or no economic value,
was guilty of misrepresenting the extent
of public participation in the arts, by
Stating that they “attract the undivided
attention of only a modest percentage
of the total population.” One wonders
how Dafoe came to this extraordinary
conclusion for, in 1978, the Department
of the Secretary of State for Canada
published the results of a survey of how
Canadians spend their leisure time.

A 1978 survey revealed that in 1977,
35% of Canada's citizens visited a
museum; 33% attended an arts or crafts
festival; 31% attended a popular or folk
music concert; 27% attended the live
theatre; 21% attended performances of
classical music or the dance and that

23% visited an art gallery. There is
evidence that this substantial level of
participation in the arts has been steadily
increasing since that time.

Between 1977 and 1985, according
to Statistics Canada, the adult population
in Canada will have grown al an average
annuai rate of 1.6%, whereas participa-
tion in fine art activities will have grown
significantly faster: attendance. at
museums and art galleries at a rate of
2.6% and attendance at the live theatre
at 2.1%, compared to sports activities
which will increase at only 1.3% a year.

Attendance figures show that from
700 to 1,500 people visit the Vancouver
Art Gallery each day, with up to 4,000
taking advantage of the free Tuesday
policy. It would, incidentally, be a
worthwhile exercise to caiculate the total
dollar spin-offs generated by the
Vancouver Art Gallery in terms of joods
and profits in the private sector, from
insurance companies and security
services to freight companies and
cleaning services, to mention but a few.
The Gallery's large gift shop attracts
many local visitors and tourists who
spend their money on taxable items and
generate additional spin-off dollars for
publishers of books, magazines and a
wide variety of attractive gift items. The
Gallery's popular restaurant provides
jobs and profits in the private sector in

addition to tax revenues for the.

government. These benefits must, of
course, be multiplied by the number of
public galleries throughout Canada.

On January 27, 1985, S.D. Cameron
addressed the Arts and Cultural
Assembly in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and
stated that the art galleries in Alberta
contribute $20 million a year to that
province’s economy.

Cameron reminded his audience that
whenever the economic impact of the
arts has been studied, the results have
surprised even those who already
suspected that it was considerable,
quoting a 1983 study by the Port
Authority of New York which discovered
that arts activities in the New York
Metropolitan area inject $5.6 million
annually into the local economy,
maintaining 117,000 jobs and generating
millions in taxes.

“In terms of employment,
we (the arts industry) are
about as large as
agriculture”

“In terms of employment,” said
Cameron, “we (the art industry) are
about as large as agriculture” and
represent about 4% of the Gross
National Product — and we received
about 1.8% of federal expenditures. If
this is free-loading, let's have more of
it”

According to Cameron, the Stratford
Festival in Ontario receives just under
$1.5 million in grants, much of it from
the Canada Council, and its total budget
in 1984 was nearly $13 million, of which
$8 million came from box office sales.
“But,” says Cameron, “the amount
injected into the local economy by the
Festival was over thirty five million —
twenty-three times the value of the
grants it received. Stratford's economic
activity generated nine million dollars in
provincial and federal tax revenues. In
other words, the Stratford Festival put
back directly into the public purse six
times as much money as it took out.
If the government wants to stimulate the
economy and increase its revenue,
where is it going to get more bang fo
a buck than that?” ‘

Referring to the Shaw Festival at

Niagara-on-the-Lake, Cameron stated
that more than 85% of those attending
were non-residents who spent a
signficant amount of time in the
community. Almost half of them stayed
at least one night in hotels, while 20%
of them stayed for dinner in Niagara.
Those who did not stay overnight spent
an average of 7.1 hours in the area,
which suggests that they spent less time
at the theatre than they did shopping,
eating or visiting other local attractions.
“Bul.” said Cameron, “the Festival
brought them to Niagara. The benefits
to local businesses in 1984 were
estimated at $10 milion.”

The pattern of economic stimulus
described by Cameron is, of course,
repeated in every community which
offers cultural attractions to visitors
Unfortunately, it is denied to those
communities without cultural attractions

“If governments are going to measure
the art industry by economic yardsticks,”
said Cameron, “fine: we can handle that,
but we demand that the same rules
govern ail the piayers. The unyielding
yardstick they apply to us must also be
applied to Massey Ferguson, to the
airports and Air Canada and Canadair,
to Dome Petroleum and its lenders, to
the nuclear industry. If economic viability
is the test, the angel of death will sweep
through a good many mahogany-
panelled boardrooms. Is that what the
government intends? If not, why is our
industry being singled out for
punishment?”

In September, 1984, Harry Chartrand,
Research Director for the Canada
Council, issued a paper containing a
great deal of statistical and other
information about the value of the arts
industry to the economy. He stated that
it is made up of 17,366 arts establish-
ments with average revenues of
$445,871 and that salaries paid to artists,
technicians, administrators and others
averaged $17,142 on an annual basis.
“Using the Gross National Expenditure
Multiplier of 21.1," said Chartrand, “the
income multiplier effect of the Canadian
arts industry was at least $16.3 billion
in 1981."

According to Chartrand, the Canadian
arts industry generated at least $250
million in direct economic activity in
1981, while arts audiences spent an
additional $133 million on restaurants,
bars, hotels, taxis, souvenirs and other
related expenditures, apart from
admission fees. “Therefore,” explained
Chartrand, “in 1981 the total fine arts-
related expenditure was $383 million.
Using the Gross National Expenditure
Multiplier, the impact on the economy
was at least $804 million.”

Statistics presented in a paper issued
by the B.C. Coalition for the Ans show
that the arts do mean jobs. Among the
biggest 20 of manufacturing incustries
in Canada, the arts industry is the 11th
largest in terms of earned revenue; the
6th largest in terms of salaries and
wages and probably the largest and
second fastest in terms of growing
employment. Approximately 24,650
people are directly employed in the arts
industry in British Columbia, with about
43,060 employed in arts-related
Occupations, representing 10% of ail
arts-reiated jobs in Canada.

Although siatistics make dry reading,
they are nevertheless worth including,
since so many people they can be more
meaningful and persuasive than the
most eloquent of emotional appeals for
a Canadian cultural identity, especially
when it is necessary to demonstrate that
the visual and performing arts can
withstand the closest scrutiny when it

Ac Business ExAMIVER
APRIL 1936

comes to their economic sigmiticance.
For exampie, in Vancouver alone, it is
estimated that those employed in the
arts industry, injected up to $25 million
into the local economy. Total direct and
indirect art-related expenditures in B.C.
are in the region of $800 million, since
the arts are linked to aimost all aspects
of the economy.

In Vancouver those
employed in the arts
industry, injected up to
$25 million into the local
economy.

According to the figures released by
the B.C. Coalition for the Arts, the
province of British Columbia spends a
total of $86.3 million on cultural activities
and gives about $7 million in grants
annually. This represents a per capita
cost of $7.72 in current dollars — the
lowest in Canada.

For each doilar of federal cultural
expenditures, the private sector spends
79€, the provincial governments 76¢,
municipal governmentss 26¢ and, by
comparison, $2 are earned revenue —
representing a total of $4.69 for each
federal dollar.

In 1984, the motion pictures services
industry attracted $60 million in foreign
feature film and television productions,
primarily from Los Angeles. About $25
million was paid out locaily for crew
wages and technical services, including
accommodation, catering, rentals,
supplies, materials and other services.
Since 1979, productions have resulted
in a contribution of over $272 million to
the provincial economy. Approximately
2,600 people are employed in the
television and film industries in B.C.

Approximately 2,600 peo-
ple are employed in the
television and film indus-
tries in B.C.

The often overlooked book publishing
industry generated $8.5 million in British
Columbia in 1984 and is now the second
largest in Canada.

B.C. pertorming arts companies held
3,984 performances, or 16% of ail
national events, and attracted a total
audience of 1.2 million, or 14% of all
spectators, in 1982. Total performing
arts-related expenditures. including
company costs and spectator spin-off
dollars, were $25.2 million and the
overail beneficial impact of $52.8 million
on the national economy.

While it takes many years of dedicated
hard work to build a healthy arts industry,
it can be demolished almost overnight
it those currently working in the industry
are driven away, to seil their talent and
experience elsewhere, and if opportun-
ities cease to exist within the education
system for new talent to be recognized
and given appropriate training at ail
levels.

“We are ail equaily ignorant,” said Will
Rogers. “but about different things.” This
truism is worth remembering when it
comes to any discussion about the arts
and the economy. Those who fail to see
the connection are most likely simply
ignorant of the facts rather than
antagonistic to the arts, which is why
the author decided to present at least
some of the facts in the hope that a few
minds may be changed. There is still
time to save the arts from irreparable
damage and a wider appreciation of their
crucial importance to the economy may
turn out to be the deciding factor at this
point in Canada’s history when concern
about our economic survival tend to
dominate the thinking of those respon-
sible for governing the provinces and the
nation as a whoie.