Not very artful

IN ART, you can judge something by its title. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts? Not a good one.

It starts with the order of precedence. Tourism is first, and thereby all-important, all-consuming, relegating culture and the arts subsidiaries.

And since culture, by definition, includes all art, the separation here speaks to interpretations of “culture” and “art” that are limited, mercenary – indeed, touristic.

Think of the age-old clichés used in tourism brochures, normally involving natives – not full human beings – dancing around in scanty costumes, eating exotic foods, amid pretty, rustic scenery.

It makes complete sense that the tourism industry should be concerned with culture. The reality is tourists do enjoy certain experiences that they have come to associate with the Caribbean and with island life. Many come with such expectations in mind.

Our culture defines us, sets us apart from other destinations. It can help us compete, especially in the current anaemic tourism market. Things like Carnival and Best Village are key parts of that culture and have always been special draws.

The problem is, culture is not limited to such facets. Nor is it suited to being treated as a commodity.

In fact, doing so undermines the value of art more generally, suggesting art’s purpose is merely to please or placate. And to make money.

It is true the State already supports various facets of our culture in considerable ways. Hundreds of millions of dollars on Carnival. Subsidies to some cultural organisations. Support for large-scale annual events. Recently, one-off covid19 grants.

But in the context of a society in which artists do not get the kind of support evident in countries that have arts councils or regular grant funding, it is arguably mere show to tack culture onto tourism under the guise of making things better for creative artists.

The truth is that some of the arts have survived in spite of, not because of the government. The blinkered focus on Carnival, for instance, has come close to killing off local music that is not pan or soca.

A policy position in which culture is valued only for the number of hotel rooms it can fill is one that has no real appreciation for the wider purpose of art and the conditions required to nurture it.

There is a reason why the starving artist remains a valid stereotype.

The nature of art is that it is difficult and/or commercially unviable. It is about truth-telling. Tacking it onto tourism limits focus to areas deemed palatable to the “tourism product,” namely stereotypical, superficial projections of ourselves.

This is backward, not forward-thinking.

What we need is a system that supports the nurturing of talent, the production and distribution of work, and the fostering of a wider critical culture – and a basic understanding of that concept – outside the Carnival cycle.