THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 31, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 10:30 a.m. to study the impact and utilization of Canadian culture and arts in Canadian foreign policy and diplomacy, and other related matters.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: This is the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The committee is authorized by the Senate to study the impact and utilization of Canadian culture and arts in Canadian foreign policy and diplomacy, and other related matters.
Under this mandate the committee is pleased to continue its study and hear from Ms. Jana Sterbak, Artist, Conceptual Sculptures. Before I turn to Ms. Sterbak, I will ask the senators to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Senator René Cormier, from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Bovey: Pat Bovey from Manitoba.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: Dennis Dawson, from Quebec.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
Senator Greene: Stephen Greene, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
The Chair: By video conference from Paris, we have Ms. Sterbak. Welcome, Ms. Sterbak, can you hear us?
Jana Sterbak, Artist, Conceptual Sculptures, as an individual: Very well, thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for taking the time to meet with us in what we are told is a very busy schedule in Paris; we do appreciate it. We have circulated your biography to the members of the committee so I won’t take the time to present it, but rest assured the senators know your background.
You know our study. We are reaching out to as many sources as possible to help us in determining Canadian foreign policy as it can relate to cultural diplomacy and other related matters. Welcome to the committee.
Ms. Sterbak: Thank you for inviting me. I’m going to make my presentation very brief to permit you to ask a lot of questions. Since you will not have access to many artists like this, I would prefer that you really go for it and ask whatever you want. Don’t worry about it being too personal or innocent sounding; that’s not one of our concerns.
I’d like to start by quoting an 18th-century writer who was recently revived in the art world by a colleague of mine from Sarajevo. My colleague is Dean Jokanović Toumin and the writer is Avigdor Posner. He said:
If you want to find hell ask an artist, and if you don’t find an artist you know that you are already in hell.
Not only do we have to sponsor culture abroad because other nations do, but culture and art are important because they are to the soul as vitamins are to the body.
Before I start complaining, let me reassure you that we don’t need to worry much about visibility or transmission of Canadian values. They have been transmitted. Canada is appreciated for its openness, inclusiveness and attention to minorities and to women. It is known for its relative transparency and excellent standard of living. Ours is considered a gentle, welcoming society, largely free of prejudice, snobbery and clientelism.
Let me also reassure you about the status of our arts abroad. They are doing well. The kind of visibility Canadian artists, performers, filmmakers and dancers have today would have been inconceivable only two generations ago. We are doing very well.
But Canada is not big enough to sustain an artistic career. No single country is that big. Artistic careers need the consecration of the international arena. It’s a historical fact that the first attention given to groundbreaking artists is frequently found outside of the fatherland. For example, the impressionists were first collected by a few enlightened Russian merchants. Minimalists, a post-war movement, were initially shown and understood in Germany. This was well before they were accepted and collected in the United States — their own country.
From my experience, Canadian collectors are more ready and willing to purchase when they find the work abroad.
Now, the kind of values that make us great as a democratic nation are inappropriate in the art world. The art world is not an equal opportunity employer. It is and always has been an elitist organization. The election is not by democratic means. It is based on excellence alone.
Further, as individuals or as a nation, we cannot decide who are the excellent ones in our midst. For this we depend on the professional opinion outside of our own country. Museum directors and curators abroad decide who merits viewing in the international arena. That’s why we are here today: It is imperative that once invited abroad, our people, our artists, have the kind of support that we used to receive prior to 2008.
One of the programs that stopped around that time — it was terminated — was called PromArt. It was headed by Yves Pépin and the second in command was Robin Mader. Robin expressed her willingness to me to talk to you and she also provided the address and phone numbers of her former boss. May I encourage you to invite these people to talk to you next?
The present lack of funding available to exported artists is more than inconvenient; it’s embarrassing. It’s especially embarrassing to be received in a country such as Germany, where I did a solo last year — a major exhibition — given the kind of attention and support that all German artists receive when they show with us in Canada.
The representative of a museum called Lehmbruck, in Duisburg, contacted, as he always does for a foreign artist, the cultural branch of our consulate in Berlin. He was expecting to receive airfare for myself or my technician. Instead, he was speedily dismissed and told that “the artist needs to apply for a personal grant from the Canada Council.” The Canada Council is supposed to encourage creation abroad, but it is not meant to finance the kind of exhibition I was giving in Germany.
I’m going to name three of perhaps the most important Canadian artists. They are instantly recognizable in any part of the art world: Jeff Wall, Rodney Graham, Stan Douglas. Like mine, their work is considered relevant expression of our time. Like me, they are prestigious artists, but unlike me they bring real income to the private galleries that promote and exhibit their work. They are represented not only in museum collections, but in major personal and corporate collections around the world.
This means that when an institution abroad wishes to do a show of their work, there is a fair chance that some contribution from a local collector, perhaps even a board member of the museum, can be counted on to give some money or at least host the opening celebration.
The reason I’m here in front of you today, instead of one of my more illustrious colleagues, is because my work is experimental and, as such, it is difficult to place in private or even corporate collections. Artists like me are dependent on public funds. These funds are not meant to underwrite the show entirely. They are to show that my country, Canada, stands behind me.
Now, if you ask any seasoned art professional, they will confirm that the experimental nature of Canadian art is precisely what makes Canada attractive in international circles. For this we have to thank the Canada Council, and let us all devote some celebratory thoughts to those who established it. They’ve contributed to the birth of several generations of creation across the country.
The Canada Council, as I said earlier, is meant to encourage creation, not to underwrite exhibitions of artists who are already quite established. Therefore, it is really imperative that we revive some of the funds that External Affairs had at their disposal about a decade ago.
Madam Chair, esteemed senators, please remember that we are not obliged to like it all -- I know I don’t like everything my colleagues do -- but we are obliged to afford the kind of respect to contemporary artists that we would afford any other specialized professional.
The second part of my talk involves the Canadian image as it was seen formerly and as it sometimes still persists in being seen even today. I think we have some part of the blame. I will treat you to what appears to be a joke, but in fact it’s a true story and it is still repeated in some of the older art circles of our country.
A well-known European curator who, when asked about culture in Canada, said that he flew across the country from the East Coast to the West Coast, and all he saw below him from his window in the plane were forests.
How are we to blame for perpetuating this unfortunate myth? By filling the public spaces of our embassies, consulates and residences with photos and paintings of landscapes, while disregarding the advice of seasoned international curators in our midst who are hired on contract. By preferring instead the opinions of senior civil servants with very little international experience of the art world. By providing these unfortunate individuals with mini budgets. Even the most innocent and uninformed of civil servants can be encouraged to buy right given the appropriate funds.
Now, it is understood that not all contemporary artistic expression is suitable for display in this context, but there is a lot of available ground between the depiction of acts by consenting adults, on the one hand, and images of icebergs on the other.
As a postscript to my talk, I wish to honour the request of a colleague of mine who knew I would be in front of you today. Apparently more than once he found the board members and collectors of the hosting institution snickering in front of examples of art that were the personal contributions of our ambassadors. These were in the residence’s rooms that are devoted to entertainment. So he asks, “Please, in the name of our taxpayers and for the good of our reputation as a country, could we prevail on our diplomatic staff to contain these manifestations of their taste to the more private parts of the residence?”
I will conclude with a quotation which is very dear to me and which some of you will certainly know. It’s to conclude on a happier note and to illustrate the power of art in diplomacy.
The poet is telling us about his hero, who is the subject of many reversals of fortune. At some point he finds himself shipwrecked in an unknown land and he has lost everything in the water. He has lost his goods and his companions. He’s alone and he’s afraid that where he finds himself is inhabited by barbarians who will chop him up into bits. But then he notices some artwork, and he says, “These people know the pathos of life and mortal things touch their hearts.” These words were written more than 2,000 years ago.
Thanks for having me to speak to you today.
The Chair: Thank you. You certainly covered a lot of ground with a lot of passion — some amusement. I want to clarify two points. You say there was a program before 2008 that was cancelled. Could you give me the name of it? I didn’t quite hear. There was more than one program going around at that time.
Ms. Sterbak: Yes. Yves Pépin and Robin Mader were heading the program which was called PromArt. In some cases they had very generous funding to help foreign institutions to showcase our artists.
For example, I was given close to $30,000 for a two-part exhibition that happened in Malmo, Sweden, and it also went to Munich. In Sweden, we had the ambassador, as well as the trade attaché from Denmark, seated at the dinner. Usually when these people show up, the museum arranges for some guests on the level of the diplomatic staff, so there were some august personalities from both Sweden and Denmark invited to dine with us at the reception.
The Chair: I just wanted to zero in which program it was you were referring to.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for your presentation.
You said to ask any question and that there is no such thing as a silly question. Just to reinforce what we’ve been hearing and just to hear you reinforce it, too, do you think we pay enough attention or recognize the role that art and the artists can play in cultural diplomacy?
Second, do we recognize the minority artists who sometimes have a very hard time getting the recognition, and how can we change that?
Ms. Sterbak: First part, yes, we recognize it on paper, but that is a kind of formal program. For example, here in this embassy in 2011 there was a very important Canadian art group called General Idea. They didn’t receive any public funds, but, thanks to the ambassador and the head of the cultural centre and their assistant, they were able to get Air Canada shipping. It was strictly a kind of personal initiative on the part of the ambassador. Nobody was obliging him to take this interest. These things happen.
In relation to your second question, yes, there are people in the Canadian art and diplomatic world who do take care of minorities specifically, but unfortunately they have no formal arrangement. This is left in the hands of our diplomats, and some of them have other interests and other mandates perhaps.
Senator Ataullahjan: You just said it, that it’s in the hands of diplomats who have an interest. There are some who are not interested in promoting arts and culture because they feel it doesn’t play a role. If the artist goes to that country, then there is no one really to support him or promote him.
Ms. Sterbak: As an example, the Canadian embassy in France had 250 free tickets from Air Canada. Then it went down to 50, and now it’s zero. That is because the head of the cultural centre -- who is actually the cultural attaché -- just didn’t get around to renewing this commitment, so it disappeared by default.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Good morning, Ms. Sterbak. I am going to speak to you in French. It’s a great honour to speak to you. I respect your work, which compels us to reflect upon our relationship to the world, to modernity, and to current events. I am extremely touched to be able to speak to you this morning.
As an artist, your works are widely known on the international scene. You exhibit your work, and at the heart of it, one senses an impulse to begin a dialogue with citizens everywhere about your art. In the questions that were suggested to us, it says that the vast majority of witnesses have said that cultural diplomacy helps achieve five objectives, which are: promoting Canada’s foreign policy priorities; promoting Canadian values and culture abroad; promoting mutual understanding between peoples; stimulating trade in cultural products; and strengthening the branding of Canada internationally.
So, having framed cultural diplomacy in this manner, based on your experience, what cultural diplomacy objectives should Canada be working towards? I’d like to mention a well-known quote from John F. Kennedy, who said: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”.
What is your vision of the role an artist like yourself can play in cultural diplomacy, and how should it be expressed in policy or a cultural diplomacy strategy, in order to take your reality as an artist into account?
Ms. Sterbak: I believe the artist has only one duty, and that is to produce the best possible art he or she can produce. Afterwards, because he produces good work, the artist’s work will be exported. Once his work is abroad, he needs the support of his country. Regarding the dinner in Sweden, since Foreign Affairs allocated an important sum to this, the ambassador was present, as well as a trade commissioner for a neighbouring country. This dinner was organized around their presence. So the other artists and I, in that context, could be seen as a sort of glue that brought people together. We can’t be asked for more than that. That is why I quoted that beautiful passage from the Aeneid. All we can do is reveal our common humanity in a relevant and innovative way. In meeting each other, all of these objectives you listed can be met.
Senator Cormier: Ms. Sterbak, who should decide that an artist like you would be the artist to support in a given country because we want to practice cultural diplomacy in that country? Who should make that decision, and how should this be done?
Ms. Sterbak: As I just said, that is not up to us. The artist must be invited by the other country, and that is why it is very important once an artist is invited by museums, gallery professionals, et cetera, that you support him, but not necessarily with amounts as considerable as what I received in Sweden. You can simply provide $5,000 or $8,000. That indicates that the artist is important to his country. The artist is supported by his country.
However, we cannot force our artists to develop international reputations. For instance, the Canada Pavilion in Venice has a good representation of Canadian artists. Every two years, the Canadian Pavilion at the Venice Biennale — a type of cultural embassy, one could say — presents an artist who is chosen by our art curators. However, if you look at all of the artists whose works have been exposed in that pavilion, you will see that less than half enjoyed a career outside of the country afterwards. This means that we can’t decide for others. In addition, our country, and other countries, are too small to support a serious artistic career. You have to be present in the international arena. Since other countries, like Germany, France and the United Kingdom provide funding to artists, we too are obliged to do so. It’s not a matter of keeping up with the Joneses.
[English]
It is a gesture of respect, of recognition.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Bovey: As someone from the visual art community, I want to thank and congratulate you on the tremendous presence that you have given Canada all around the world. I’d like to congratulate you on the tenacity and dedication of your experimentation, which I know has often met with varied responses. To stay true to the questioning you’re doing in society is really important, and I applaud you for taking it abroad, as you have.
I want to come back to a couple of questions, if I may. You mentioned that you felt it was recognition abroad that gave emerging artists their voice, shall we say, in terms of Canadian art. You obviously gained that voice in your early career, through your career. As one of Canada’s senior artists and as a Governor General's Award recipient, you’re still carrying that flame, which isn’t easy.
Tell me, in your view, why does the presence of some of our Canadian artists, after a very stellar early career, drop off internationally? To be specific, I want to ask you about shipping work and the cost of shipping work. I was meeting with some artists yesterday who said they could only ship one work to an international exhibition between Winnipeg and Seattle because the shipping cost was $8,000 and they didn’t have enough money to ship anything else. Where do you get funds to ship your work around the world? Is that something that used to be covered by the Department of Foreign Affairs?
I know France and Britain still have cultural attachés, or people fulfilling that role, but in many embassies in parts of the world you’ve worked in, they no longer have somebody in that role.
Can you weave that together, the presence through a career, the cost of shipping and having that international presence and taking Canada’s voice abroad? And what role going forward should embassies play?
Ms. Sterbak: I’m going to start in a roundabout way by drawing your attention to the fact that a lot of artists today express themselves in video.
Senator Bovey: Many don’t. Some don’t.
Ms. Sterbak: Many don’t. But the reason video is so widely distributed is not only thanks to the excellence of the videos, it’s also due to exportability, the ease of shipping it, and to the insurance costs, which you didn’t hit on, but these are major. Both shipping and insurance skyrocketed after 2010-11.
I was one of the fortunate people whose career was established before this time. But with my show in Sweden -- the one that I already mentioned and that was so well covered by this program PromArt -- that money went mostly to shipping.
Now, at this point I’m established enough that the foreign institution that invites me assumes that they will cover most of the shipping, but my last show in Germany, where we didn’t even get a plane ticket, I had to pay some of the shipping back home myself.
Senator Bovey: I think we’re hearing, in multi-disciplines, about how many other countries are supporting Canadian artists to have that presence abroad.
You mentioned the word “embarrassed” before. Can you build on what causes that embarrassment and how you feel when you’re supported by other countries and perhaps not your own?
Ms. Sterbak: It’s especially noticeable in Germany. I know for many of our curators, many of our institutions, the minute they cast an eye on a German artist, there comes the Goethe-Institut, galloping in with offers of financial support.
Last year, when I was showing in Germany and my curator was told to “go away,” it did not feel good. It really brings it back to that nasty little story of this Italian curator who said he saw nothing but forests. We’ve gone way beyond that.
In professional circles, we have a lovely and serious reputation as a country who contributes. A lot of that is thanks to the funding of the Canada Council because it allows our artists to express themselves in a non-commercial way.
This is what’s mostly appreciated in the museum world. A lot of people from the United States, my colleagues, they have to crank out little derivatives to be able to make some experimentals once in a while.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for being with us today to share your life’s experiences in the arts community. It’s very interesting.
You were telling us that the PromArt program was cancelled in 2008 and it was funds to help foreign institutes exhibit Canadian art. You spoke about the artist who needed the money to travel to exhibit his or her work and that the Canada Council didn’t cover that funding.
If the government phoned you and said, “We want you to develop a financial assistance program to help emerging artists, to help established artists to share their work internationally in diplomacy,” what would you do? How would you set it up? What would be the important facets of a program that you would set up to ensure that somebody who just needs a little bit, like the money to travel, and who needed it fairly quickly, would be able to access funding to help with Canadian art?
Ms. Sterbak: The Canada Council does have a travel program and it is quite available. The reason I do not wish to access this program is that I really feel I’m too old for that. I think it should be the exclusive arena for younger artists.
I have, and I do very occasionally ask for their help. Right now, one of my galleries is taking me to the Basel art fair. She is going to be paying about 40,000 Euros just to have the booth where she’s going to put my work. Then she has to pay the shipping from Germany, insurance, et cetera. She is also inviting critics and collectors, and giving them a supper. In this case, she really doesn’t need any additional expenses, and since she asked me to be there, I asked the Canada Council.
Canada Council can and does underwrite just the travel, but what is needed more than the travel is shipping. I think it would be a good idea to create, inside external affairs, some organization which can be headed on rotating turns. It doesn’t need so many people. It can be headed by people who are semi-retired but who have great experience of international arenas, museums, art centres, film venues, et cetera. These people would decide yes, this one gets it and this one doesn’t. But the invitation should always come from abroad.
Senator Cordy: Would you include insurance costs with shipping?
Ms. Sterbak: Yes.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you, Ms. Sterbak. I don’t see you very well; I presume you are there.
Ms. Sterbak: For some reason, the lights went out. I don’t know how to put them on.
The Chair: They’re on a timer.
Senator Massicotte: Congratulations, by the way, relative to your reputation and success as an artist. It’s recognized in the world, and certainly recognized in Canada. We appreciate very much all you’re doing for us, somewhat as an ambassador for our country.
I wouldn’t mind going back to the bigger picture, if you don’t mind. I can appreciate your own personal frustrations with government funding and the inconsistency in the cost that bears upon you.
Given the nature of our study, our study is basically oriented to spending money on cultural activities outside our country and obviously for the benefit of our country. That’s more our perspective.
I wouldn’t mind you talking a bit about how Canada benefits from the fact we have people like yourself representing us in countries. I can appreciate the benefit to you and to the artists, but if you went to the bigger picture, how does that help our country relative to its position around the world? Give me some examples of how that benefits our reputation, our ability to attract all kinds of professionals to our country, the reputation it causes and the opinion people have of our country? Can you get into that for me a bit to make sure we get that on record?
Ms. Sterbak: I can try. Again, when I am invited to a location and money is given, there are a number of important people invited to the reception. What kind of results -- in particular, concrete results -- this has, I don’t know. But I can tell you that during my lifetime as an artist — so this is maybe 30 years — so many more Canadian companies have opened abroad. Many more commercial venues that specialize in advertising are visible outside and many more people have started coming to Canada.
I’m talking about cultural tourism. When I was a young person in school, there was no cultural tourism to Canada. Nobody bothered to come to Canada for culture. They came for the nature. I would say this is a major accomplishment, because our nature is really stunning. If people come for culture, that is saying a lot because to get to see our culture, people have to cover a lot of territory. Culture is very interspersed in our territory.
As far as numbers of how much our economy has gained, I’m not the person to ask.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Sterbak, I want to ask you a couple of questions. You were talking about the embassies and you say they have a type of art that has been selected that sort of perpetuates some of our images and already-known values, like our forests, trees and landscapes.
Then you said sometimes there is art that is the ambassador’s. This is a discussion that I think Foreign Affairs offices often have. You go to another country — I won’t take Paris because that’s not a fair example. Say you’re at a posting in Africa and you want to display some Canadian art, it’s very important to nurture and show respect for the artists within the country you’re in, so you’re often torn. And if you like art, as I did, they were knocking on your door asking you to purchase and to display. You find yourself torn between Canada and the country and respecting that country’s art, et cetera.
Then, of course, there are the ambassador’s personal preferences. He wants to show a bit of his personality, et cetera, so they lean towards certain things.
I don’t want to misunderstand what you had said. Are you saying that it should only be Canadian in there and in the private bedroom residences or whatever, he or she could display what they want? Because I think there’s a reason for displaying other things within our internationalism, our respect for the country that we’re in, and displaying Canada. It’s really highlighting that aspect of our foreign policy that we are interested in more than the politics of the country.
Ms. Sterbak: May I know which years you were in Africa?
The Chair: You said you would tell everything. I don’t tell everything. The late 1980s, early 1990s, but I go there virtually every year as well as to many other countries. It’s a discussion we have of how to highlight the Canadian embassy and what is in the best interests. It does vary from country to country and among the ambassadors.
Did you want it exclusively in the official parts? Is that what you were saying?
Ms. Sterbak: No, not necessarily. I think there can be some mix. I’m most familiar with France. They commission artists — one of them was me — to do a design for a tapestry that is destined to be hung in their embassy. I’m a foreign artist, and I was not the only one invited. The tapestry I made may well end up in a French consulate or embassy in Canada.
This is an interesting point. But I think what my friend wanted me to convey is that the ambassador is not supposed to know everything about contemporary art. This person, the ambassador, and their staff need to be advised by serious professionals, not necessarily a civil servant hauled in from Ottawa for this purpose.
The Chair: As Senator Massicotte often says, I’m going to play a bit of the devil’s advocate.
If you’re sitting on the government side and you want to support the arts, with some of these programs, you have to have objectives, you have to have results, et cetera. How do you choose between young artists who you want to nurture and give them some international experiences, or do you go to the well-known artists and display them because they’re already part of the knowledge about Canada?
I think the dilemma that every government has had — and this is not a new issue — is how to support the arts overseas and then to tie it in, because you have to explain it to the taxpayers, I guess, the public, why you’re spending money on particular artists.
What I’m trying to say is there’s always a competition. How does one choose and how does one build a program?
Do you have a preference as to where the Canadian government should go? What advice would you give us? Should we just say Canada has limited resources, so why don’t we nurture you — new technologies, new types of art, new artists — as a first step if we were going to develop a program, or do we go to well-known artists? What do we define as culture? What do we define as art?
I guess I’ve been involved in the background so much that no matter what terms of reference I put on something, somebody comes and says, “That’s not good enough. We need to be included.” Help us out.
Ms. Sterbak: I think these questions are valid, but perhaps they’re a little bit unnecessary. You have to simply be attentive to the fact that there are people being invited abroad. When they are invited and when a foreign nation is spending money on them, then give them a little help. Show the institution that, yes, you care about the arts. If they invite a young artist, go for it. If they invite an older artist, go with that.
The question of what we put in our embassies, there should be a mix of young, up-and-coming people, but we do need some instant recognition, work by the three names I mentioned: Jeff Wall, Stan Douglas and Rodney Graham. They don’t need us. We need them.
I vacation in a small Québécois village on the St. Lawrence River. By kind of a coincidence and accident practically, there is a sculpture there by a famous Italian artist called Michelangelo Pistoletto. It’s a big red sculpture in the leisure port. The natives call it “hemorrhoids.” They hate it. But, because of me, they found out how much it’s approximately worth, and that may be a couple of hundred thousand Canadian dollars. Well, their attitude has considerably changed since. They still don’t like it, but they’re proud of it. They’re happy that their village owns it.
Recently they were even happier because Musée des beaux-arts de Montréal requested it for their Canada 150 celebration to put it on Sherbrooke Street in downtown Montreal.
The value part counts. I think that all of us have visited shows simply because there was a lot of gold in them. With Tutankhamun, do we go there because of the history of Egypt? Maybe not. Maybe we’re just there because those objects are so incredibly valuable.
This is also part of diplomacy. Let’s show the world outside that our artists are worth a lot of money; that they’ve made it.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you for your very relevant comments, Ms. Sterbak.
If we were to imagine a cultural diplomacy program, what room would you make in that program, for instance, to initiatives that would help our Canadian artists be in touch with other artists in the countries we visit? We say that one of the objectives of cultural diplomacy is promoting the mutual understanding between peoples. In your opinion, would supporting an initiative to help artists meet other artists to create together or work on projects together be something that could advance cultural diplomacy?
Based on your experience on the international scene, could room be made for the mentorship of young artists within a program like that one? You have had such an experience. As our chair stated, we have young artists whose work could be showcased internationally. What sort of assistance would allow someone like you to provide mentorship to those artists?
Ms. Sterbak: I think you must let professionals choose the artists. For instance, here, at the embassy, they invited Jessica Bradley, on contract; she is a former gallery owner, and she worked at the National Gallery of Canada. That type of person will tell you instantly which foreign artists you should invite to Canada, and which counterparts you should contact to choose artists here. Everything depends on the quality of the advice you receive.
Senator Cormier: To be more specific, do you think the idea of encouraging meetings between artists like you and other artists in other countries, not only through exhibitions, but also through workshops, art laboratories, co-creations, and reflection on social, political, and cultural issues in our countries, could benefit cultural diplomacy?
Ms. Sterbak: Absolutely. Several of these meetings take place in universities every year. There as well, Foreign Affairs could help. The universities have funds, but they don’t necessarily want to spend them on travel for foreign artists. It would be a good opportunity to spend state money to invite people to the conferences that are held each year in large cities throughout Canada.
Senator Cormier: Thank you, madam.
[English]
Senator Bovey: I’m going to come back to one very specific question, and then I’d like to ask a more philosophical question.
I want to come back to insurance costs for a minute. Having brought many exhibitions in and sent them out, in your experience as a contemporary artist, have you worked with countries where the receiving country or your host country has had an indemnification program so that the insurance on your work is covered by them?
Ms. Sterbak: Yes, of course. Whenever I’m invited abroad, the museum covers the insurance. This is part of the elevated costs. This is why any museum where I exhibit will go to the embassy.
There is an interesting thing I didn’t mention. Because the German museum failed with the Canadians, somebody sent them to the Quebec delegate. The Quebec delegate gave them €800.
Senator Bovey: Thank you. I just wanted to tie that down, because I know Canada has an indemnification program which has allowed Canada to bring in major exhibitions. I just thought for the record —
Ms. Sterbak: Of course. That is always part of the deal.
For example, I’m now in international collections, big collections. Often the museum will make it a condition that a courier accompanies the work, so there is another added cost. I’m doing well and my career is fine, but if somebody wants to organize a show of my work, there are quite a bit of costs now.
Senator Bovey: I appreciate that. Now I want to move to the philosophical.
As someone who has exhibited all across the world, how would you define your contribution to the soft power of diplomacy for Canada in the places you’ve been?
We’ve had people talk about soft power. We’ve had people talk about the importance. You are one person who has been everywhere. If you could just sum it up, how would you define your contribution to Canada’s soft power, because for many of us, we think it’s significant?
Ms. Sterbak: I think the fact that a country can see somebody like me, who has made ephemeral works, provocative works, works that were copied worldwide, who has been supported and is doing well because I was given opportunities and prizes — mostly in Canada, also abroad — and that Canada stands behind me already says a lot.
I want to come back to my quotation of Aeneid, where our shipwrecked hero is standing there all naked and he sees some art work and he says these people know the pathos of life and mortal things touch their heart. That’s what it’s all about.
Senator Bovey: I’d like to thank you for your understanding and presence of humanity. Thank you very much.
The Chair: I can only echo what Senator Bovey has said.
We appreciate the time you’ve taken and your contribution to Canada’s reputation abroad and your input in the committee here.
It is a struggle to try and find some balance and to understand Canadian foreign policy, because that’s what we start with, namely, what is Canadian foreign policy? Then we ask how we can build on it, modernize it and respond to the Canadian expectations. You’ve certainly helped us in that way.
I see Senator Massicotte waving his hand, so I can’t close the meeting yet.
Senator Massicotte: I wouldn’t mind a discussion before we do close the meeting regarding where we’re at with our study and who are our future invited guests and our program, if you don’t mind.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Sterbak.
Ms. Sterbak: One little thing. I know many of you in the Senate are thinking, “Do we really need all those artists?” Let me assure you: Many people on the outside of the Senate, not just artists, are asking, “Do we really need all those senators?”
The Chair: I think you’re showing your background.
I can assure you that I don’t hear anyone in Canada saying that we don’t need more artists. I hear the other debate, but I don’t hear the one about artists. The question is to what extent should the Canadian government be paying attention to that in the foreign policy.
We’re going to restrict ourselves to understanding the worth of the artists, but we’re going to talk about how it fits into foreign policy.
Thank you very much for helping us.
Senators, we’ll suspend for two minutes and then we can go in camera, if you wish.
(The committee continued in camera.)