maslow meets the parents on parliament hill

There's a great opinion piece in the Ottawa Citizen this morning about how the desires of parents can affect the career choices of aspiring artists, writers, musicians, etc. It was written by the younger brother of Dan Hill (Canadians of a certain vintage will remember his signature hit song Sometimes When We Touch). Marianne Lepa of Arts News Canada says this about Hill's article:

A career in the arts is not the choice most parents would make for their children. What parent would want to see their offspring toil away for merciless hours making pennies a day? What parent would wish garrets and draughty spaces as their child's dream home?

But then, a career in the arts isn't about the money, is it?

"I can't imagine a saxophonist, painter, ballerina or poet deciding to follow his or her passion because of the money," says Hill. "Truck drivers, plumbers, teachers and even people flipping burgers at minimum wage earn steadier money -- and more money -- than most Canadian artists." But art is a social need, says Hill. "We need art as individuals, and we need art collectively, and virtually every civilization I have visited or read about has valued and thirsted for artistic expression. To me, art springs from individual genius. But that genius is fragile, and it won't flower if it's not cultivated. We need parents who read to their kids and encourage their creativity and teachers who know how to nourish artistic promise, but we also need institutions, business and governments to support the arts vigorously and creatively."

This pervasive money=success attitude was typical in my family and affected my younger brother (a storyboard artist) and me for many years. But it's not just non-creative types like our parents who don't get it. An old friend who does fabric art in her spare time never asks about my creative process or buys any art herself (in spite of her own financial success in city management), only about how my sales are going. (When I was making a lot of sales at a certain point she quit asking. What does that mean do you think?) The only artists who seem able to take a break from the questioning and criticism are those who have become financially successful or those who are surrounded by family and friends who understand (a) the psychological need for creative people to create and (b) the larger societal benefit. Unfortunately it usually takes someone with the same kind of creative drive to really get it.




But enough finger wagging; I ain't no saint myself. We all make judgements and deliver opinions through the filter of our own experiences, upbringing, interests, jealousies and desires (I'm doing that right now) and many people are not able to break out of the Social and Ego levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs in their own lives, so showing support for those whose needs are in a different category altogether is a leap some are simply unable to make. Often they have the best intentions, and most parents do want the best for their kids, but this can get hopelessly lost in translation.

Having been a teacher I value education like no other 'intervention,' so I'm rooting for the "coalition of writers, actors, dancers and others who will be on Parliament Hill today. They are holding an 'Awakening' that organizers hope will 'open the eyes of the Harper government to the cultural and economic contribution the arts make to Canada.' The group is urging for the reinstatement of the $11.8 million dollars cut from Foreign Affairs' international cultural promotion budget last fall."

Keep your fingers crossed.