An acquaintance of mine, lets call him Gordon, cannot understand why public monies should be provided to artists or arts and cultural groups. Gordon's view, as I understand it, is that these activities should sink or swim in the open marketplace. What, you may well ask, is wrong with this view of the world? 

I believe that good art, like good science, is innovative, challenging, stimulating, questioning. These are uniquely human interests. It is obvious that some cultural activities can be self-sustaining and can even show a profit as can some science research. It should also be obvious that such does not apply to all activities in either discipline. Clearly, the more removed the action from the marketplace, the more difficult will it be to make that activity support itself. Does that mean that it should not be supported, even encouraged, by the public purse? What then would have happened to man's efforts to understand the universe around him? Where on the face of the planet is there an astronomical observatory that supports itself solely by selling peeks through its telescopes? Some research is directed, that is, it has a clear development objective. As such it can be funded by the risk-takers in the marketplace. Basic research does not have any clear end-point. It is curiosity directed. Its fallout is unknown and usually unknowable in the sense of being unpredictable. Yet is there still anyone who would argue that mankind should not gaze at the stars? Not only is that activity worthy in and of itself, basic scientific research has led to what is called our high-tech economy. Make no mistake, without that activity locally 50 and more years ago there would be no local high-tech economy today. I hope that this is generally accepted.

How curious then that the parallel situation in the arts seems so difficult to understand. The world of the arts also needs its basic or fundamental component. Otherwise we will never see the fruits of local artistic talent competing eventually in the marketplace locally and internationally. We will be importers of other peoples' thoughts without, seemingly, having any of our own to offer. What an empty and chilling prospect.

I can hear Gordon protesting that local technology is not supported by the local property tax base. Not so. Every building in which that activity is housed needs local infrastructure, paid for by all taxpayers, to survive. Development charges tied to any one project does not cover anything like the total bill. Yet surely Gordon would not argue that the public purse should be shut against supporting that needed infrastructure?

There is yet one more link between the arts-part of us and the tech-part of us. It is this. Let's not forget that the tech-stuff provides the tools of modern life whereas the arts-stuff fills our lives with content, energy and purpose. Further, let's remember that tourists would not visit Ottawa to see our wonderful roads, largely pot-hole free, or our high-tech parks and their R&D facilities beautiful as they are. They will come, in ever greater numbers, if Ottawa is a vibrant exciting place of ideas. Let's make sure that we do what we can to round out what the Nation's Capital has to offer the world.

Jacques Legendre
Councillor