Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

A Conversation With JJ McCullough about Culture and Government Funding of the Arts (Patreon)

Published:
2024-08-07 13:21:06
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Content

WOKE PATRIOTIC PROGRESSIVE FIGHTS CAPITALIST CONSERVATIVE IN CULTURE WAR

JJ McCullough is a Vancouver based cultural and political YouTube commentator and he is on my couch! We discuss the merits or lack thereof of government subsidies for the arts, and we end up disagreeing about the value of Canadian culture as a distinct entity from US culture.

Funny to listen back to a more debate-y conversation where I wasn’t prepared for the subject matter and reflect on all the things I could’ve/should’ve said, particularly in the last half hour. However I wouldn't have thought very deeply about any of these things if it weren't for JJ asking me about it very specifically out of respect for my thinking.

Check out his channel! It's good if you pick a topic you're interested in and just hear him go through it quite patiently & graciously, "objectively" yknow:

@JJMcCullough

Files

A Conversation With JJ MuCullough

WOKE PATRIOTIC PROGRESSIVE FIGHTS CAPITALIST CONSERVATIVE ABOUT CULTURE JJ McCullough is a Vancouver based cultural and political YouTube commentator and he is on my couch! We discuss the merits or lack thereof of government subsidies for the arts, and we end up disagreeing about the value of Canadian culture as a distinct entity from US culture. Funny to listen back to a more debate-y conversation where I wasn’t prepared for the subject matter and reflect on all the things I could’ve/should’ve said, particularly in the last half hour. Shower argument stuff! Check out his channel: @JJMcCullough

Comments

yennik arual

the first seventy seconds of this is big joel's Small YouTube Culture my brain is already Primed i am excited to finish this after work

Oinseach

I'm an hour in now and I've been stopping every few minutes to yell at the tv, my thoughts are not fully collected but it's a really interesting conversation to hear as someone who is not from North America. I don't think i have a full understanding of Bill C-11, but I can see the argument he's making against it, but the philosophy further from that i struggle to fully grasp. For art that has some a direct consumer base; people pay for music directly (or i suppose we used to, streaming complicates the point but whatever), when a piece of art exist within a market I can see the argument that market success determaines value to a certain extent, but does this same argument apply to art where there is no market because it contradicts the form, who pays for a mural for example? There is no direct consumer to pay for it, should it only exist if there is a corporate backer, should public art not exist at all? It's interesting to hear canadian perspectives on nationalism, i think it's an interesting place, I have spoken to Québécois about their national identity which is a whole other thing but it's interesting to hear two new perspectives on the country. As an Irish person, I have a complicated but potent relationship with my county and heritage, the feeling that JJ expressed that Canada is ultimately not that culturally distinct from America is so interesting to me, coming from a place the feels deeply cultural distinct from our neighbours, which is obviously not defined by national borders, but absolutely relates to a national identity. (Northern Irish culture and the culture of the Republic are absolutely deeply intertwined and connected by sharing an island and a history and a language and sports and music, bla bla bla) I'm really rambling here but I'm just trying to say is that it's interesting, Americans seem to have this massive and overwhelming sense of national identity, but from the outside it seems sort of shallow and constructed being rooted in a much younger history, and I think I probably had assumed that Canadians had something similar but a little quieter. One last thing, and I haven't listened to everything JJ has to say about this yet but the notion that drake and Justin Bieber have some sort of entrepreneurial spirit that brought them success seem a wee bit mad to me, Bieber went viral as a child essentially by accident and drake was a child actor on degrassi (was degrassi ever subsidised by the canadian government?), I'm just not sure those a particularly good examples. Sorry that was a lot of words.

Emi P

About art, goverments and nationalism: so a lot of my culture and what people understand as Mexican culture is something the government came up with in the last century. Like one of out most known artists is Diego Rivera and the muralists and most of their art is a propagandistic fabrication of what Mexico is and what is our history. I mean art historically has had the function to create national, religious or ideological identities and some of the best art in the world was that for a long time. Now some of the best art we make is in service of the market, but the market also has the incentive to create a narrative of what is art and what is good. The market needs to fabricate that art is an enterprise and is individual. I think art cannot escape the context in which its made even if it wanted to. I just think is okay for a government to sponsor artist. Jajajajja idk if there’s a real argument there

Wesley Aptekar-Cassels

What a strange conversation. The sort of framework and background that JJ seems to have is alien enough to me that I really have no idea how to respond to it as a whole, but here are a few scattered thoughts: --- It's very strange to see people who are removed from the landscape of VC investment but who have a positive impression of it talk about it. VC investment is extremely similar to the no-strings-attached do-whatever kinds of grants that CJ is proposing, but as soon as CJ brings that up, JJ says, essentially, no, don't do it like that, because it probably won't have good results or lead to "returns". Which is it? If you like the VC model, why not allow the government to take that approach? I guess he's ideologically opposed to government spending on art, but it seems strange to so thoroughly avoid acknowledging that, given that investing in art does seem to be a goal of the government (and "the will of the people" or whatever), there are more and less effective ways of doing that. Similarly, JJ talks about how it's not "rational" to just be giving taxpayer money away, but study after study has shown that UBI (literally giving money away) is a extremely effective investment. This is the sort of "rationality" that is simply based in vibes and talking points from centuries of propaganda, rather than any actual data or metrics. --- I'm reminded of the internal economy at Google/Alphabet for allocating server resources, which was for a long time a fairly "free-market" system (insofar as such a thing can exist within a company), but was then transitioned to a system where teams simply requested the resources they needed, and when there were more teams that wanted resources than resources to go around, they would simply argue their way up the org chart until someone was willing to look at the situation and make a decision (a process euphemistically called "deconfliction"). In general, people who are very excited by markets tend to have the idea that they solve everything, and (as happened at several points in this conversation), resort to handwavey ideas about why, but when you sit down and look at it, there are things that markets seem to be good at, and things that markets seem to be bad at. Perhaps we should be trying to figure out what those things are and what systems work best in what situations rather than arguing about whether markets good or markets bad. --- The conversation about nationalism is interesting, in that I disagree with both CJ and JJ. I do think that nationalism is fundamentally toxic, but I think that it's possible (and extremely important) to have a sense of place and a connection to your physical location. That can easily exist without borders and even without labels. On a similar note, the idea that it's pointless to try to replicate a existing scene in a different place because it's "redundant" is very strange, when it has obvious advantages: you get a richer culture from having multiple scenes evolving separately but in conversation with each other, you get a more resilient ecosystem, and it becomes accessible to people who don't have the means to travel wherever they want to join up with whatever artistic scene appeals to them. --- Overall, a very tiring conversation to listen to.

Emi P

Just by the way, and not knowing a lot about Canada. I think what JREG and his pals are doing has the potential to be the first step to producing cultural infrastructure in Toronto. like I think a lot of people see that and feel there’s something there and they can chase opportunities and community there. Also what you Cj are doing with your live shows, and the way you said it in your video, people wanted to go to Toronto just for that so that’s cool and good. I do understand the idea of the continental culture and the US and Canada are very much tied together culturally, politically and historically and obviously geographically, but I don’t think that’s a limitation to producing a distinct national and cultural identity, I know this because its also the case for Mexico. (A big difference obviously being language) our three countries are part of the idea of North America and we have one of the largest commerce trade pacts in the world. Eventually maybe we will become one big thing (in some centuries) but right now I think it’s righteous to fight for local and national culture and history and art.

Robert Lasica

JJ has a talent for positive provocative conversations, here are some thoughts. I know a lot of people that would like publicly funded weird bakeries to exist, mitigating operating costs to bring them more in line with the bakery economic conditions of other countries. I feel like people voting to put a thumb on the scale in favor of any group using tax money is inherently democratic regardless of checks and balances used. Certain legalistic and civic practices that have developed into the "ideal" way of funding the arts are there for convincing people and creating justifications, they aren't inherently giving better outcomes than just giving all MFA grads a one time 10k grant. It always feels off when people say "what the market wants" instead of " what people want". It obscures good popular art that we don't have a culture of paying for, and it contributes to the economic overshadowing the social. Private investments suck, angel investors have fucked over family and friends in my life, so moving away from that system feels like a natural desire for anyone that has to deal with investors and want to get closer to a pleasant and sustainable system. To mitigate brain drain and build local infrastructure it would be nice to have grants for people that have apprentices, or give demonstrations and courses to the public. That would have made a difference in my life, and maybe you could make it quantifiable by giving students a survey or something.

Wesley Aptekar-Cassels

I'm also reminded of this paper (https://sci-hub.se/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12140-009-9080-5) on cultural policy in North Korea, which is a much more extreme example of government policy funding only "patriotic" art, but one that has a much more sympathetic view than is usually given to North Korea, being willing to engage with the actual merits of North Korean art. I'm not sure what exactly there is to learn from that example, but it certainly is a interesting point of comparison.

Lou Corben

As someone who yells about government arts subsidy on here a lot and works in the sector - hoo boy! idk what the Canadian government arts funding model is like but in my experience of it in England is that it's a lot of (usually unpaid) work to get funding and a *huge* percentage of the application is focused on audiences, communities, and impact, as well as having to have of a diverse team etc, widening the scope of who is even able to be paid to make art. You have to show a level of integrity + at least a bit of a track record and support from established arts organisations to get it, and if we had an entirely market-driven arts economy we'd lose so much quality experimental art that influences the quality of commercial work that we have here too. You also can't get better at making art if you don't have the economic means to go through a process of trying, failing and learning. An entirely market-driven arts economy would be extraordinarily more gate-keepy, and make it so working class artists are left out. But if you're rich and untalented you can make a successful career. There's a reason all most all famous English actors nowadays are upper middle class up to actual landed gentry, compared to the 60s and 70s when we had better funding and working class artists could get through. The few working class actors who've broken through in the last 15 years, such as John Boyega, were able to because they went to drama classes as kids in subsidised theatres, and later moved into the commercial art world. Plus, not all art has to be for all people. Not everyone wants McDonalds for every meal. I don't know any artists who feel *entitled* to funding. Just a lot of very earnest and hope-driven people, who want to make great work with and for their communities and wish it wasn't all so fucking hard. No offence to JJ, I don't know his work, but he sounds like he doesn't actually know any artists outside of YouTube - no examples given - or much about how the arts economy functions outside of it. I am once again screaming that culture creates £5 for the economy for every £1 of public funding. https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/developing-creativity-and-culture/art-culture-and-economy/economic-contribution-arts-and-culture I don't personally believe that should matter but it just shows that complaining about a lack of ROI from subsidy is kinda nonsense. RE: the point about giving X thousand dollars to a bunch of 19 year olds being undemocratic - ok then let's do UBI ;)

Quil

This is a bit rambling, and I might go back and clean it up into something broader, but this is the sort of stream of consciousness: So, I'm about halfway through this (roughly the 50 minute mark) and it's definitely interesting. For the sake of laying out my biases, I'm from the USA, and am very solidly left - in a 'anti- capitalist, housing and healthcare are a human right, the supposed free market isn't actually free, etc, etc' way. So the perspective McCullough is coming from is deeply alien to my way of thinking. It feels, to me, that the dismissal of government funding/grants for artists and art institutions exposes a certain lack of appreciation or understanding for art as a facet of society and human nature, as well as the communal and interconnected nature of society. Art has, does, and will exist and be created, regardless of capitalistic value, simply because it is in human nature to create. The idea that art *must* have market value for the artist to have the right to live as an artist is in many ways anathema to my understanding and beliefs about culture and society. But I also understand the capitalist perspective, and see where it is coming from. I think what it comes down to is that the concept of Artist, of someone who dedicates themself to the pursuit of art as a form of communication and for the sake of creation, is fundamentally incompatible with a capitalist economy. Art can be created within a capitalist system, and art can have market value, but that is not and should not be a reason *to* create it. Which ties into the idea McCullough described of the over-sentimentalization of art and the artist - which in and of itself is a confusing idea. Art *is* sentiment. Art isn't created to be logical or an expression of reason - it's inherently emotional and evocative, so of course the societal view of it will be sentimental. To view art and the artist without sentiment is to misunderstand their purpose.

annadante

This felt like a conversation I might've had with a relative who thinks that arts are useless unless you're on New York Bestseller list.

h with umlaut

On iTunes in the section that recommends similar artists it recommends Cavetown, Jhariah, Mother Mother, and Will Wood. This shows that this section is not based on similarity but on audience. Also that CJ’s fans are not hip hop heads but gays.

Silver

Ok so about the 58 min mark JJ claims that just handing out money to the youth is undemocratic and i can understand his point that governments should attach strings to such offers so that their effects benefit their agenda, for which they got elected. But, here is an interesting and incredible example. The German government actually pulled through a couple of years back and gave 200€ to everyone born in 2005 (my birthyear) and 2006 to spend on arts, music, concerts, culture, books and so on. In my opinion this is as democratic as it gets. Democracy builds upon people that can think and judge critically, that are empathetic, humanist and tolerant. And maybe the best help on ones way toward that state growing up is through the (critical) examination of and engagement with culture, arts, literature and so on. CJs idea is similar though it focus on enabling the youth to actually create art themselves rather than just enabling them to engage with it. Both are great steps toward ensuring more democracy in the future and to discard is seems very shortsighted to me. Like there is always (or should always be) a presumption that the current government is democratic at which point it shouldnt matter if they are left- or rightwing, everyone should agree that those projects are beneficial to democracy Idk just rambling again

EnvyDragon

"There's kind of a double standard here [regarding the government supporting struggling artists purely because they're citizens]" No, there really, really isn't. As a customer, you want to spend money on the thing you'll enjoy the most. The government, conversely, wants to spend money on the thing that will *help its people.* In theory, the purpose of government is to support its constituents. Not debating how often that goal is achieved, but the point of art subsidies isn't to make artists feel good, it's to give them opportunities that they might not otherwise have had. Artists are going to compulsively create art, but what money gives them is: - An opportunity to improve that art with better tools, or even just with their basic needs met so there's less to stress about - More opportunities for marketing, because it doesn't matter how good your art is if nobody knows about it - Funding to attend conventions, travel to conferences, and otherwise network with their peers in a way that extends beyond, like, Twitter or something. And that's without getting into the kerfuffle that is the quote-unquote Free Market, and the fact that it rewards popularity more than a product's actual effectiveness at what it sets out to do. By incentivizing Canadian distributors (broadcasting networks, radio stations, etc) to prioritize Canadian content, our artists aren't competing as much with the advertising momentum of the richest country in the world (and who has ten times our goddamn population) to start the snowball rolling. Even if you're the kind of person who doesn't care about countries, citizenship, etc, it should at least be obvious that the *government* does, and it wants to put forth some financial effort to avoid getting culturally eclipsed. There's some really good Canadian animation out there, some very noteworthy Canadian game studios (Ubisoft Montreal made Assassin's Creed), and also some musicians but most of the ones I know about are too much on the pop side of things for me so whatever. Without art subsidies, a lot of those either wouldn't have survived in the public consciousness, or the people behind them would've had to move to like... New York or something, because so much of North America's cultural output comes from like 2 or 3 sources in America. Except for genre-fiction web serials. Canadians have that shit on lock for some reason.

Lucas Regis

JJ is really nice and has great hair but his opinions are infuriating.

Chandler Sterling

Hoo boy, this conversation really hit me like a sucker punch to the gut. I've been feeling a certain kind of way about the things I've been making lately and the difficulty of finding an audience. It is hard to get out of the mindset that if you try really hard to make something good, then that thing deserves to be seen and appreciated. The idea that those feelings are their own form of entitlement and that they may be getting in the way of actually achieving what I want was not fun to hear! But welcome, in the same way that a splash of cold water is welcome on a groggy morning. I haven't completely reconciled my feelings on whether artists are entitled to an audience or not, but I definitely appreciate this conversation for forcing me to contend with these things. I am farther down the path than I was. I was especially taken with the paradox that comes from making something for yourself but still wanting people to like it. I've absolutely spent a long time at work on something fully believing that it was entirely for me, and I didn't think it would matter at all if anyone else liked it. Then I actually put it out there... and no one liked it. Turns out I REALLY cared what people thought about it. I think it makes it's own kind of twisted sense, but that doesn't make the twisting of the knife any easier to bear. Making something entirely for yourself feels like the most genuine way to express who you are, so that explains why that seems like the right thing for an artist to do. Once you've put this thing imbued with your soul into the world though, it becomes really easy to conflate the world's reaction with their feelings about you personally. The heuristics become reflections of your real-life value as a person, and if they aren't looking good, then that must mean that you can either languish in a world that doesn't "get" you, or you can try to reshape your soul to become worthwhile of attention. Neither answer is appealing, and to be fair, I don't think either reaction is accurate. Sometimes you just didn't have the fundamentals in place to say what you thought you were saying. JJ is provocative in a way I haven't dealt with in a while. A lot of the things he said bristled against me, but I couldn't immediately put my finger on why. They required me to reassess some deeply held beliefs, and I have a stronger and more nuanced understanding of myself because of that. I really enjoyed listening to this, not because I agreed with every sentence uttered, but because I didn't always know why I disagreed. It was like a much gentler, safer version of a family dinner over the holidays. I'm going to go back to making something now.

funô¿ôlesbian

Bill C-11 and attempts to regulate the internet deserve criticism (I'm surprised CJ didn't mention social media more). But strangely the conversation hangs on whether art deserves to be publicly funded - which is absurd. Virtually everyone agrees that art should be publicly funded so it appears to be the public's will. JJ laments the rationality - but is "the public" known for being rational? Is art known for being rational? Well in this case it IS rational. There is plenty evidence showing investment in art results in substantial return - it just doesn't work on a 1:1 you give a kid money you get it back basis. People like places that are artistic and tend to flock there with their money. It's similar to how people like trees and nature. No one asks for a ROI from a park. It is Philistine to measure artistic success with a dollar sign. It is more accurately measured by influence, which is hard to measure. Experiments in art are often not popular but popular works often build upon ideas first expressed in experimental works.

post_traumatic

it's really fascinating to listen to someone so well-spoken, insightful and non-confrontational, who at the same time makes--in my opinion--the basic mistake of confusing his own personal views & tastes with the general society's. I do think that there is a trend of what he calls 'continental culture', but also, why does he believe no one values local differences? as for his take on government aid, i'm sorry to say it sounds very much like "i paid my student loans so everybody else should too". art thrives in boredom, or at least free time. no one's going to create the new masterpiece of the century after a 12 hour shift in mcdonalds. at the same time, despite the difference in points of view, i enjoyed listening to this conversation. it was interesting and intellectually stimulating, and all this without unnecessary hostility, which often arises in these cases.

Teun

I work for a government organisation that gives subsidies to artists. In my case it's Dutch literature. Pretty frustrating to listen to JJ talk in circles about this so-called entitlement. Of all the artists that our foundation supports (writing a good book takes years and years, and it's ridiculous to expect that the market will magically finance all this labor upfront) almost all of them are incredibly grateful to get any money at all. There's like two or three geriatric entitled ones, but like CJ suggests, that's honestly just insecurity in denial. Also JJ cannot seem to grasp that not every kind of value will ultimately be rewarded financially ——— Money ≠ Value, Value = Value. Watching this talk reminded me of two videos, the first by CCK Philosophy (formerly Cuck Philosophy) on how the British pre-Thatcher government spawned a generation of working-class Post-Punk revolutionaries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7pqmI347Uk and the second by Dutch art collective KIRAC with a very refreshing take on art funding, essentially defending this entitlement by suggesting that artists should be more like cats: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXwLLyorks8

phil e the theyby

Guys help I really can’t tell who’s Kendrick and who’s Drake in this conversation

Maggie

I wonder how much of this denunciation of country as a category that matters has to do with the internet allowing you to access all versions of whatever you’re focused on vs country and place mattering more in your physical community?

Maggie

Also, my local Minnesota live theater and art galleries and music festivals really enrich the artistic culture of the area! Some of the people are pretty great, and I’m glad they’re making the city better.

Jay Oshiki

What’s grinding my gears about JJ’s logic around “entitlement” is that it’s pitting those who feel entitled against those who have “earned” their way. He makes that concept of earning seem relatively objective, i.e. you either earn your living wage (through labor) or you don’t. But art “succeeding” via the free market isn’t about working hard so that you earn something, it has to do with widespread popularity and the art resonating within a given community. When you treat art as purely transactional, then you get stuff like the live action disney remake franchise

Josh Foreman

Sorry if I'm repeating what someone already said, but government investment in entertainment has massive utilitarian upside. New Zealand was a blip on the cultural landscape before they dumped a ton of money into their film industry and eventually hit big with LOTR. Georgia bit a big chunk out of hollywood in the past decade and now has their little peach logo in like, half the shows I watch.

Lauren Powers

as someone who has read “zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance”, has a somewhat basic understanding of linguistics/psychoanalysis (de Saussure, Lacan) and comes from a country internationally recognised for their obsessive bureaucracy: i have to make a case against defining “success” for a piece of art! i understand the point that a government is obliged to be transparent and accountable how they spent hard earned tax payer money. and yet, the over-emphasis on a definition and a return profit is in my opinion in conflict with the premise of creating high quality art. language can never encapsulate reality (lacan: the real resists language absolute)! due to my german upbringing and experiences with its glorification and blind trust in laws and bureaucracy i was/am very often on the edge of insanity. it is wonderful to live in a society with clear rules and of course it is necessary to write them down at some point! however, more often than not these rules get executed by people simply obsessed with those laws. they act like those laws were a direct act of god, beamed down to earth by a bright spot of light that spilt a dark, clouded sky. and then in turn, the living beings and communities have to make themselves fit into these laws and rules—or perish. in short, one has to be very careful with how in-detail to define the restrictions on a law that is supposed to support the arts/and or young creatives. on the economic level: we simply have to put invaluable goods into our list of goals—overall health, wellbeing of the people. the gdp is not one parameter to rule them all just because it is easily expressible as a number. another thing that goes against my core beliefs is that great artists should go to the art centres of the world and whatever they make there, amidst the greatest minds and technology of their generation, will trickle down to us normies living our normal lives in our little nowhere places. of course i want free movement and choice of living place! however, it is worthwhile to look at who is running for their lives into metropoles. it’s the queers and the odd ones and the racially and otherwise discriminated folks. as for many noncomformists, it simply becomes unbearable for us to stay in our home towns. and yet we are bitterly missed by these communities! what a homogenous uncreative blob that remains at those places fled by their noncomformists and in a broader sense their creatives! i truly believe in community care as a survival mechanisms, as voice acted by cj the x themself in dr fatima’s video on interdependence. it is of such non-numerically definable value to stay in a community you are familiar with and built lifeboats for all the other unfortunate souls. and in the end my little city doesn’t have to be turned into berlin by my pure will power, just as toronto doesn’t have to become a copy of NY/LA. also, just stating the obvious, but 99% of all the patrons here are so heartbroken not to live in toronto and that is kind of by cj’s will power?! so that is kind of motivating to continuesly take efforts into making at least my part of the city cultural relevant for the people living there! ✨🦋✨