This week saw the David Mirvish
make a stunning statement. Standing next to a model of three 80 story high rise
condominiums, he stated: "I am not building condominiums. I am building three
sculptures for people to live in.”
This statement is, I would posit,
not only evidently ludicrous, but a symptom of a much larger ill. I remember being
very impressed -- in the days of my teenage devotion to Ayn Rand -- with her
analysis of the origins of communism. She said that Stalin’s ‘statist’
philosophy did not appear out of thin air, but was, instead, a result of the
general public’s complacent acceptance of many years of ‘collectivism’ and ‘mysticism,’
going back to the philosopher Kant. Far be it for me to compare David Mirvish
to Joseph Stalin. But -- like the ideas
of that famous dictator -- Mirvish’s nutty statement has its roots in notions
that have been floating around for some time.
These ideas originated with
Richard Florida.
Richard Florida is the photogenic
U of T professor with the gorgeous wife and the jet set lifestyle, who, (in
2002) famously coined the term 'the creative class,’ in his bestselling The Rise of the Creative Class.
Florida’s revolutionary theory was
that money and industry are not the only elements that drive cities – urban
areas require a high concentration of artists, gays, and lesbians to achieve economic
success. Artists, urban developers, and queers lept on Florida’s theories like
cats in heat. The idea was not only revolutionary but seemed to provide a
positive spin on art and artists, and give an always needed boost to gay and lesbian self esteem.
The problem
is that by labeling queers ‘high bohemia’ Florida contributed to our demonization.
Florida’s blithe, hipsterly ‘acceptance’ of our culture fed into the general
misconception that gays and lesbians are more arty, creative, and rich than
straight people. Straights seem to adore the homophobic fantasy that decadent
queers lead luxurious lifestyles while they – the hard working heteros – quietly
raise families. Florida’s generalizations not only ignore gay plumbers, but
also the multitude of gay men who are passed over for positions of power and
authority because they are visibly effeminate (and ‘creative’).
Now when it comes to artists, there
is a grain of truth in Florida’s theories. Yes, we do often lead the vanguard
of urban gentrification by moving into working class neighborhoods and creating
art studios and theatres in crumbling buildings. But the efforts of artists in
these situations are naïve and idealistic, not profit driven. And nowadays
these efforts are immediately appropriated by entrepreneurs who (citing Richard
Florida) claim to represent the arts community in order to make a fast buck (recent gentrification on James Street North
in Hamilton is a case in point). Ever
since Richard Florida theorized that artists are a fundamental motor for urban
success, those who are interested in making a profit have neatly disguised their
capitalist aspirations with creative ones. Watch out for anyone who talks about
the arts ‘industry,’ or the arts as an economic engine of a community; they are
probably carrying an 80 story condo in their back pocket.
I am not
impressed with David Mirvish’s proposal. I am appalled by it. And any Torontonian
in their right mind should be appalled too. Have you noticed that the new condos
they are presently building by what used to be the O’Keefe Centre, are
called ‘Concert’ and ‘Backstage’? The problem is that at the same time these massive moneymakers
are being built – using culture as a selling point -- The World’s Biggest Bookstore is about to
close down, The Princess of Wales Theatre is to be demolished, and working spaces in
downtown Toronto have become prohibitively expensive for Toronto artists to afford. Toronto’s culture is, ironically, being destroyed in the name of culture.
I’m not saying that David Mirvish
doesn’t hold some affection for the arts; I’m sure he does.
So does Garth Drabinsky.
But let me
tell you something; they love money more.
