Black Art for a Black Friday

Like millions of Americans, I got up at 6 am this morning. In past years there probably would have been millions more Americans, but the fewer of us that got up were all headed in the same direction - the shopping center.

Today I experienced Black Friday for this first time in my life. As a Canadian the whole concept of Black Friday alluded me. To be honest, as a kid, I thought the "black" in Black Friday referred to some tragedy. It led me to believe that I should be issuing my sympathies to Americans on this day.

But no, today is the day retailers are expected to "go into the black" in terms of profits for the year. In the pre-Christmas rush, large retailers across the US participate in lower pricing for popular items causing the American consumer to participate in commerce en masse.

I had told myself that other than a few deals of note, my participation was needed not to buy but to observe. I would act as a grand sociological observer among the wilds of the American shopper. How big would the crowds be? Do people really start shopping at 6am? How good were the deals?

So at 6:18am exactly this morning I headed off to visit the local Target, Best Buy, Old Navy and Circuit City.

Today, however, in the midst of a recession I can't actually say that there was the sort of crowds that had been described to me. Although there were line-ups to cash out, they seemed to dissipate fairly quickly. The parking lots did have a good number of cars packed with families piling into the stores, but were far from overflowing. Ladies and gentlemen, I have official eye-witness confirmation of a recession.

This exercise in mass commerce is not something Canadians are exempt from. Boxing Day is supposed to invoke the same sort of exercise in preplanning, early rising and mass buying. And my suspicion is that the Boxing Day crowds will be just as meek this year in Canada.

But why do these events exist? Why should "stuff" matter this much? For both countries, stuff is what seems to matter. I've said that Hobbes would love the US - to me it's the original home of commodious living. It's not that hard to live well here (which is not to say there aren't hardships), but Americans seem all too willing to forget the difference between living well and living excessively. So too do Canadians, despite our apparent socialist leanings.

The excessive commerce of Black Friday and Boxing Day are exemplary of this trend. That days are created by retailers and the media that intend to push people into the malls and shopping centers, stands as all too much evidence of the need for stuff.

The one small (very small) great thing about a recession is it can allow us to reset the clock - readjust our expectations and assess our true needs. Hopefully through all of this we end up seeing that stuff is only stuff. And it's pretty far from being substance.

Why there is no R in Ahhhtttsss

I have a theory I've developed over the last few years. Cities can be divided into two varieties: those that are "Arts Cities" and those that are "Sports Towns." If you think about it, it does make sense. Consumers only have so many dollars in their wallets, and can only allot so many of those dollars to leisure and entertainment. Now there are rare cases where both industries can be equally supported in the same city, but those cities are most often large in population, and unusually wealthy - New York and London come to mind. In some cases these Sports-Arts super houses have a natural inclination to the arts through historic or significant heritage properties that ingrain an appreciation for cultural affairs - think Rome.

But for most cities you gotta pick. That's not to say that the "pick" is necessarily intentional: sometimes its just where the chips end up falling. But Toronto and Boston are great examples of the two differnet choices that cities end up making. Boston is definitely a sports town - from the Sox, to the Pats, to the Celts and even (as a friend of mine called it "the inevitable fourth") the Bruins. Not to mention the college teams (BC's come to mind, but maybe that's the football talking), and the local soccer team the Revolution. Whereas Toronto on the other hand - now that's an Arts town! Its actually to the point of ridiculousness in Toronto. I don't think I can name all the governmental (federal, provincial, municipal), public and private efforts at Arts revitalization in the city in a wide number of related industries and organizations from museums, galleries, venues, labels, publishing, etc.

Now on both sides its easy to point to the importance of sports in Toronto (think Jays, Argos, Leafs and FC), and the Arts in Boston (Pops, Symphony, PBS-WGBH, MFA). But, and here's the big difference to me: both towns, although they both have both Arts and sports movements, only really have one or two standouts as contrary examples. Toronto has sports teams but it's only the Leafs that can really draw the attention of the city. Boston only really has Pops and PBS. These are great examples, but rather singular.

The problem with Boston's Arts movement was wonderfully summarized by Joe Keohane in an article in Boston Magazine this summer. It's well worth the read and great at getting to the root of the problem, which isn't about a lack of academics or training opportunities for artists. It also isn't a problem of supporting those acts and artists that are established. It's about what happens in between which is the problem. Boston is a hard place to launch. There is little arts infrastructure to support the musicians, actors, writers, artists, etc in terms of getting them from a classroom and into a gallery, on to their first label or published in a magazine.

This is perhaps the exact opposite of the city of Toronto. Starting in 2003, the city of Toronto actively pursued, what it then called, a Creativity policy. Today that initial push is part of an actual policy document, the Creative City Planning Framework. This has meant both finanical support for professional artists, building and providing gallery space for young artists to exhbit or venues to perform at, and supporting artists from 3 years old to 65+.

But why, you might ask, should government support the arts? Isn't that just money down a hole?

Well, because the Arts sells. Think about it. Check out the video here and here. Now, honestly which city you want to visit more? Even the fancy, and well done, Nike video in my opinion fails to get you to want to visit Boston (although you can better appreciate the meaning of the win to the city).

Toronto, on a basic economic level, has figured out what Boston has not - not only do the Arts sell, but they are universal. While professional sports has been created to develop locally bred factions between the "Home" and "Away" teams, the Arts speaks a more universal language. And while Toronto used to be good only at Arts localally, it has figured out that drawing an audience to the city for the Arts is a policy that's where its at. That's why millions of dollars have been spent to have the big dudes in architecture (Daniel Liebeskind, Frank Gehry, Will Alsop) all redesign our arts institutions (ROM, AGO, OCAD). It's why there is now an opera/ballet venue to accompany a symphonic hall, multiple concert venues (Massey, is just one example) and lots of theatres (Princess of Wales, Royal Alex, Cannon, etc). Toronto has also not been picky about what defines a tourist - you can be from 13 miles out of the city or 3,000 as long as you come for the show.

So why is there no R in Ahhhtttsss in Boston? I think, and it's one point that Keohane misses, it's because much of this city sees the Arts as reticent. Old school. Something they do on Beacon Hill. Not for the general public.

And, really, they couldn't be more wrong. As Toronto knows, the Arts is much more universal than the local team. You just have to choose to make it that way.