The market place debases culture

Apr 30, 2023 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – A few personalities involved in what has been described as Guyana’s cultural industry, have complained, publicly, about not being accorded recognition by their country.  But what sort of recognition and respect are these persons complaining about?

Terry Gajraj, a vocialist has complained about not being given recognition by the government of Guyana. He is quoted as saying that while he has received accolades from other countries, no such recognition has been forthcoming from the government of Guyana, not even a simple thank you. He has since received a phone call from the President.

A local filmmaker, Mahadeo Shivraj, has similarly complained of receiving minimum support by government and private agencies. But he did acknowledge that former President Donald Ramotar and Samuel Hinds and former Minister Frank Anthony did show up, when invited to his performances.

He also lamented about non-response from Ministers of the APNU+AFC government, following a production of a film for the country’s 50^th Independence anniversary. He said up to now that production has not been screened in Guyana.

Theater producer, Gem Madhoo-Nascimento, also voiced concerns about the lack of funding for her theatric productions. The exception was during the tenure of Minister of Tourism, Geoff Ds Silva, who had commissioned her to produce a musical for Guyana’s staging of Cricket World Cup 2007.

All three of these persons involved in the creative industries have pointed to the lack of support from the government. One has added the lack of support from private agencies, presumably the private sector.

At the heart of these criticisms is the idea of government’s support for cultural productions. From this idea arises the notion of commodification of culture. But if culture is treated as an industry or as a commodity, why should it receive government patronage. In the so-called commodification of culture, should productions not be subject to commercial considerations? In other words, when dealing with so-called cultural commodities, is it not the market which should be providing the support and which should determine what is sold and what bought?

I have dealt with this subject before arguing that before we concentrate on Guyana’s cultural industries, there is need to first address the lack of industry in culture. I have pointed out that Guyana’s artistic production has been stagnant for a long time. Instead of having cultural extravaganzas, we end up with the extravagance of culture when huge sums are injected into things such as CARIFESTA with little returns to the host nation.

In a critique of the development of national cultural policies, I posited that there is a movement afoot to promote the commodification of culture by converting it into cultural products and financial industries, similar to what is being done with environmental services. In other words, the emphasis if cultural policies are about creating economic industries out of culture. And this has been the case not only in Guyana but elsewhere.

But as we know it is the market which determines the price and the rewards – both tangible and intangible – for such commodification. That implication is that the products being developed within the creative industries must be subject to the market. Like in neo-liberal economics, the government should not intervene by subsidizing the product, but rather leave the market to determine its success.

Ultimately when creative industries are placed on the market, it is the people (consumers) who will determine the success of the product regardless of any objective artistic measure. If your plays do not attract a large following or if your films do not make it to the box-office or your songs and albums do not strike platinum, government is not to be blamed. The artistic merit of the work becomes meaningless once the product is subject to commodification.

It is the market that decides what is acceptable and what is not acceptable and it is the market that is going to provide the recognition. This I have argued before debases and constitutes an assault on cultural expressions. Commercialization of culture will not save it. It will condemn it to the vagaries to the market.

In the market place culture will be assessed not in terms of its artistic merit or its reflection of reality but rather with its commercial appeal. In other words, the commodification of culture erodes its authenticity.

In the so-called cultural market place, the problem is not recognition by government. The problem is the rewards of the market place. And that is the challenge for those in the creative industries. They, not the government, have to find ways to market their cultural products so that it yields the rewards they are seeking.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of this newspaper and its affiliates.)

---

• Cultural, Guyana, industry, Market, Peeping Tom

---