More thinking out loud, GDPs, and boats

According to the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies (NASAA), the US Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that in 2022 arts and cultural production accounted for US$1,102,084,995,000 or 4.31% of the US economy. Disaggregating this total, while US$249,041,635,000 was earned by originators of ideas and content for arts and cultural production, practitioners and businesses directly supporting the production and dissemination of the products generated US$825,640,481,000. The remaining sum, in excess of $27 billion, was earned by non-arts businesses producing goods and services such as a sawmill producing dressed wood for a stage set. The NASAA also reported that the arts and cultural production sector accounted for 5,176,345 jobs. This accounts for 1.55% of a population of 333,271,411 (based on census reports for July 2022) without consideration of age. Furthermore, the NASAA reported that the contribution of arts and cultural production to the US economy ranks second behind the retail sector which contributes $1.6 trillion, and ahead of six other listed sectors including construction, mining, and education.

How much does Guyana’s arts and cultural sector (cultural and creative industries as it is locally referred to) contribute to the overall economy of Guyana? An evening at the National Cultural Centre (NCC), entails going to a show and perhaps being able to purchase light refreshments at the bar during the intermission. What is spent to provide these two services? What is gained from the two? Is this profitable? Could the space be expanded to allow for an affordable café where one can have a meal before the show and a souvenir shop where one can purchase branded items about the show of the night and previous shows? How would expanded service contribute to the theatergoers’ satisfaction and sense of having had a wonderful experience? Could this more attractive product cause more locals to be engaged with the space?

Alas, I am shying away from saying that sometimes the local theater product itself needs enhancing. However, this can only be possible if those with talent are invested in so they can mature their talents and skills. I am not only thinking about actors but also the writers, set designers, sound engineers, lighting designers, and costume designers. The perennial cry is for more exposure and indeed, I concur. Exposure translates to the arsenal one relies on being enlarged and ultimately a better product on offer.

A certain celebrated woman of theatre and film gave an interview in recent times to a Caribbean media house. She admitted she had never been invited to Guyana to host an acting workshop and that she was willing to do so should an invitation be received. In the years since then, it does not appear she has received that invitation. Meanwhile, long-term advanced training opportunities in theatre require leaving these shores. However, for those theatre and the arts, funded opportunities to further develop one’s skills are near-tononexistent and are usually prohibitive should self-funding be considered.

I think of music. But more generally, what are we growing for ourselves with the potential to export? I often feel like the efforts from the higher offices to assist arts folks are really aimed at supporting the presentation of an idea of Guyana’s sociocultural space to an audience that is not au fait with Guyana and its contemporary or historical realities or is nostalgic for a Guyana made ideal in their memory while in their foreign locales. I try to imagine music fertilised by the tempo of Guyana. A few examples come to mind but they are only a few. I wonder whether it is reasonable to expect the development of products for our local audience with sights set on distinguishing ourselves in foreign destinations. I think about May and the fact that the Nigerian will come to delight many with a hybrid Nigerian sound.

I return to thinking about visual art. The NCC has art hung in the upper and lower foyers. Appropriate paraphernalia can be made available to inform the curious about the works and the artists who made the work. Meanwhile, over at the National Gallery of Art (NGA), Castellani House, the space needs to be more welcoming. I have referred to the man with the AK47 at the gate enough times, so I ignore his presence there today. But for the brave who venture beyond him, aside from art displayed in the space, what more is there to keep them interested, returning, and engaged? Are the labels informative? No. Besides, when they are there, they offer the barest of information. Can the few books that have been produced by scholars and publishers overseas about any of the National Collection artists be bought at the NGA? No. Can souvenirs be bought? No. How lovely it would be to buy a tote with a print of any of the Collection’s masterpieces adorning the side? Or an umbrella printed with just the right image to face the sky in whatever temperament it may be. More simply, cards with blank interiors so personalised messages can be written could be on offer. But, are the requisite agreements in place to facilitate monetising the Collection in a mutually beneficial relationship with the artist or artist’s estate?

Years ago, the NGA had a small kiosk with items it sold on behalf of artists. What became of this? However, this was never a substantial draw to the Gallery. Instead, the rotation of the Collection with slender exhibition catalogues whetted one’s appetite to return and consider the work from the Collection. Today there is a need to return to this practice. There is also a need for the occasional artist to talk about their work and have conversations about issues faced by artists in a sharing and generative spirit.

Recently, I had the pleasure of listening to a UK photographer present his work to a small gathering of Guyanese photographers. The presenter was honest about ancestral connections to our disturbing colonial past and his efforts to understand that past and its echoes in the present. As he spoke, a member of the audience interjected with questions and perspectives. The interplay between the presenter and the audience eroded barriers of race, origins, and the thematic and technical complexity of his work. On the sidelines, an attendee to the gathering remarked on the necessity of such conversations. GPL responded with darkness. We remained attentive. Our speaker continued. One of the organisers of the gathering got up from his seat and walked to a corner of the room. A brief rummage in a bag and out came lights attached to a stand. The speaker continued to speak and the listeners remained unperturbed.

I think of officials speaking about investment in Guyana. The investor seems to always be an external figure or entity, often here to extract. I think of our people who require investment to self-actualise. I think of the young man who spoke of writing poetry to ease the pain of poverty, and of not being shown options early in life due to an impoverished education. I think of how many have been saved by a pen put to paper, a brush to canvas, movement of the body, embodiment of another. I ask myself how long ago did we miss the boat or are we just on an inadequate boat?