By Nina Buddhdev
In 2009, I founded the Bandish Network, initially as a grassroots group, which later became a not-for-profit before returning to its original form. What began as a need for connection has evolved into an internationally recognized network with 7,000 members, fostering a shared vitality rooted in cultural identity and artistic excellence.
Bandish has played a pivotal role in expanding recognition for classical and heritage arts in Canada, cultivating confidence, participation, and receptivity in subcultural engagement. Our collective commitment to the advancement of high-level cultural representation for our ever-evolving society calls for a connected, proactive, and creative measures. Yet, this work is demanding, often unsupported, and fraught with systemic challenges.
Since its inception, Bandish has launched three peer mentorship groups: Naari (Women in the Arts), Young Canadian Heritage Art Practitioners, and the International Elders Collective. These groups embody creativity, resilience, and foresight, yet their shared realities are often disheartening. Their lived experiences mirror my own: systemic inequities, cultural taxation, and the devaluation of expertise remain pressing issues for cultural workers—especially women of colour in the arts.
This past week, we discussed how Canada’s advisory and volunteer culture often feels exploitative—where expertise is extracted under the guise of consultation yet rarely compensated. Cultural workers are frequently invited to advisory tables to provide critical insight, only to realize their contributions are being used to help salaried staff fulfill their roles without recognition. The “doggy bag” of token fees is a painful metaphor for how our labour is valued—where we hope for respect but end up subsidizing institutions that should be investing in us to benefit the ecosystem.
Despite these challenges, Bandish continues to advocate for equity, respectful communications, shared leadership, and meaningful engagement. However, the arts and culture sector must confront hard-hitting truths if real change is to take place.
Urgent issues facing cultural leaders
Cultural taxation
Artists, cultural leaders, and racialized communities are expected to educate institutions, correct systemic blind spots, and advocate for representation—all without fair compensation. Institutions claim to support diversity yet rarely allocate budgets to the very communities they seek guidance from. Cultural leaders should not have to repeatedly donate their time, knowledge, and emotional labour while institutions benefit from their expertise without reciprocating investment.
Representation imbalance
Public funding is derived from all taxpayers, yet many communities see little to no reflection of their heritage in local programming. Rather than engaging these communities as experts, institutions offer rental agreements instead of meaningful partnerships, positioning cultural groups as consumers rather than co-creators.
Equity optics versus equity practice
Diversity is often treated as a checkbox rather than a long-term commitment. Many organizations highlight representation in public reports but fail to foster genuine relationships with cultural communities. Equity must be more than optics—it requires sustained investment, cultural fluency, and accountability.
Gatekeeping
Even in equity-driven spaces, decision-making remains concentrated in a few hands. Programming choices are often dictated by a single leader rather than a diverse, qualified cohort. True equity demands decentralized decision-making that incorporates a breadth of lived experiences and professional competencies.
Repetitive funding cycles
For two decades, I have watched the same organizations receive funding despite their poor treatment of artists and cultural groups, while high-impact initiatives struggle for support. The current funding model rewards institutions for quantity rather than accuracy of relevant representation, while innovative, community-led projects navigate precarious, short-term funding cycles that limit their sustainability and force many excellent artists and workers to withdraw.
Perception of professionalism
Racialized professionals are frequently overqualified yet undervalued. When we advocate for fair pay, we are labeled “difficult”. The expectation that cultural leaders should be grateful for mere inclusion rather than proper remuneration reflects a deep-seated bias against racialized expertise. Cultural professionalism must be recognized as equally legitimate and essential as any other sector within the arts and heritage industry.
Cultural labour is labour
Emotional, intellectual, and creative labour must be recognized as professional expertise. Curating high-impact programs that attract new audiences, artists, and media requires time, foresight, and mature competencies. Yet, organization teams often resist acknowledging and crediting cultural leadership appropriately. Why is there hesitation to recognize and compensate for this expertise?
Extractive partnerships
Many mainstream institutions leverage cultural organizations for optics or funding eligibility, yet fail to invest in long-term, reciprocal relationships. These one-sided engagements reinforce a colonial dynamic of extraction rather than mutual collaboration. Institutions must move beyond performative partnerships and commit to equity-driven, sustainable engagement with cultural leaders. The inner-cultural divisiveness is often gaslighted by such patterns that need to be addressed. When venues partner directly with individual artists, they unintentionally engage in a power dynamic within that cultural community, often leading to division and reputational loss. Neutral partnerships, instead, pave the way for inclusive and sustainable collaboration.
The absence of acknowledgment in cultural leadership
Why is it that cultural leaders—those who power change, create access, and build sustainable ecosystems—are so often denied the recognition they deserve? Time and again, we find ourselves having to request even the simplest line of acknowledgment, only to be met with resistance or hostility. One would think that expressing authentic gratitude for those who elevate artists and organizations would be second nature.
Recently, a major municipal performing arts centre requested a full programming plan, only to inform me afterward that they had “no budget” to compensate me. A nationally funded organization sought access to the diverse network I have spent years mentoring—again, without any resources allocated to honor the labour behind it. This exploitative cycle must end. Cultural leadership is not an infinite resource to be extracted at will; it is a profession, one that demands recognition, respect, and fair remuneration. The ongoing expectation that expertise, networks, and programming should be freely given is unsustainable and unjust. It is time for the sector to establish better standards—ones that acknowledge the invaluable role of cultural leaders and ensure they are compensated accordingly.
Time for change or time to exit?
These realities demand recognition and action. If we are to build an equitable cultural landscape, we must invest in cultural leaders, compensate expertise fairly, and foster long-term, reciprocal partnerships—not just when it’s convenient, but as a fundamental principle of engagement. The question remains: Is change truly possible, or is it time to exit the sector altogether? After 18 years of advocacy with no concrete shifts, I ask you— what will it take for cultural labour to be valued as it should be? Write to me…
As we honour the past and shape the future, may our collective efforts bring lasting change.
Nina Buddhdev is a B.C.-based cultural arts strategist, visual artist, and heritage arts activist. She founded the Bandish Network in 2009. Connect with Nina via the Arts BC Insight Team, please visit: https://artsbc.org/insight-
