I'm mortified to read the apparent contempt for the visual arts through only one representative. Not to mention the opaque selection process. I'm still trying to process this.
Re Australian films; who wouldn’t want to stump up $22 to sit in a cinema and watch an Aboriginal petrol-sniffing youth (Samson and Delilah) or endure a story about Aboriginal children digging tungsten out of the ground (Wolfram) or fidget through a yarn about a young Aboriginal girl murdered by a white bloke (Limbo) …..
re your astute comment: "Any government genuinely committed to sorting out a National Cultural Policy, would have to take a serious look at the way the ‘First Nations First’ precept has become counterproductive, giving a boost to the careers of a small group that purports to speak for all Indigenous people" - this, once again is a subject for future an alysis, I hope.
Why, for instance, has there not been a remote Aboriginal artist on an Australia Council/Creative Australia board since 2008? Could it be that your "small group" all live in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne? I have challenged Briso's Wesley Enoch on the subject.
What you say is also applicable to theatre: Adrian Collette (oh please), and Wesley Enoch are hardly representative of, or in touch with, theatre. That is, with the people who make theatre, on stage and back stage, rather than the edifices that suck up most of the cash. And there is no evidence of any understanding of where the importance of theatre lies, both in its foundations and what those foundations mean to the lived culture of the country. We're fucked. What a mob of wankers.
Today's Victorian ministerial reshuffle seemingly acknowledges the abject nature of politicised arts policy-making, with the Creative Industries portfolio now going to the same minister responsible for emergency services and natural disaster recovery!
re"It would be a great saving in time and money if state and federal governments could simply agree to fund core organisations such as public galleries and museums, and let the public, alternative and commercial gallery sector decide what art is most deserving of our attention. A National Cultural Policy’s first tenet should be to support freedom of choice, not to create artificial hierarchies between different types of art and artist. "
SMH on Friday June 20, 1975, p.6 in an editorial wrote on ends means confusion around arts funding policy
The Editors had this to say:
"The justification for Government subsidies used to be summed up by “the pursuit of excellence” a phrase now damned as “elitist”. At least the philosophy behind it clarified objectives and indicated means and priorities. It accepted, axiomatically, that artistic achievement of a high standard confers national prestige (the political argument) and opens opportunities for life-enhancement to those who care to seek them out. It put the emphasis on the context in which the artist works (eg. the performing arts, uncommercial institutions) rather than the artist, in whom self-reliance was believed to be a virtue. So far as individual artists were concerned, its criterion was attested achievement rather than aspirations. No doubt it had practical limitations – partly because in Australia until 1973 it was under-funded.
The current confusion about about ends and means is, ironically, a result of vastly increased funds. “The pursuit of excellence” is submerged by other considerations. There is the artist’s prosperity. (“If you want to have certain creative people in our community, then you have to support them”, says Dr Battersby. Really? How did all who are our culture, from Lawson and Roberts to Hope, White and Drysdale survive?) There is a vague egalitarian hankering for cultural democracy (“taking the arts to the people”). There is the veneration of youth and “experiment” (ie. Untested talents and works).
The result: the subordination of “excellence” to “activity”.
Thanks for that historical footnote. It show how little has changed over the years, unless it's a matter of policies growing even more dogmatic and self-admiring. Those were the days when the SMH wrote intelligent, inquiring editorials. Today they are no more than a cheer squad for power.
Thank you John for such a considered piece.
I wish Holly Greenwood the best of luck in her endeavors as an advocate for the visual arts sector.
The real problem here would seem to be the absence of one or two more senior and experienced artists being appointed along with Holly.
In my time with an arts development organisation that offered an Artist in Residence program, the central criteria were Excellence and Innovation.
Simple principles that help a selection panel to hopefully identify the best and the most interesting artists for support.
Inherent in this approach is the recognition that some artists are more concerned with innovation and others with excellence.
But it is essential to make room for both if innovation is to achieve the heights of excellence.
It's an important to note that Excellence and Innovation are not mutually exclusive, and that Innovation is not sufficient unto itself.
I'm mortified to read the apparent contempt for the visual arts through only one representative. Not to mention the opaque selection process. I'm still trying to process this.
Me too
Re Australian films; who wouldn’t want to stump up $22 to sit in a cinema and watch an Aboriginal petrol-sniffing youth (Samson and Delilah) or endure a story about Aboriginal children digging tungsten out of the ground (Wolfram) or fidget through a yarn about a young Aboriginal girl murdered by a white bloke (Limbo) …..
Thank you, again
re your astute comment: "Any government genuinely committed to sorting out a National Cultural Policy, would have to take a serious look at the way the ‘First Nations First’ precept has become counterproductive, giving a boost to the careers of a small group that purports to speak for all Indigenous people" - this, once again is a subject for future an alysis, I hope.
Why, for instance, has there not been a remote Aboriginal artist on an Australia Council/Creative Australia board since 2008? Could it be that your "small group" all live in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne? I have challenged Briso's Wesley Enoch on the subject.
What you say is also applicable to theatre: Adrian Collette (oh please), and Wesley Enoch are hardly representative of, or in touch with, theatre. That is, with the people who make theatre, on stage and back stage, rather than the edifices that suck up most of the cash. And there is no evidence of any understanding of where the importance of theatre lies, both in its foundations and what those foundations mean to the lived culture of the country. We're fucked. What a mob of wankers.
Thank you 🌻
Thank you, Josephine!
Today's Victorian ministerial reshuffle seemingly acknowledges the abject nature of politicised arts policy-making, with the Creative Industries portfolio now going to the same minister responsible for emergency services and natural disaster recovery!
At last, a Labor government that's made a realistic assessment of the state of Australian culture!
re"It would be a great saving in time and money if state and federal governments could simply agree to fund core organisations such as public galleries and museums, and let the public, alternative and commercial gallery sector decide what art is most deserving of our attention. A National Cultural Policy’s first tenet should be to support freedom of choice, not to create artificial hierarchies between different types of art and artist. "
SMH on Friday June 20, 1975, p.6 in an editorial wrote on ends means confusion around arts funding policy
The Editors had this to say:
"The justification for Government subsidies used to be summed up by “the pursuit of excellence” a phrase now damned as “elitist”. At least the philosophy behind it clarified objectives and indicated means and priorities. It accepted, axiomatically, that artistic achievement of a high standard confers national prestige (the political argument) and opens opportunities for life-enhancement to those who care to seek them out. It put the emphasis on the context in which the artist works (eg. the performing arts, uncommercial institutions) rather than the artist, in whom self-reliance was believed to be a virtue. So far as individual artists were concerned, its criterion was attested achievement rather than aspirations. No doubt it had practical limitations – partly because in Australia until 1973 it was under-funded.
The current confusion about about ends and means is, ironically, a result of vastly increased funds. “The pursuit of excellence” is submerged by other considerations. There is the artist’s prosperity. (“If you want to have certain creative people in our community, then you have to support them”, says Dr Battersby. Really? How did all who are our culture, from Lawson and Roberts to Hope, White and Drysdale survive?) There is a vague egalitarian hankering for cultural democracy (“taking the arts to the people”). There is the veneration of youth and “experiment” (ie. Untested talents and works).
The result: the subordination of “excellence” to “activity”.
Its been a mess right from the word go.
Thanks for that historical footnote. It show how little has changed over the years, unless it's a matter of policies growing even more dogmatic and self-admiring. Those were the days when the SMH wrote intelligent, inquiring editorials. Today they are no more than a cheer squad for power.
self-admiring
My image is of a hall of mirrors 🙂