Ahhh - what a breath of fresh air you are in an increasingly fetid environment. As a former teacher of Visual Art, (1979 - 2014) I've been alarmed about the massive drop in enrolments in secondary school art courses that's been underway in Australia for a long time - accelerating in recent years - particularly year 11 and 12 enrolments. One journey down a w.w.w. rabbit hole led me to this study which provides further food for thought about the impacts of poor government policy on the state of the Arts in Australia. I reckon it's worth a speed-read.
"... there is a profound incongruity between rhetoric about a thriving arts and cultural sector, and the explicit winding back of arts education in senior schooling and higher education."
These researchers are the real "experts", and their verdict is alarming. Tony Burke & co. are living in a fantasy world. What concern have they for culture if they won't look at data, and acknowledge genuine problems? They choose their own version of reality and surround themselves with trusted acolytes. End result: a few people do extremely well, while the vast majority get screwed. Those few will do & say anything to protect their privileged positions. Their response to criticism is to simply ignore it, or send out another breezy press release.
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 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.
Having just read your piece John, I am now completely depressed at the state of cultural policy and the self-interests and favouritism of the policy leadership team. Oh god, I find it hard to look forward to the future of the arts in this country. But tell me John, though I heartily agree with your criticism of the current regime, what can we, the mere artist proletariat do to change or influence things in a positive direction?
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.
BTW the 19 C French Academy was an official government authorised autonomous entity controlling artists access to exhibition in the most prestigious exhibitions. It was essentially a pier review body with a elaborate hierarchy re status
I.e in socio economic terms quite similar to the system we have created in Australia
Ahhh - what a breath of fresh air you are in an increasingly fetid environment. As a former teacher of Visual Art, (1979 - 2014) I've been alarmed about the massive drop in enrolments in secondary school art courses that's been underway in Australia for a long time - accelerating in recent years - particularly year 11 and 12 enrolments. One journey down a w.w.w. rabbit hole led me to this study which provides further food for thought about the impacts of poor government policy on the state of the Arts in Australia. I reckon it's worth a speed-read.
https://asme.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/gattenhof-saunders-2026-the-polycrisis-for-arts-and-creative-education-in-australia-1.pdf
"... there is a profound incongruity between rhetoric about a thriving arts and cultural sector, and the explicit winding back of arts education in senior schooling and higher education."
These researchers are the real "experts", and their verdict is alarming. Tony Burke & co. are living in a fantasy world. What concern have they for culture if they won't look at data, and acknowledge genuine problems? They choose their own version of reality and surround themselves with trusted acolytes. End result: a few people do extremely well, while the vast majority get screwed. Those few will do & say anything to protect their privileged positions. Their response to criticism is to simply ignore it, or send out another breezy press release.
Very interesting, thank you.
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
I'm not either (I'm afraid)...
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.
Don't wait by the mailbox, Jeremy.
Having just read your piece John, I am now completely depressed at the state of cultural policy and the self-interests and favouritism of the policy leadership team. Oh god, I find it hard to look forward to the future of the arts in this country. But tell me John, though I heartily agree with your criticism of the current regime, what can we, the mere artist proletariat do to change or influence things in a positive direction?
Bravo, John!
I never thought that my ‘lived experience’ would include comrade Tony Burke as Commissar of Arts and Culture.
One is reminded of Andrei Zhdanov & the Zhdanov Doctrine, albeit with a Baz Luhrmann-like ‘jazzy’ vibe.
Either way, just more Canberra piggies with their snouts in the trough. Doubleplus good!
Thank you, again
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.
Theatre has superior numbers on these boards, but I'm not foolish enough to imagine this entails superior understanding & support.
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.
BTW the 19 C French Academy was an official government authorised autonomous entity controlling artists access to exhibition in the most prestigious exhibitions. It was essentially a pier review body with a elaborate hierarchy re status
I.e in socio economic terms quite similar to the system we have created in Australia
self-admiring
My image is of a hall of mirrors 🙂
Well, there was always 'The Sapphires'. That's about the only cheerful one I can recall.