The design dilemma

Design uses the same faculties, concepts and materials as visual art does, but they are applied to functional things - machines, buildings, planning, advertising, clothing, furniture and furnishings - all things that contribute materially as well as aesthetically to human life and well-being. The one thing that distinguishes art from design is that the latter applies the principle of functionality: the existence of a still-life painting is validated purely by its existence, whereas a motor vehicle (for example) – a work of design - must be more than a good looking 'lemon': it must function well.

And the discussion will also have to recognise that the concept of functionality applies to all arts sectors. Whereas symphonies need no external validation, musical jingles for advertisements, as well as all theatre music, adapt the 'art' of music to these functional pursuits. Similarly, writing, acting and dancing are frequently so adapted. Hence, the policy must encompass all this. What is certain is that it will fall to the government to provide a sound theoretical framework for both art and design - and in all 'arts' fields.

As it is currently construed, 'creative industry' falls far short of covering the entire field of design, and not only in the visual field. This is attested by Matthew Westwood's Australian article of 4/10/11, in which he speaks of 'the so-called [note the qualification] creative industries' as covering 'fashion design, design and electronic games' – a confused and inadequate catalogue to be sure.

And the position of craft must also be considered in the overall theoretical structure of the policy. 'Art and craft' is as common a coupling in the visual field as 'art and design.' And there are numerous crafts periodicals and courses. In spite of the omnipresence of crafts in the immediate post-war period, when the Crafts Movement established that valid creative work could be done in more materials than oil paint and marble, it is now usually subsumed under design and a recognition that craft is the technology of both art and design.

Something to be thankful for is that the discussion paper does no use the term community arts. In reality, there are no arts that are not 'community arts'. That term, when it is used, is no more than a synonym for arts education or popularisation of the arts – both of which are advisedly supported by the policy. Similarly, it is good that media arts has also been ignored. Artistic expression via digital means or the camera is no more than art produced by current contemporary media. Artists have always used contemporary technology as media where it suits their creative purposes. There is nothing sacred about 'digital'; it is just a technology that artists can use, just as oil paint, writing and the violin are. Computers and cameras cannot make art any more than paint-brushes can. Art is produced by artists, whether they use a computer, a pencil or manuscript paper.

And – thankfully, too - the discussion paper avoids vaunting 'beauty' as an easy paradigm for 'the arts.' It takes but little reflection to realise that great works of art can as often be designated 'tragic', 'horrific', 'expressive' or 'challenging' as 'beautiful.'

But, one thing that the policy needs to consider is ways of providing suitable income-generation for true artists. This implies support for the teaching institutions which, also – of course, will provide for the continuation and development of the arts of our culture into succeeding generations (a generally agreed cultural good and one supported by the dictionary definition).

However, it must be recognised that it is a minority of artists - as of the general population – that have the ability to teach. Arts education is a separate profession and must be recognised as such. The much-vaunted 'artists in schools' projects only succeed if they are an add-on to an established and viable arts education programme within the school. Arts education should never be simply employment for failed, or emerging, artists.

And the policy should consider allowing artists to participate in a work-for-the-dole type scheme. This would provide the artist with an income equivalent to unemployment benefits as long as he/she produced an agreed amount of works each year and presented it through publication, exhibition or performance. Artists commonly work long hours at their art and forgo all but the barest comforts of life, so this minimal emolument would be adequate for their needs and, at the same time, allow them to develop their art until it was marketable.

The relationship between the arts and a 'productive' nation that the discussion paper looks for is far from a new concept. The philosophy of The Bauhaus, in 1930s Germany, was to employ innovative painters, like Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky, in the education of architects, designers and builders. These students were dispersed across the world when the Nazis closed The Bauhaus, which was the genesis of international modernist design and architecture. Thus, the productive relationship between art and design and the genesis of a 'productive' nation.

It is appropriate that the government should take the lead in this process, given that the field has so far failed to do so itself (which, unfortunately, includes the Australia Council).