Changing public policy in the arts

The arts are where cutting-edge conversations about the nature of humanity are likely to occur - especially in times of rapid social change, economic uncertainty and environmental pessimism.

Every civilisation has sought to find a way to bring such insights to life - traditionally in music, performance, dance, writing, painting, sculpture and drawing, and more recently on screen, in film, broadcasting and photography.

As a result, artists have been supported by patrons, revered by audiences, feared by despots and welcomed by those seeking to make sense of the world, to deal with its despair and enjoy its beauty.

The place of the arts and culture in public life has changed profoundly over the four decades since the existing models of arts support were developed. It is poised to change again as the digital revolution and the emerging knowledge economy alters the relationship between artists and audiences and disrupts business models by challenging ideas of intellectual property rights.

A snapshot of the priorities provides an insight into this evolution. Those arguing for support for the arts in the post-war years were working on a blank canvas. At the time, there were no national performing companies, scant Australian publishing, no film or television industry and the orchestras were offshoots of the national broadcaster.

In this context, the most persuasive argument for government support for the arts was to bring the benefits of high culture to the public, educating people by exposure to excellence.

Fostering Australian identity did not figure prominently.

Yet the vibrant visual arts of the post-war years hinted at a distinctive Australian sensibility, which achieved critical mass across a wide range of art-forms several decades later. By the 1970s, this produced a showcase of Australian talent. Artistic expressions of the evolving national identity on screen, on stage, and in books and music captured the public imagination. This created an audience and a market.

Over this period, the dominant argument underpinning government support for the arts moved from making international high culture available, to articulating a uniquely Australian cultural identity and incorporating community involvement. In more recent years, the emphasis has shifted to fostering local excellence, ensuring affordable public access and sustaining major institutions and companies.

Patronage of individual artists was always an important component of support for the arts. Devising mechanisms to ensure that this occurred at arm’s length from those with political power was and is an important priority. The Australia Council’s arts boards developed elaborate processes of peer review, designed to achieve this separation. Importantly they also insulated politicians from contentious decisions.

State governments have recognised the importance of the arts as a source of employment, tourism and civic engagement. Funding by the states now represents a third of the total allocation, although 80 per cent of state funds go to venues, access and administration. Through the Cultural Minister’s Council, the states are also directly involved in deciding funding priorities and contributing funds for the visual arts and major companies.

Corporate support for the arts also has a long tradition.

The Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust, a private organisation and precursor of the Australia Council, was the original supporter of most of the major performing arts organisations that have now become national institutions. The major companies and galleries all have active corporate sponsorship programs, providing up to a third of annual revenue. The Australian Business Arts Foundation was created to encourage greater corporate support of artistic and cultural organisations.

There is a widespread perception that support for the arts is government-led. In fact the sector operates as a complex ecology in which market forces interact with private patronage, commercial and audience support, corporate and government funding, community engagement, personal passion and entrepreneurism.

Supporting the divergent needs of major organisations, emerging industries, training institutions, audiences, micro-businesses and individual artists requires a diversity of funding sources and approaches. It demands nuanced and responsive public policy, in which the arts are treated like other sectors of the economy and social infrastructure, with a clearly articulated rationale. There is no single panacea.

The arts sector has grown and changed significantly since the Australia Council was established more than 40 years ago.

Its clients now range from the national institutions, with some degree of subsidy, to successful commercial enterprises in music, publishing, broadcasting, film and a wide range of related creative and copyright industries, a vibrant community and not-for-profit sector and an internationally renowned Indigenous art market.

The array of organisations hints at the complexity of managing a system with competing priorities and accountabilities and varying capacity for commercial success without public subsidy or private philanthropy. It is scarcely surprising then that support for the arts lacks the clarity of some other sectors and that changing political priorities can skew outcomes in unanticipated ways.

The arts have an importance beyond the objects, insights and experiences created. In addition to the intrinsic cultural value, the arts play an important institutional role. They define life in a civilised society, help build intellectual capacity, aid social cohesion, and are the bedrock of increasingly significant creative industries.

Just as there is a need for both applied and “blue skies” research in science, so too in the arts. The skills and talents to do this are the product of application and dedication and require both training and time to mature and develop.

Unlike scientists who work in major organisations including universities, research institutes, hospitals and companies, most artists are self-employed and often have portfolio careers. The personal sacrifice and passion which characterise the entrepreneurial working life of many artists is useful in understanding the future of work.

A comparatively minimal level of support is needed to significantly broaden the career options available to artists, to ensure that their potential is realised.

It is difficult for individual artists to make this case in a way that does not sound like special pleading. Artists value the support they receive from the public purse, but it is much more than a financial gift of government. The arts and cultural sector needs to become a better public advocate. It needs to find a clear voice to describe the contribution it makes to national life. In economic terms it is at least as significant as agriculture, and the social value makes its contribution even more important. *

We are proud when our artists achieve international recognition, but are tardy in providing similar national recognition. Yet the most successful artists readily acknowledge that they owe at least some of their success to the opportunities Australia provided. There is a need to celebrate and acknowledge this and ensure that the opportunities continue to multiply.

* Centre for International Economics, Creative Industries Economic Analysis, Final Report, 30 June 2009, www.TheCIE.com.au commissioned by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and the Creative Industries Innovation Centre. PricewaterhouseCoopers concluded in a report for the Copyright Council in 2008, that the “copyright industries” account for 10 per cent of Australian GDP, see www.griffithreview.com/essentially-creative. The lack of consistency in classification is a persistent problem in ensuring robust statistical data.