Culture isn't just the arts

In my submission on the Discussion Paper for the proposed National Cultural Policy, I questioned its assumption that the terms 'the arts' and 'culture' mean the same thing or are interchangeable:

There is a challengeable intimation in this proposal for a cultural policy, as it is worded in the DP, in that it implies that the arts equals culture. But I think we have to recognise that culture is a broader concept than 'the arts.' The Macquarie Dictionary ('Australia's National Dictionary') defines culture as 'the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings which is transmitted from one generation to another.' Of course, the arts are part of culture, but culture must also include religion, sport, philosophy, business, science, cuisine and possibly other things as well.

So – are we looking for aculture policy or an arts policy? If we continue to discuss the arts as synonymous with culture we can expect reasonable dissention from, at least, the churches and members of the sporting and business communities. My guess is that we are discussing an arts policy, but that we are afraid to name it lest the philistines descend on us. Will naming it The National Arts Policy give it the kiss of death? Surely our (wider) culture is mature enough in this century to be frank about it?

My sampling of the submissions published on the Policy's website to date indicates that – with one possible exception - no submissions have been made by any entity other than an arts body. So, there is tacit agreement that the country is looking to the government to establish an arts policy, nothing less.

But this sponsors the questions:

1. Does the fact that no submissions are published from religion, sport, business, science etc mean that these entities do not consider themselves aspects of our culture?
2. Should their participation be pursued?
3. Or have they decided that the entire project just confirms the common view that arts people just spout nonsense?

All these are matters that beg to be resolved.

The possible exception mentioned is that of the Federation of Australian Historical Societies, which alludes to the problem by asking for 'the inclusion specifically of "the study and publication of history" as a cultural and creative endeavour.' The Federation justifies its request as follows:

We urge that a generally accepted definition of "culture" be included such as "The totality of socially transmitted behaviour patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions and all other products of human work and thought.

But - according to both definitions mentioned - history is already part of culture! The Federation's manoeuvre is entirely caused by the confusion of terms and meanings embodied in the theory on which the Discussion Paper has been constructed. If we continue the fiction that arts andculture are one and the same thing, to call history 'art' is the only way to get it accepted as 'culture' – a most bizarre manoeuvre!

History is certainly of major cultural significance to any society, so its role must be considered in any culture policy. But in an arts policy?

However, this debacle is, in itself, a prime example of why we need a re-assessment of arts policy – or, at least, the language we have come to use in relation to the arts and culture. We have come to use this language so flexibly more by default than intention, due to the general libertarian philosophy of our academics, administrators and writers. Few have had the will or courage to challenge this for fear of being labeled conservative or reactionary. In consequence, much of the language has become devoid of real meaning. This issue must be addressed – and redressed - by the new policy.

But, having read many of the submissions posted on the Policy's website, I am amazed at how many submissions see nothing wrong with this conflation. How debased and unprofessional our language has become!

Example 1:

'The Culture Concept Circle has a commitment to helping grow the social and cultural capital of Australian society. We support the creative ethos by expanding knowledge of historical art, design, music and style, past present and future. We support cultural development by promoting the continuing evolution of a sustainable, creative society, of those raising positive voices to protect, preserve and strengthen policies and practices within our communities, as well as those providing a benefit to marginalized sections of society. We want to help nurture those imagining the future.'

Example 2:

The Myer Foundation:'We applaud and support the Australian Government's move to develop a new National Cultural Policy. The arts and culture are integral to every part of our life. They play an important role in our society, as a medium of expression, for understanding, and for unveiling our commonality. The development of a National Cultural Policy is a demonstration of the Government's and the country's commitment to the arts and culture.'

Not even The Australian Coalition for Cultural Diversity sees this as an issue, instead focusing its comments on statements like'the current framework for building a National Cultural Policy should be developed in tandem with the two other major policy initiatives - the Convergence Review and the National Broadband Network so that the goals and objectives of cultural policy are consistent within the government departments that regulate communications, arts and culture.'

However, the problem is alluded to by several submissions that gently question the terminology, theory and concepts of the Discussion Paper, if not so trenchantly as I have.

Example 1:

The WesternAustralian Museum

...would like to suggest that the Policy, in its current form is flawed in two respects:

Firstly, this is in no sense a cultural policy, it is a policy for the arts and creative industries. The inconsistent use of terminology throughout the document only adds to the confusion…'

Example 2:

Visionary Images

supports the development of a National Cultural Policy and is in broad agreement with the policy goals and components outlined in the Discussion Paper.However, these seem to omit, or acknowledge by minimal implication, a major area of cultural life in this nation that is specifically designed to foster "an inclusive society" among other aims. This is the area long known in the field as Community Cultural Development and its target participants include those who are otherwise culturally disenfranchised – the disadvantaged, the disabled, the alienated young, the isolated, and other vulnerable populations. Community Cultural Development is often the only pathway into participation in cultural life for these people.

Example 3:

The Council of Australian Museum Directors goes no further than to:

...urge that the National Cultural Policy embrace a broader concept of culture which acknowledges the importance to cultural and creative life of 'cultural memory'but only in relation to'the heritage collections, institutions and organisations which sustain, interpret and develop it.

Example 4:

Mr Rupert Myer AM notes:

Whilst there are very broad definitions available for the term culture, the Discussion Paper clearly positions the proposed cultural policy as being about the arts and creativity in Australia' and goes on to make a very cogent case for the latter.

Example 5:

Kultour, whose 'ambition is to create an Australian arts and cultural landscape that welcomes and includes the participation of its people from all cultures,' introduces the concept of multi-culturalism to the debate. It points out that 'The People of Australia" policy states:

The Australian Government is unwavering in its commitment to a multicultural Australia. Australia's multicultural composition is at the heart of our national identity and is intrinsic to our history and character.' But that'it is manifested more prominently in other industries such as health and sport… [than] in the arts and creative industries… which means that the potential for great and diverse Australian arts to be produced and enjoyed remains unrealised.

Example 6:

SBS also is concerned with multi-lingual and multi-cultural matters, and notes 'Cultural activity is interwoven in all aspects of society – it is an economic driver, it entertains, and it challenges Australians to be creative in all aspects of life,' but goes no further.

Example 7:

Women for an Australian Republic strongly supports the development of a new National Cultural Policy

…The Discussion Paper concentrates on immediate problems and issues, with a marked emphasis on the economic importance of arts activity. However, WfaAR notes that there are references to "national identity" and "binding the social fabric of the nation" in statements made by the Minister. These two themes, among others, should not be hoped-for by-products of the policy. Instead, at the outset, the Government should clearly explain its intentions and vision for the future and how the National Cultural Policy will contribute to, create and enhance them.

Example 8:

Significance International asks:

#10. Elements of a revised system demand better definition of less readily understood human concepts like sustainability andculture…

Example 9:

Specious Pty Ltd raises the broader question of what culture is in its answer to the question - Do you support the development of a National Cultural Policy, and why?:

Yes and No. Current bureaucratically organised Arts Funding has directed vast sums of money away from little-c-culture that is democratic and accessible to all audiences, and into capital-C-Culture in our prestige Art Galleries, Orchestras and the Opera House. This reinforces a cultural divide in Australia that falls quite strictly down class lines, impoverishing those most in need and exacerbating divisions already on the rise.

If leadership can be shown and redirect some this spending back to the culture more broadly to address these pressing issues then so much the better. No one should reasonably expect to see a large reorientation of funding in this direction, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't happen.

Example 10:

Jo Caust comments:

In the preamble there is an attempt to converge several sectors under the one banner. This includes the arts (from a western perspective), indigenous arts, cultural industries, the heritage sector and the creative industry sector to reflect 'culture'. While the fact these differences is acknowledged to some degree, their merging together can be highly problematic as it implies that the different sectors are able to be treated similarly by government policy. This is not the case.

Example 11:

The Research School of Humanities and the Arts at the Australian National University comments on the terminology of the paper as follows:

The concept of "cultural heritage" should be expanded to embrace all those dimensions which include the interpretation and dissemination of cultural creativity (historical research, museology, and the digital humanities, plus the study of the built and natural environment)...

thus also including history and museums in the cultural mix and further broadening the proposed scope beyond 'painting and craft' to include ecology and design.

(The latter point is also raised by the submissions of the Australian Institute of Architects and the Australian Design Alliance.)

And, it continues:

The conceptual division between "Core Arts" and "Creative Industries" (those activities that result from commercialisation) leaves the actual and potential synergies between the two (artistic uses of new media, intermedia, youth arts, experimental arts etc.) unrecognised as an important source of future innovation.

(This is helpful in that it attempts a definition of the elusive concept of 'creative industries', another terminological difficulty that the Discussion Paper sidesteps. Also the relationship between design and the arts.)

Example 12:

The National Cultural Heritage Committee notes that:

While the draft policy discussion document acknowledges cultural heritage as part of the scope of the cultural policy, almost all of the following discussion focuses on the arts and creative industries largely neglecting the potential of cultural heritage and collections.

Example 13:

The Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW:

support development of a National Cultural Policy, as all three spheres of government have roles to play in facilitating the cultural life of our citizens' but fails to elaborate on the fact that local government's involvement in cultural development covers much more than the arts.

All, or the majority of, submissions are – understandably - self-seeking and self-promoting, so it is to be hoped that those who assess them compensate for this.

Accordingly, and justifiably, many Aboriginal groups welcomed the inclusion of their culture in the discussion paper. A representative example: The 2nd National Indigenous Theatre Forum, representing 35 individuals and groups, 'unanimously supports the development of a National Cultural Policy and;

Acknowledges that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art and heritage is intrinsically linked to our health, diversity and wellbeing, which is inherently linked to the land, sea and sky, therefore the development of the National cultural policy should reflect this across all artforms and infrastructures.

Recognises the broader Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts, cultural and societal practises as the basis of the rich tapestry of the cultural fabric and within this, performing cultures have played a role in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultures.

Affirms the United Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September 2007, paying particular interest to the following four key articles…

 

Many submissions from those working in new/digital technology provide self-serving eulogies, as in that by the firm, 60Sox:

With a professional background always on the edge of emerging technologies, including the launching of Australia's first popular commercial website (SMH website in 1995), the establishment of the popular online creative portfolio (60Sox in 2004), the delivery of mobile industry-based entrepreneurial programs in Sydney and Melbourne (mega in 2008/2009), the directorship of a program exploring the business transformational opportunities of games design and mechanics being 'integrated' with 'non-games' industry sectors (ISIS in 2011/2012), Director of company 60Sox, Justin Brow has always led by example to help Australian digital media and creative industries practitioners improve their ability to compete better in local and international market places.

Working, as well, as a Senior Research Associate at QUT's Creative Industries Faculty for the past 7 years, Justin has always focused on Australia's Creative and Digital Media Industries. Justin currently leads a number of collaborative programs bringing together Australian Federal and State Government Departments, private enterprise and research organisations to facilitate business transformation and innovation creation.