Culture isn't just the arts

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…'