The Arts in Australia (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

A general thread for a discussion regarding the Arts and their place in today's Australia - funding regimes, popular support, high vs. popular culture, the arts vs. sport, etc.

For those wishing to debate a recent article, below you will find two links, one dealing with the Melbourne comedy festival and the other with the local film industry. For those wishing to run with one of the ideas presented in the first paragraph, feel free to either find your own article or create your own argument.

Local movie-makers require serious support
Dates with disaster

I do know that a thread generally requires more of a direction than that that I am providing, but I'm hoping that there are some out there who would be more than willing and able to take the lead in such a general debate .

So... The Arts in Australia. Anyone?

 

[banco55]

I'd like to see the fed government use some of the budget surplus to set up endowment funds for various major arts groups in australia. IE say to Opera Australia "we'll give you 50 million dollars to invest but after that no more money". Opera Australia would than have to live off the interest/dividends from the endowment plus whatever money they could generate from ticket sales/corporate sponsorship etc.

As for the Australian film industry with a few notable exceptions they've produced some real shit over the past five years or so. There seemed to be a formula of "Aussie larrikins/battlers/underdogs" winning out against the odds ie the nugget, crackerjack, the dish. I blame the sucess of the castle. If I never hear the word larrikin again it will be too soon.

 

[frog12986]

I find it ironic that the Australian Television and Film industry, which tends to be fairly left-wing, plays upon the supposed Australian values and way of life which according many do not exist, in making successful film and television shows.. (which are as banco points out, becoming fairly rare)

 

[Iron]

Cth Games my eye! They deserved to lose money. The televised part of the Melbourne Comedy Festival was woeful. Lano and Woodley were by far the most entertaining, with the sleeping bag gag. But others were rehashing old shit and generally being lame. I also get annoyed that all comedians profess to embrace this bleeding-heart feed the world stuff when most of them get their laughs from the vulgar and politically incorrect. So the charity bit is a tad rich.

The film industry has been a bit of a dead parrot for a while now too. I hate to sound cynical, but the Kokoda thing stinks of a desporate appeal to national identity in order to prop up ticket sales.

Im not sure what to make of paintings, other than Aboriginals being paid with a few beads and shiney objects for works that sell for thousands.

 

[banco55]

I forgot to add the administration of museums should be privatized. Contract out the day to day running and leave the purchasing to a volunteeer board of trustees.

 

[Iron]

I forgot to add the administration of museums should be privatized. Contract out the day to day running and leave the purchasing to a volunteeer board of trustees.

Er why? I can only see disaster resulting

 

[banco55]

Er why? I can only see disaster resulting

It's been done sucessfully in the US and some european countries. From there experience you can cut about 20% of the staff simply because government run enterprises tend to be run inefficently. Cutting staff costs means more money for actually buyinig paintings.

 

[yy]

i don't see the need to fund arts
isn't australian filmmakers increasingly seeking private funding?

 

[AlleyCat]

in terms of films in the past year, i dont think its all been bad.
look both ways,
little fish,
wolf creek,
the proposition.

and candy is coming out soon, i'm expecting something amazing.

but yes, the arts are an important part of society, more funding should be allocated to their preservation and creation.

ps, most recent works of theatre have been pretty crap, too.
but i have high expectations for joanna murray-smith.

 

[robo-andie]

yes, the arts are an important part of society

I completely agree. All art is entertainment and insight, this is important to development. It is a good way to convey ideas and circulate them on a global scale. I really wonder how far early man would have come if he did not discover he could explain himself through body language and painting on caves.
I really like what Christo and Jeanne-Claude did with 'The Gates' in NYC.

 

[Iron]

It's been done sucessfully in the US and some european countries. From there experience you can cut about 20% of the staff simply because government run enterprises tend to be run inefficently. Cutting staff costs means more money for actually buyinig paintings.

Government ownership exists to provide the public with free access to culture.

 

[loquasagacious]

And why exactly should the prols be just wandering around willy-nilly getting culture for free??? Hmmm???

Go back to Russia Brezhnev!

 

[Rach_10]

I think that the arts are seriously undervalued in Australia. Take for example the Strong Report which proposed cutting of funding to our nations symphony orchestras.

Anyone who knows anything about music can tell you that you can't possibly create the power or strength of sound demanded by many classical compositions on half, or even a third - as it was suggested the Tasmanian Symphony should be cut down to - an orchestra.

The arts don't function as a money making industry - you won't find a pianist or a dancer in it for the money, its about creating an 'artwork', whether it be dance, music or other, and passion.

The arts are an industry which give the community the chance to experience cultural enlighenment - a source of enjoyment, inspiration and intrigue.
Some things are more important than money.

 

[Iron]

Well the arts lobby has certainly been cast in bad light under Mr Howard. The government is fond of arguing that the cultural elite hijacked the public purse under Keating (he'd often announce, willy-nilly, doubled funding at museum speeches, high culture fits in with his perceived arrogance etc)
Latham also went out of his way to disown Labor's arts pet, so as to appeal to the majority proles, who care only about $.
It's not a vote switcher and it's not a good idea to always talk about it, as the public are tight-arses. So it tends to be a little neglected at the mo.

(Loq: desist at painting me red, you slimy fascist dog!)

 

[yy]

The arts don't function as a money making industry - you won't find a pianist or a dancer in it for the money, its about creating an 'artwork', whether it be dance, music or other, and passion.

problem solved, they can follow their passion with whatever money they can get and no govt funding

 

[robo-andie]

There are other, more important things - if they needed that many subsidies to survive, there's not that much demand for them in the first place.

The need for subsidies in no way reflects the demand for these things. Many exhibitions are free and entry into most museums and art galleries is also free. There are very few places they can generate enough revenue to keep them running. They exist this way so they can provide access to everyone. As such they depend on government and even private funding to keep them going.

problem solved, they can follow their passion with whatever money they can get and no govt funding

That would be like saying "I'm sorry buses, even though you exist to serve the people and provide a decent service to them, we must cut your funding and you will rely entirely on what you earn." It wouldn't be fair. The arts play a huge role in any country, for Australia to cut govt. funding to them would basically cut them out of society. You wouldn't have the variety and quality of art that exists today. They just couldn't function.

 

[Iron]

problem solved, they can follow their passion with whatever money they can get and no govt funding

It's just ridiculous that this is even being argued. What kind of fool identifies money with culture? A culture devoted to the box office/sales is doomed to cultural abortion. It turns art into an assembly line industry.
Transforming something as broad and complex as art into a money making enterprise creates a synthetic Disneyland, like America, to the detriment of everyone.

To quote Waugh's "The Loved One": “The English poets were proving uncertain guides in the labyrinth of Californian courtship – nearly all were too casual, too despondent, too ceremonious, or too exacting; they scolded, they pleaded, they extolled. Dennis required salesmanship.”

 

[gerhard]

the main problem is that so many artists are terrible

i wish there was a way to make sure only the good ones got funding

 

[Iron]

the main problem is that so many artists are terrible

i wish there was a way to make sure only the good ones got funding

Maybe. Bit of a chicken-egg question. Many see art as a reflection of where a society is at.

 

[Rach_10]

There are other, more important things - if they needed that many subsidies to survive, there's not that much demand for them in the first place.

.........our health system needs money to survive - do you not think that it is under demand???

Just like health care - the more you pay, the better you get. The idea of subsidising arts is so that people can experience it in the first place, often getting a good quality at little or no cost. The point is, with the subsidising, is that people get to experience it at all.