In this article
Don’t we have enough art anyway?
On any given night there is more to do in the creative or entertainment space than there is time to consume.
Regardless of the quantity of art available, inspiring people to lever themselves off the couch and part with precious time, money or energy for the art that makes you lean in continues to be a challenge. This is not to say that what’s available is not good, more it just appears that, maybe in response to financial support for the arts, the dominant choices are increasingly mainstream or consist of generic content that rarely connects meaningfully in a humanist way.
To the contrary it seems that some performance seems solely designed to highlight a specific grievance or controversial issue often to the detriment of the art itself, or at least with the art being at best a secondary factor.
With this in mind, do we need more art or more of the ‘right’ kind of art? And, if so, do we need the ‘right’ kind of investment to match?
As costs increase and investment stays relatively stagnant, doing more with less is increasingly difficult. And, as arts management guru Michael Kaiser says, some costs cannot be rationalised; Beethoven’s String Quartet in E Minor will always be played by four people.
Furthermore, as we keep hearing, cross-portfolio government support is one way to increase arts investment. Events supported by Tourism, tours supported by Regional Development, programs supported by Community Services – these are all valid, all important and all driven by outcomes other than the art itself. Indeed, this kind of investment across government portfolios in all likelihood drives a non-art agenda. And why would a community services department fund a music program that indirectly supports homeless young people, when they can directly fund a youth homelessness program?
On a 2013 study tour across the US, a similar trend, albeit a significant generalisation, was evident. Arts organisations reported that philanthropy was being increasingly directed at social issues, government investment was slim pickings and income-generating art was more prevalent – often with an observable cost of the art itself.
Just over 10 years later in Australia, philanthropic investment is similarly focused, and an entirely reasonable tendency towards more mainstream, commercially viable work is evident.
A hypothesis
Could it be that the subtle erosion over time of arm’s length funding for art (as opposed to the outcomes of the art), and the overt requirement of social impact requirements of the arts (see any current funding guidelines), has encouraged a subsidised sector to drift towards either end of a spectrum that sees commerciality and ‘agenda driven’ content at the extremes, with increasingly rare occurrences in between. Think about Australian Opera’s West Side Story and Big hART’s Songs for Freedom. Not to say that in any way either isn’t art, but that the ultimate purpose of the projects may prioritise other factors over the art. Also to note that the investment for these programs may not even come from arts-focused entities.
It would seem that funding guidelines may be driving an agenda that, as an industry, we for the most part fall in line with, in order to secure the cash. Should not the art be the starting point for the arts investment? Not the funding guidelines/outcomes, or the sponsor or foundation obligations?
Great outcomes are inherent in great art.
If the art is bent to fit the instrumental outcomes, does not the art feel, or by definition, become contrived?
The other 1%
It is a minute percentage (less than 1%) of our total creative industries that needs and operates with subsidy. What happens to our creative industries without that 1% of subsidised programs, organisations, companies and artists? Maybe nothing. Maybe everything. But based on the evidence, arts investment causes us to live better lives. More investment equals better lives. Sometimes more is more.
Indeed, it is hardly possible to imagine a situation in which greater investment doesn’t result in better outcomes based on the evidence at hand.
This simplistic value judgement is a truism. Speaking it is often denounced by those without a deep understanding of the business of our industry.
One speaker at the Hong Kong Performing Arts Expo spoke about leadership. She talked about it being concerned with progress, and challenging ideas and norms, as much as, if not more so, than it being about a traditional idea of leading a company, a team or an institution.
Her view is that, in this context, our independent practitioners and producers are leaders in our sector. They are the people that are committed to a future that doesn’t yet exist. Unfortunately, the freedom to drive that kind of change at scale isn’t always matched with the resources to do so. This is not to negate the innovative work or efforts of reform from big arts organisations or government departments, but to acknowledge the nimbleness they sometimes are unable to deliver to effect greater impact.
Leadership, as the ladder analogy goes, isn’t just about climbing each rung; it’s about ensuring that the ladder is leaning against the right wall.
Could it be that our arts advocacy ladder is leaning on the wrong wall?
And as the recipients of that funding, investment and support, how do arts leaders effectively, and without threat to their existing support, highlight the current limitations in a way that is heard and acted upon? Indeed, may it be that this caution is one of the reasons we fail to present a potent case for greater support?
In a highly competitive investment environment (private, public and corporate) careful conversations seem the norm.
In a UK leadership panel discussion at the Hong Kong Performing Arts Expo, John McGrath, AD and CEO of Manchester’s Factory International and Manchester International Festival, suggested that the UK and Europe has become increasingly divisive, and culture has to some extent been weaponised. This was noted in the context of a broad and positive discussion about the important role that arts and cultural organisations undertake in creating space for dialogue and understanding.
From the comfort of our predominantly safe and secure western worlds (at least in Australia) it’s easy, or at least easier, to assign blame and shift responsibilities, as opposed to taking responsibility or taking to the front line to shift the dial on cultural resourcing.
As the US author and poet Ella Wheeler Wilcox said, “To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards of men.”
Herein lies an interesting dilemma – the debate between the compliant, quiet, gentle and uncontroversial ‘carrot’ approach to extract cash, or the noisy, attention-seeking ‘stick’ approach.
It seems that success is attached to those who are relationship-focused with people of real influence – those who have the will to lead and make change.
Certainly the contemporary music industry got it right in the lead-up to the last federal election (kudos to APRA/AMCOS)… possibly reinforced by the fact that the will to provide support was already present in our guitar-playing Federal Minister?
To the contrary, having just experienced the Prime Minister’s $1.5 million bailout of Perth’s Sculptures by the Sea, one might justifiably question if aiming for front page images of forlorn, grumpy and decidedly ‘shafted’ looking artists (all but holding a stick) is a more effective way of securing investment.
This article was amended on 16 December to attribute the remarks about the weaponisation of culture to John McGrath.
To read the first part of this article.
Look out for the third and final part of this article to be published early next week.
