Muse: Indecision 2011: Writing Policy on The Back of a Cocktail Napkin
38 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
It actually matters. I think quite a lot.
I think it matters a lot too. I do not think it matters a lot to politicians,. And I think it should, and if I were on the Labour Arts & Heritage policy committee I would be ashamed to have let such a crap policy go out.
But then what do you expect? Labour's culture and heritage spokesperson's main connection to the arts would appear to be that she is a Frizzell. (That's a bit low. But.) The Minister is a rich man who likes to go to listen to the orchestra.
-
Two open questions:
1 What is the purpose of publicly funding the arts? That is, what specific goal is funding the arts meant to achieve?
2 What is the best way to achieve that goal?
By way of a preliminary answer to 1:
Public funding of the arts is meant to have a return in terms of enabling those art works (in whatever medium) that could not exist without that funding to exist.
That is, society, through taxes, pays for art to be produced that would not be produced otherwise, for society’s benefit.
(My head’s a bit messy at the moment, so this is very clumsily put. Let’s try again.)
Art is funded through public money because it is not economic in its own right. And also because being economic is not the only value there is.
Whaddyareckon? Anyone game to have a stab at 2? Or dispute my answer to 1?
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
The Minister is a rich man who likes to go to listen to the orchestra.
Ok, the Frizzell low blow was funny and apt, but this one isn’t.
There is a common argument put forward about Lotto funding of such things as ballet, opera, and orchestral music. It’s an outrage that poor people’s pokie money be used for highbrow events for the rich elite, the argument goes.
On the face of it, looked at purely in class terms, that’s true. It is outrageous.
Ok then. Let’s say we make the ballet companies, opera companies, and orchestras (ha ha, I’m using plural forms!) fund themselves through sponsorship and box office takings. What happens?
Only a few years later, all the poor kids with musical or dance abilities who want to make something of those abilities are pretty much screwed. Where do they train? Once trained, what do they do? Start a company from scratch?
Oh, but ballet and opera and orchestral music are dead relics of the past, you might say. Why drive a horse and cart when you can drive a car? To which I would answer, they aren’t dead relics now but would be if you had your way.
Imagine a young kid with a deep abiding love of opera. They see possibilities in the form. This is the thing with artistic media. The kid can see a way to say things with opera they can’t say in any other medium. Things the kid thinks no opera has done before.
But all the funding to opera companies has been cut. All the theatres to hold them in have closed down or turned into multiplex cinemas. The people who knew how to put on an opera have all got new jobs and new responsibilities trying to get the shiny new car to work like it was meant to. Half of them have forgotten what they knew, and the other half are very rusty. The sole opera singer the kid can find to train them how to sing properly is unaffordable.
All the institutional knowledge on how to put on an opera is gone. Destroyed. The kid gets a job at McDonalds instead. Spends their nights and weekends planning their dream opera. When they die, someone throws out all those scraps of paper with unintelligible scribbles on them.
-
Sacha, in reply to
There is a common argument put forward about Lotto funding of such things as ballet, opera, and orchestral music. It’s an outrage that poor people’s pokie money be used for highbrow events for the rich elite, the argument goes.
I think you'll find the argument is the proportion of the available funds dedicated to a few traditionally elitist cultural forms compared with many others that reflect the broad richness of our cultures. Subsidising entertainment for those most able to pay their own way is just icing on the cake.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Imagine a young kid with a deep abiding love of opera.
or hip-hop. or kapa haka. or Chinese fabric painting. or Italian neorealist cinema
-
Sacha, in reply to
for society’s benefit
to work out what's important to us.
to show us to ourselves and others.
to remember.
to dream -
Ok, the Frizzell low blow was funny and apt, but this one isn’t.
I have no problem with spending money on elitist art at all. It is just that I do not think Finlayson has any connection with the arts except as a patron and a trustee. Which is no failing on his part, but it is slightly grating.
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
Oh totally, that was but one example. More vibrant art forms the better. Totes.
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
Why is it grating? What is wrong with appreciative patrons?
-
Mostly the fact that when it comes to it, Attorney General and Minister for Treaty Negotiations are always going to be more important to Finlayson than Culutre & Heritage. The organisational set up is not good.
The other problem with appreciative patrons is that they have an idea of art that revolves around the patron. Which is all well and good until it turns into `let's push for philanthropic giving! that'll pay for the arts right' which uh I have problems with.
-
So should the job have gone to the other Chris Finlayson?
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
The other problem with appreciative patrons is that they have an idea of art that revolves around the patron.
One of many reasons you bite the hand that feeds.
-
Hi, folks. First, once again many thanks to the awesome PAS Massive for keeping the signal-to-noise ratio pleasingly high. Just warning that I’ll be (temporarily) closing off comments on this thread from lunchtime tomorrow (Friday) until I can be arsed on Sunday morning. -Ish.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.