The recent inquiry into the changes to arts funding that has seen millions pulled from the Australia Council for the Arts and the proposed establishment of a National Program for Excellence in the Arts (NPEA), attracted more than 2 600 submissions from across the country. It was a fantastic response...this was mine, and to view others click here.
At the recent public hearing held in Melbourne, accomplished contemporary artist, David Pledger very eloquently outlined the problem with the newly proposed NPEA. Well, worth watching this Video of David Pledger
 |
| David Pledger speaking at the Melbourne public inquiry |
I am writing this submission in response to the funding changes to the
Australia Council for the Arts and the proposal to establish a National Program
for Excellence in the Arts.
My response is based on more than 20 years working with community, the
arts, government and business in Tasmania. It stems from my first hand
experience as a producer, arts manager, writer and coach; having worked with
Big hART Inc, Tasmanian Regional Arts, Tasmanian Writers Centre, Tasmanian
International Arts Festival (Ten Days on the Island), Screen Tasmania, the
University of Tasmania and currently curate the Tasmanian Portraiture Prize
among other projects. I have worked with artists and companies to deliver art
projects, build organizational capacity and also explored alternative models,
such as social enterprise. This research has identified the importance of
supporting the creative development of art content in the state and that in
fact arts sector investment reaps much greater return than most other
industries.
The impact of the recent announcement to reduce
funding to the Australia Council for the Arts and the development of a National
Program for Excellence in the Arts is incredibly disappointing for a sector
that is already stretched. Tasmania continues to have the highest number of
artists per capita in Australia and we had seen an increase in arts activity
over the last 10 years, however, the continued reduction of the pool of funds
available to support small to medium arts organisations and individual artists
in the state has heightened an already highly competitive environment and I
believe will leave no alternative but for some to discontinue activities.
To change systems and processes to improve outcomes and opportunities for
artists and audiences is understandable, but I believe it is a missed
opportunity to not take the time to assess what is working and what isn't; to
restructure according to this, and the needs of the arts sector and broader
community. Unfortunately the approach that has been taken appears to be more
based on the whim of individual creative taste, than a strategic
well-considered vision. One of the fundamental principles of good governance is
genuine consultation and I find it disappointing that the Arts Minister has not
consulted with the arts sector about the proposed changes. A genuine discussion
may well have resulted in modifications, and perhaps greater outcomes for
everyone. It is disappointing that there hasn’t been adequate warning for those
arts organisations being effected by the immediate half of the 6 year funding. This and the cut of successful programs including ArtStart and the Artist
in Residence Program, is incredibly disappointing. Both were deemed successful
and helped emerging young artists and those more established to work within a
non-arts environment.
The impact that funding changes will have on the small to medium
organisations are considerable and Tasmania will potentially be hit harder than
any other state. Mimicking our business community, the Tasmanian arts sector is
predominantly small to medium. Like many small regional Australian communities,
the majority of Tasmania’s art content comes from these small to medium
organisations and individual artists. It
is this art content that feeds into the many festivals within and outside of
the state; that is presented to schools, contributes to events and these
organisations often are the training ground for young and emerging writers,
performers and artists. They are also the testing ground for new, innovative
and risky art product, which I fear under the proposed changes, will be lost.
With funding already at a minimum and many organisations relying on the
goodwill of artists delivering voluntary or pro bono services to communities,
this further reduction will see many arts organisations discontinue or reduce
their activities. These creative activities are not just about events, entertainment
and tourism; they are often the vehicle for individuals and communities to explore
and express a range of social issues. Art organisations such as Interweave Arts
in Launceston, Salamanca Arts Centre, Big hART Inc on the North West Coast or
Kickstart Arts in Southern Tasmania use art as the engagement tool to connect
with and share the stories of those who are vulnerable, disenfranchised or
voiceless.
The changes to funding and processes isn't just about the artists,
performers, writers, musicians who contribute architecture, design, clothing,
art, soundtracks, dance, performance and more...it is about the audiences who
crave this, who consume it, who pay for it and absorb it as part of their day
to day life. How will this new model accommodate the appetite of young people,
of different cultures and those seeking to be challenged and informed? The
programs of the small to medium art companies are full of content that connects
to these groups and others who are not patrons to the conservative or
traditional art forms. Whether it is a film, a play, book or song; people love
to relate to what they experience and we need to provide a fertile environment
that encourages our own story telling, culture and life.
If the idea is to reduce government funding as a
means to encourage revenue raising by arts companies and individuals, thereby
making them more sustainable; this too is fraught. Unlike the USA we do not
have a major philanthropic movement. There is also a limit to how much
sponsorship and crowd-funding money is available within and even outside Tasmania,
and neither should be seen as a permanent and complete replacement to ongoing government
support for the arts.
This new model will see a reduction in funding to
individual artists. For the past seven years I have worked as a coach;
supporting musicians, composers, painters, designers and jewelers who all want
to develop their practice, fund future projects and improve their financial
situation. Most artists already invest huge amount of personal resources, time
and money into their work; and generally look to small amounts of grant money
to bolster large projects that they cannot self fund. There is virtually no
practical support for individual artists outside any grant program, even though
many artists I work with convey the need for practical assistance, in addition
to or rather than money. The proposed changes will see a drastically reduced
pot of money for individual artists to apply for, and an increase in
competition to fund art projects. It should be noted, that the majority of
artists do not just produce individual artwork to sell. They often engage in
community art projects, provide teaching opportunities, present art via
festivals, support arts events, partner with not for profits and local
government to deliver art projects and volunteer on community-based
organisations that support creative and vibrant communities.
The Tasmanian art market is not just about goodwill and cultural
development. This is a prosperous industry that business and politicians have
benefited from. Campaigns have been run against the backdrop of a museum,
orchestra, festival or painting. Yet there still seems to be a disconnect from
government, about where art comes from? Biennale venues or Archibald Prize
winners do not just appear; they are years in the making.
The idea of moving away from a peer review process that was provided via
the Australian Council for the Arts (OzCo), to a process where one individual can
make unilateral decisions is problematic. At a time when changes had been made
to the OzCo processes to improve the peer review process, I find it very
strange the Arts Minister had not approached OzCo to discuss other options;
rather than to completely axe the process and waste money to set up completely
new administrative departments. Aside from the bureaucracy required to do this,
there is the major issue of maintaining an arms-length approach to assessing funding
applications. This is vital and positive for government departments, the
funding agency and the applying artist. It creates a level of transparency that
can only benefit the process.
In regard to the economic impact of the decision by the Arts Minister, I am
not going to repeat the figures and arguments that have already so eloquently been
conveyed by others in their submissions. I will however expand on the
discussion around the small amount of funding that is provided by the Federal
Government and what that translates to for communities and artists. It has long
been recognised that the arts community can squeeze extraordinary outcomes from
meager budgets. This cannot be justification for the proposed changes, as it is
recognised that over the last few years we have already seen radical cuts to arts
funding from the Federal and State Governments. We have seen the de-funding of three major
creative networks with the demise of the Regional Arts National Network, the
closing down of Writing Australia and the announcement of Screen Australia
defunding the national film network; leaving Tasmania’s Wide Angle without
funding. There is a tipping point at which the resourcefulness and optimism of an
arts community is in danger of being trampled. And I believe we have reached
this point. Lack of willingness to provide at least reasonable funding to the
arts sector has economic, cultural, social and health implications on the
participants and the communities they work and live amongst.
Government reducing or removing funding to large sections of the arts
community does not build confidence in the industry. It does not entice
business to plug the hole that is left open but instead it tells business
investors that the arts are risky and immeasurable. The arts are measurable and
time again studies both within and outside of Australia have indicated the
major bang for buck that a government can expect from investing in the arts.
Minister Brandis wants to use arts to bolster Australia’s international reputation. I am
guessing international festivals, biennales and collections do not want
mainstream; they want diversity and difference. They want a depiction of the
Australian culture with all it’s bumps and bruises. This doesn’t necessarily
come from conservative traditional arts. Each international major city has
plenty of companies that can deliver those opportunities. The type of art that
attracts international attention comes from risk taking individuals and organisations;
Terrapin Puppet Theatre, Tasmanian playwright, Finegan Kruckemeyer and Stompin
Youth Dance in Launceston, for example.
If we want Australian society to be compassionate, inquisitive and engaged,
then we need to invest in the development stage of creative endeavour. That development
happens in the early years, the experimental and the risk taking years. A few
years volunteering and then working with a community based arts organisation as
part of the production team and then performer may well provide enough
experience and skill to be accepted into a major company. Essie Davis (Miss
Fisher’s Murder Mysteries) didn’t just appear on screen, but, like many others,
she walked a path of experimental and independent theatre and film before
‘hitting it big’.
And for audiences, those transformative moments often come from the
smallest and sweetest of experiences that are raw and real. More often than
not, these are found in the experimental or early iterations of a first draft play,
a film or concert that pushes the envelope, delves into the uncomfortable and
presents us all with issues, ideas and experiences that are familiar, uncomfortable,
enlightening or breathtaking. Art is risky. It inspires, excites, challenges
and terrifies – that’s part of its job. Will this new model provide room for
this?
The beauty of art is that it doesn’t have to be all or nothing, and there is room for a range of mediums, genres,
approaches and art forms. The opportunity for the government is to see that
before them is a passionate, experienced and entrepreneurial arts community
that is willing to talk, to negotiate, to trouble shoot and look at
alternatives. I hope that members of the Senate will look at the whole picture
before agreeing to major changes that impact on the life of artists, arts
workers, audiences and communities.
Thank you for allowing me to provide this submission.
Yours sincerely
Kylie Eastley
Arts Consultant, Manager and Writer
M: 0439 262 344
No comments:
Post a Comment