Self-government and the arts (original) (raw)
Re-visioning arts and cultural policy: current impasses and future directions
2007
Professor Wanna has produced around 17 books including two national text books on policy and public management. He has produced a number of research-based studies on budgeting and financial management including: Budgetary Management and Control (1990); Managing Public Expenditure (2000), From Accounting to Accountability (2001) and, most recently, Controlling Public Expenditure (2003). He has just completed a study of state level leadership covering all the state and territory leaders-entitled Yes Premier: Labor leadership in Australia's states and territories-and has edited a book on Westminster Legacies in Asia and the Pacific-Westminster Legacies: Democracy and responsible government in Asia and the Pacific. He was a chief investigator in a major Australian Research Council funded study of the Future of Governance in Australia (1999-2001) involving Griffith and the ANU. His research interests include Australian and comparative politics, public expenditure and budgeting, and government-business relations. He also writes on Australian politics in newspapers such as The Australian, Courier-Mail and The Canberra Times and has been a regular state political commentator on ABC radio and TV. Table of Contents About the Author ix Acknowledgements xi Foreword xiii Abbreviations and Acronyms xvii Chapter 1. The Conceptual ambivalence of art and culture 1 Chapter 2. Historical phases in arts and cultural policy-making in Australia 7 Chapter 3. The convergence of arts and cultural policy Chapter 4. International trends in arts and cultural production and consumption Chapter 5. How can cultural sub-sectors respond? Three indicative case studies Chapter 6. Managing creativity and cultivating culture Bibliography Appendix A. Typology of artforms by characteristics of sector Appendix B. Key moments in Australian arts and cultural policy development Appendix C. Models of cultural policy Appendix D. Definitions of cultural policy Appendix E. The objectives of cultural policy Appendix F. Government expenditure (Commonwealth, state and local) on the arts in Australia ($ million
Submission: Review of Private Sector Support for the Arts in Australia
Contemporary Australian art funding model including the private sector support for the arts is based on a fundamentally flawed foundation and contradictory values, which cannot in and of themselves provide a holistic and viable long-term solution, which would engender a self-sufficient and viable art sector, which contributes not only to the cultural welfare of the country but also its economic prosperity. For too long the government and its agencies like Australia Council for the Arts have pursued strategies that have been shown not to improve welfare of artists in Australia and hence the viability of the arts sector as a whole. Moreover studies show that the income gap between artists and other sectors of the community has in fact increased. Consequently, in response to the key questions 5 and posed by the Review: “How are current measures contributing to a more sustainable arts sector?” and “Are there any new approaches or models that could be considered in the Australian setting to encourage increased private sector support for the arts in Australia? ..” this submission posits that the current measures are NOT contributing to a more sustainable arts sector and that what is necessary is a holistic rethink of the approach to art sector needs and sustainability. Importantly, rather than philanthropic measures, strategy should address itself to economic measures to build grass roots economic support for the arts. Fundamentally what is called upon is a policy, which repositions the arts in the value system and economic value system in the community. Achievement of this goal requires policy foresight to implement strategies that promote broad based recognition and valorization of art and its ability to enhance life by the general public as well as corporate sector. Thus it is advocated that the government needs to implement strategies that improve public education and art awareness and engagement at adult as well as youth level and substantial enhancement of media support and exposure for the arts across all media.
Dilemmas in Policy Support for the Arts and Cultural Sector
Australian Journal of Public Administration, 2005
This article questions the specific challenges that the management of culture poses for government. 2 Unlike some 'public good' policy domains, such as prisons, defence or infrastructure, or benefit provisions such as unemployment, disability or health measures, the complex area of cultural policy cannot be justified in instrumental terms as an essential-or unavoidablepolicy of government. Nonetheless, the cultural lobby is an effective and indefatigable pressure on government. The area of culture is just one small component of the public agenda that governments are obliged to support. Given other pressing portfolios, why do governments continue to take an interest in culture? Moreover, recent government policies seem to be setting up problems for the future such that governments will find it hard if not impossible to extricate themselves from a problematic relationship. So, what is the hold that culture has over governments? Traditionally, the answer seemed to be a combination of boosterism and cultural capital. Governments liked to bask in the reflected glory of cultural success believing that it contributed to their legitimacy and cultural competence. The glow of elite culture was seen to rub off onto political incumbents and their regimes. But in an age of pressures on government to justify public expenditure and meet accountability regimes, cultural support continues to appear on the funding agenda and governments continue to become embroiled in debates about competing support formulae. This relates to both the nature of 'culture' and broader definitions under the banner of 'cultural policy' as well as the nature of the sector which is, at once, elitist, institutionalized, commercial, highly specialist, niche and industry-all premised on intangible nature of 'creativity'. Paradoxically, contrary to other trends in public policy, arts and cultural funding has reverted to forms of patronage as the centrepiece of broadly defined policies of access, equity and self-sufficiency. How has this policy portfolio managed to buck the trends of other domains of government attention? This article attempts to open some new ways of examining the question. 3
State Arts Councils: Some Items for a New Agenda
1976
THESE are no longer flush times. And one realm in which the lack of prosperity may prove harmful is the area of government support of the arts. Because the expansive middle class patronage of the l 960's is gone, there is a hope that the government, state and federal, will play the role of Maecenas. 1 Yet government intervention is now more cautious and more critical. The need for state support is high. Performing arts companies are in dire straits. 2 Artists are unemployed. Nonetheless, government officials at all levels are undecided as to how to proceed. In California, for example, after months of scrutiny by a legislative com-mittee~ and after intensive study by the new governor and his aides, the proper role of the state in supporting the arts is still uncharted. A statute has been passed which is brief and vague, which provides the hint of a tone, but little more. 4
New Directions in Arts and Cultural Policy: Forward by the Editors
Review of Policy Research, 2004
Arts and culture are seldom a central concern of United States public policy literature. Indeed, United States cultural policy is often both neglected and misunderstood. This neglect may stem from how marginalized cultural policies appear to be in this country. It also reflects a misunderstanding on the part of policy analysts of just how far-reaching and deeply embedded government involvement in arts and culture really is. Some might dismiss arts and cultural policy as a fruitful arena for study because the financial and political stakes appear to be so low. Others believe that there are few substantial issues beyond battles over public funding. Yet others might argue that the cultural constituency is small, weak, and ineffectual. Finally, some would assert that the public is apathetic and policy scholars are indifferent. All of these perceptions would be wrong, as the contributions to this issue demonstrate. Some arguments, like the assertion of an apathetic public, would seem spurious grounds for neglecting a policy topic-after all, the public is also apathetic about foreign aid but that isn't taken as evidence that the topic is unimportant. Direct federal appropriations to the three best-known national arts and cultural agencies (National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute for Museum and Library Services) totaled approximately 250millionin2002,amereroundingerrorformostfederalagencies.But,asMargaretWyszomirski′sarticlemakesclear,thesemoniesrepresentasmallfractionofallthemoneythegovernmentappropriatestoartsandculturalactivities.AmericansfortheArts,anartsadvocacygroup,estimatesthatthefederalgovernmentspendssome250 million in 2002, a mere rounding error for most federal agencies. But, as Margaret Wyszomirski's article makes clear, these monies represent a small fraction of all the money the government appropriates to arts and cultural activities. Americans for the Arts, an arts advocacy group, estimates that the federal government spends some 250millionin2002,amereroundingerrorformostfederalagencies.But,asMargaretWyszomirski′sarticlemakesclear,thesemoniesrepresentasmallfractionofallthemoneythegovernmentappropriatestoartsandculturalactivities.AmericansfortheArts,anartsadvocacygroup,estimatesthatthefederalgovernmentspendssome2 billion a year on arts and culture, including support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Smithsonian, and the Kennedy Center, as well as arts programs housed in such disparate departments as Justice, Education, or Housing and Urban Development. Moreover, there has long been a cultural component to foreign and military policy. Don Perone's article discusses the long tradition of funding military bands, and indeed arts advocates in Congress have often noted that the budget for military bands often exceeds that of the entire NEA. The State Department is responsible for formulating and enforcing international protocols for the protection of cultural property; this agency also sponsors cultural exchanges and arts and cultural programming in many embassies. These disparate federal outlays are easily matched by state and local cultural spending. In 2001, according to the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, state legislatures collectively appropriated close to $450 million for their arts agencies, as well as additional funds for arts education, state museums, and other programs.
From public support for the arts to cultural policy
Review of Policy Research, 2004
Although public funding for the arts had been an element of budget and appropriations business at both the federal and state levels for over a quarter century, the idea that policy justifies and directs these resource allocations has been slow to emerge. This article provides a ...
ARTS, CULTURE & LOCAL GOVERNMENT
In helping to develop an arts and cultural strategy for a municipality in metropolitan Melbourne 1 , it was necessary to respond to several fundamental questions about the benefits of arts and culture; the extent to which this can be quantified; and how local governments can invest in stimulating a local arts and culture environment. This paper provides an observational review of a pragmatic approach taken to developing an argument for local government involvement.
Arts and creative industries: a historical overview; and an Australian conversation
2011
This report began in June with a series of interviews with Australian artists and intermediaries from across the arts practice and policy worlds. Participants were asked what they thought about the similarities, differences and connections between the arts and creative industries. Initial responses by participants were based on the understanding that 'the arts' were those publicly funded activities and institutions such as galleries and concert halls, symphonies and literature. Quickly however this moved onto the more pointed issues of what is art and why the debate had to be more than just 'the arts'. Popular culture and creative industries were also about art, and about culture. Maybe there was a spectrum-art at one end, commerce at the other. But did that mean those outside the arts were less creative or less cultural? And if not, why does so much public support for culture go on 'the arts'; surely other kinds of culture were just as, or even more, creative, contemporary, forward thinking and exciting? Finally, what did 'support' mean beyond just subsidy of some kind. 'entertainment', art and functionality. We put forward a broad schema of art-media-design within which we can better consider contemporary arts and creative industries policies.
Building local capacity in the arts
Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events
The importance of place based funding and local policy initiatives is evident in literature internationally with concepts of creative cities and cultural regeneration building in prominence since 1990s. Such literature argues that investment in arts and culture brings broader social and economic benefits at a local level, but in practice investment and research has prioritised a small number of metropolitan arts venues and mega events over a larger rural or community based infrastructure. This paper in contrast explores two case studies of cultural planning in small towns. It analyses the relationship between policy and practice in these specific community contexts and considers the role of participatory decision making in developing a local arts infrastructure. The findings suggest that locally based initiatives can build capacity and engagement with the arts. But it further argues that this requires long term commitment and investment, to facilitate shared decision making between professionals and public.
Carroll 1987 Can Government Funding of the Arts be Justified Theoretically
The question addressed in this article-Can government art suppo fied theoretically?-might elicit an abrupt response: "Perhaps n what, that is, why should it require a theoretical justification? democracy, the citizens favor public arts funding, then public ing is what we should have. But the suspicion is abroad that th does not favor the use of public money for arts funding. The that Americans may not endorse arts funding indicates that so cation, in terms of the right and proper activity of the state (i.e. ical justification), would be demanded if state funding were to c a context of public disapproval. Of course, we cannot claim to k the majority does disapprove of government arts funding. Rat prospect merely recommends that justifications be prepared. Fur charges, quite plausible ones, have been made that public arts fu marily benefits the already advantaged. And this suggests y reason why a theoretical justification ought to be produced. Th of this article is to explore various avenues for justifying arts fu results are mixed. Some grounds for government arts funding a but it is noted that in embracing these justifications untow quences may be incurred. Thus, it is urged that we refrain fro ment funding of the arts because the effects of such funding, w by the kinds of justifications available, would be deleterious to world. However, the conclusions of this article are provisional; t reason to believe that someone may not construct better justific government arts funding than those examined here. The question, Are there theoretical grounds for government a ing? is unwieldy and needs trimming. First, what does "funding
This paper presents a set of arts indicators for local government, developed particularly for Australia. It includes a brief overview of the emerging international literature around arts and ‘cultural’ indicators, and focuses particularly on ideas that have informed the current project, especially the work of Maria Jackson and colleagues from the USA. This framework is underpinned by the values explicated in Hawkes (2001), that cultural vitality is as important a dimension of sustainable communities as the other dimensions of economic viability, social equity and environmental sustainability. The indicators framework has been developed to measure the contribution of the arts to the cultural vitality, economic viability, social equity and environmental sustainability of local communities. The framework has four major categories of indicators; presence of opportunities to participate in the arts, rates of participation, support arts activity and outcomes of arts activity. The first such initiative in Australia, this framework is undergoing extensive discussion and redevelopment throughout 2010.
Community Arts and Cultural Policy
This doctoral research investigates Australian cultural policy in relation to the community arts. Interviewed arts and cultural policy managers agree that culture does not need to be mandated. Due to shifting and conflicting arguments in relation to funding the arts, devolution for responsibility for community cultural development has devolved to local government. Also ambiguity persists over what is meant by the terms ‘community’ and ‘culture,’ contributing to an unresolved debate in relation to legitimated creative expressions of national identity. In the absence of a national cultural policy, the megatrend emerges for culture to be relegated as a subset of local government social and economic planning and management. A trend also emerges for local government to rely on key individuals to initiate and sustain community cultural aspirations. Interviewed creative practitioners demonstrate a trend particularly across regional Australia of a storytelling practice that applies the narrative arts. The paper consequently proposes a definition of culture as the collective expression of identity in relation to place.
New modes of arts participation and the limits of cultural indicators for local government
A common characteristic of neo-liberal modes of government is an emphasis on quantifiable outcomes for the delivery of public services. This is increasingly evident in assessments of local government performance. Meanwhile, new modes of arts participation mean that community involvement in the arts can no longer be measured simply by box office data. The measurement of local government achievement of cultural goals has become more complex at the same time as it has become more common. This article brings together two bodies of literature: critical literature on the trend towards measuring public service performance and literature on community participation in the arts. It identifies a nascent shift towards a standardised system of measurement of community participation in the arts. Using a case study of Australian local government cultural strategies, it examines how the definition of community participation in the arts varies and the extent of a council’s commitment to measuring participation. The article finds that the definition of participation varies greatly with the characteristics of the municipality. It is argued that a common understanding of the meaning of participation and a standardised system of measurement would risk jeopardising a council’s capacity to respond to its highly context-specific needs.
Local Global: Identity, Security, Community, 2010
Over the past 30 years of community cultural development policy and practice in Australia, artists and communities have been stimulating dialogue and developing cultural expression though collaborative and creative practice. Growing evidence has been collected regarding the instrumental benefits, such as increasing 'social capital', economic development and health outcomes. However, there remains little critical attention paid to the intrinsic artistic values of this practice. This diverse field is inherently interdisciplinary, and, like traditional art forms, follows particular principles and ethics. Without a clearly articulated aesthetic, it is often overlooked as non-professional art practice. This paper argues that more attention needs to be paid to the artistic merits of this field as socially engaged arts practice, and to do so, three inter-related lenses for the practice are considered: an art history context, cultural development theory, and the ever-changing Australia Council's community arts policy.
92 State and Provincial Art Councils : A Framework for Analysis
2001
Analyses of public funding of the arts have traditionally focused either on the justifications for state support, or on the rent seeking behavior of art producers and administrators. This article argues that each of these approaches neglects a key consideration: how the goals and values of citizens and taxpayers are ultimately translated into publicly funded works of art and arts institutions. A research framework is proposed that focuses on the series of political and informational exchanges surrounding the activities of state and provincial arts councils. A substantial literature has developed over the past decade that draws attention to the transaction costs involved in governance relationships. The public funding of art is particularly prone to such transaction costs, and these must be considered in the design and assessment of state and provincial cultural policy.