Self-government and the arts (original) (raw)
Related papers
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.