A Study of Australia’s Public Support of the Arts and Potential Applications in America
In 2009, the budget for the National Endowment for the Arts which serves a population of 305 million people was $155 million dollars (approximately 50 cents per person), while the equivalent Australian institution, the Australian Council for the Arts, serves a population of only 21 million but spends 156 million AUD or $125 million American dollars (approx. $6 per person). And while the NEA is the only government-funded source of arts support, the Australian government has many levels of arts support beyond the boundaries of the Australian Council. An examination of Australia’s very public support for the arts and the benefits or problems resulting from those policies is likely to benefit American artists and arts leadership as they struggle to maintain a position in the marketplace in the midst of a world-wide economic crisis.
To understand Australia’s generous public support of the arts, one must first understand the political and social framework upon which that government support rests. Deakin University professors Katya Johanson and Hilary Glow argue Australia’s political system is more driven by ideology than those of other governments (including the U.S. and Canada), and the ideology of the two major political parties — the Australian Labor Party (hereafter referred to as the ALP) or the National Party Coalition (NPC), also known as the Liberal Party — have been the most influential forces behind Australian support of the arts (2002).
The ALP arose from the 1890s labor movement, and the conservative NPC, founded in 1910, was formed in reaction to the election of Australia’s first ALP government. ALP’s platform began with democratic socialism and includes as its priorities public enterprise, full employment and full civil rights, while the NPC’s platform includes promotion of individual and states’ rights, free enterprise, and profit making. Johanson and Glow (2002) studied the influence of the two major Australian political parties on Australia’s federally funded cultural development from the 1970s forward and attribute the push for cultural funding of the arts directly to the NPC administrations of Harold Holt (Prime Minister from 1966 to 1967) and John Gorton (1968-71) and the ALP’s Gough Whitlam (1972-75).
In the 1960s Australia was apparently ready for a cultural push. The country was pulling away from a sense of ‘Britishness,’ and struggling to establish its own identity free of the concept of empire (Ward 2005, Caust 2003, Stevenson 2005). Among a large amount of supporting documentation of that fact, Stuart Ward (2005) notes a October 4, 1966 Sydney Morning Herald article which stated a national cultural policy was “our most urgent cultural need” and the June 29, 1968 Bulletin article which references the “need to dispel the idea of Australia as nothing but a provincial British backwater.”
Arts lobbying and print media efforts were successful in pushing for public subsidies to further the arts, and Prime Minister Holt soon established the Australian Council for the Arts – an entity akin to America’s NEA but with a broader mission clearly linked to Australian identity and with an aim to generate demand for a national cultural product (Caust 2002, Ward 2005).
After Holt, Australian Prime Minister John Gorton continued to increase public support to the Australian Council and added support for the independent Australian film industry. A 1969 Australian Council study tasked with finding ways to support Australia’s film industry and support the new nationalism began with a statement referencing the American Constitution, declaring support of the film and television industry was a self-evident national interest (Ward 2005).
After Gorton, another push for national identity formed, raising questions of national literacy and sophistication along with a call for Australia to assume its rightful place in the world. Prime Minister Whitlam’s Labor party swept into office on the tide, and continued to build the nature and work of the Australian Council for the Arts with an even larger budget for the Australian Council and other government arts organizations. Whitlam was himself an avid proponent of the arts, and his policies led to major funding of more traditional art forms such as opera, ballet, symphony. But this led to criticism that the ALP had abandoned labor ideology by reinforcing the interests of the elite (Johanson and Glow 2008, Ward 2005).
Whitlam was ousted in 1975, and the new government, led by conservative Malcolm Fraser, not only continued to support arts funding but increased funding with an emphasis on community arts programming — a move that might have seemed more appropriate in the former administration (Johanson and Glow 2008, Ward 2005). But Fraser saw this policy as fitting NPC’ political ideology, because it was giving power to communities to make their own choices and not limiting arts support to government sources. In 1977 Fraser authorized the formation of the Community Arts Board, an arm of the Australian Council with a goal of shifting monies away from government spending toward deals made with local and state government organizations (Johanson and Glow 2008).
The next administration, that of Labor party Prime Minister Bob Hawke, was focused on a new issue of the day: decreasing Australia’s national debt. The ALP’s solution was to encourage Australia’s export industry. Due to the influence of Australian Council Chair Donald Horne and other arts leaders, the ALP government became convinced culture could be a valuable export, and an investment in cultural creativity could provide Australia with the competitive edge necessary to compete in the international marketplace (Ward 2005). This was the same argument made by the Australian Council’s Film Committee in 1968: national support of the film industry in order to encourage trade and international relations (Johanson and Glow 2008).
During the 1980s, Australia established the Cultural Ministers Council to work with the government of New Zealand to collaborate and develop arts and culture. According to Deborah Stevenson, Deputy Director of the Cultural Industries and Practices Centre at the University of Newcastle, cultural planning as a means of nurturing local arts and encouraging creativity and cultural identity was first “sold” to federal and state arts organizations – then local governments (2003). A new take on the arts, Cultural Planning would promote the arts while taking into consideration public and economic needs: placin the arts and artists into the local planning processes for roads, public landmarks, city center planning, etc. Cultural Planning emphasized the concept of culture rather than the arts, and focused on improvements to public services, byways and cities in ways that could improve quality of life and local economies including the ever-important Australian tourism industry. This seemed to be a win-win: Cultural Planning could keep art and artists in the forefront of the national conscience, while completely side-stepping the issue of elitism or a misuse of government funds (Stevenson 2003).
In short, economic rationalists had taken over. After this period, government began describing the arts as “cultural industry” or “creative industry”. It also broadened the definition of the arts to include broadcasting, fashion, multi-media, journalism, publishing, the music industry and all commercial and non-profit arts activities (Caust 2003). While not required, local government requested cities create their own cultural plans, and phrases such as “creative city,” “creative capacity,” and “creative class” came into play, with the words “creativity” and “culture” often used interchangeably (Stevenson 2003).
ALP Prime Minister Paul Keating entered office in 1991. A personal proponent of the arts, Keating increased all arts funding, calling ideas and art “the fountainhead” on which to base the country’s growth, summarizing his philosophy, saying:
“ The Arts and industry are one, can be one, should be one, because… both give of the sense of creativity which this country has… We’ll never get pride from a truckload of coal” (Johanson and Glow, 44)
Keating justified the increase in arts funding to support of Australia’s burgeoning tourist industry, as well as a new federal work: reconciliation with Australia’s indigenous people (Grishin 2008, Johanson and Glow 2008). In 1994, the Keating government published a report, Creative Nation, which laid out a mission statement for Australian arts, the scope of which spanned everything from preservation of cultural heritage to support of emerging technologies with an emphasis on strengthening cultural uniqueness and making the arts accessible to every Australian. But it also grounded the argument in economic terms, encouraging cross-fertilization of ideas to create new products and markets and its ensuing wealth, as well as “user-pay” as a justification for support of the arts. Johanson and Glow note this report marked a huge shift away from the concept of an arts community to that of an arts industry (2008).
In 1996, the NCR came back into power through conservative John Howard. With no prior relationship to the arts or to its leadership, Howard was only interested in the “Arts as industry” concept outlined in Creative Nation. While he did continue to support arts funding, there was a new emphasis on finding new audiences, marketing and promotion rather than artistic development. Corporate investment in the arts increased — in keeping, perhaps, with the philosophy of using the arts to create a competitive edge in the marketplace. In 2007, the ALP came back into power with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and promised to secure the Australian Council and call for further support of indigenous arts and arts and crafts, but since his election there has been no strong statement of arts policy nor a plan for its increase, a disappointment to current proponents of the arts in Australia (Murn 2008, De Roeper 2008, Johanson and Glow 2008). As a Conservative Christian, Kevin Rudd appears to eschew the pursuit of art for arts sake. He publicly criticized the July 2008 tax-payer funded Art Monthly Australia magazine for its choice of cover art: a photograph of a six-year old girl (carefully posed) whose image was in response to recent censorship of a photography exhibit with similarly posed subjects (The Independent, July 7, 2008).
Australia’s level of public arts funding has waned in recent years due to political pressure resulting from the downturn in the world economy and the strain on Australia’s resource (Murn 2008, De Roeper 2008), but it remains tremendously high compared to that of the United States.
According to the Australian Council for the Arts, in 2006-07 the Council provided $156 million in total funding through 1799 grants, projects and initiatives to artists and arts organizations. This funding supported the creation of 4476 new artistic works, the presentation of 3636 new artistic works and 9.3 million attendances at arts events.
The Australian Council - invests in the creativity of the nation’s artists and opportunities for all Australians to enjoy their work- supports Australian artists and arts organizations through funding programs - builds the capacity of the arts sector by providing advice and operational resources - researches the arts and culture to underpin our programs and the development of arts policy - develops cultural policy and advises governments on issues relating to the arts - facilitates partnerships between artists, governments and business that build a stronger arts sector - promotes the value of the arts and helps build new audiences at home and overseas - advocates with governments and the community to increase the role of the arts in the lives of Australians
The downturn in the world economy since 2002 has had a strong effect on Australian Arts policy. Corporate sponsorship has fallen since 1990s and that the government is becoming overly concerned with whether arts organizations can be fiscally responsible and thereby avoid government bailouts — the result being art skewed toward the “safer stuff” (Murn 2008, Johanson and Glow 2008, De Roeper 2008, Caust 2008).
“… for the Cultural gatekeepers the greatest responsibility was fiscal: they considered themselves accountable primarily to the investors, government funding bodies, and corporate and private sponsors who support production.” (De Roeper, 66)
Christopher Murn argues that granting entities are playing it safe and only supporting established, larger art organizations and institutions, noting that of the 156 million AUD provided to the arts i 2007 by the Australian Council, 63 million went to orchestras; moreover restrictions such as occupancy and flier and poster permits as well as liquor licenses are all on the increase (2008).
“If government are really serious about creating culturally rich communities, rather than focusing on the controversial issue of government arts subsidies, they must first remove the regulatory impediments that smother creativity and innovation.” (Murn 2008)
Jo Caust notes change in a previous strength — arts leadership in high profile government positions — with current responsibility for the Arts divided into two ministers’ posts, neither of which make the arts priority (2008).
Caust sees the following progression: in the 70s, the emphasis was on arts excellence; in the 80s, the emphasis was on access and equity, and in the 90s art was about being commercial, exportable and cost-efficient — a clear switch from the needs of the artists to the needs of consumers (2008). By 2005, even the concept of Cultural Planning had disappeared from the Australian Council website (Stevenson 2005). These days arts organizations are rewarded for making profit — not for achieving artistic excellence or succeeding in community outreach. Grant committees that used to facilitate new forms of art dismiss any that appears too outside the cultural norm and provide grants to organizations who can secure production contracts or present a new marketing scheme (Caust 2008). In short, after 40 years of consistent cultural progression, Australia may be returning to the old artists’ conundrum: fit your art to the norm and sell your soul, or pursue true art and starve.
To be fair, it can be argued that Australian support of the arts in all its iterations has always been economically motivated, for even the pursuit of a national identity must necessarily involve a desire for economic success to justify national pride. Australian arts’ growth has been intrinsically linked to Australia’s economic growth – a cooperative agreement of mutual benefit.
In contrast, the mission statement of the National Endowment of the Arts — an organization formed in 1965 by Lyndon Baines Johnson’s administration — also promises access to the arts and arts education to all Americans and resources to build up arts organizations, but, unlike Australia, the NEA does not provide a resource for cultural policy, build a stronger arts sector by facilitating partnerships between artists, government and businesses or advocate with government and the community to increase the role of the arts, and is focused on supporting American artists in America rather than increase the profile of American arts on the international stage.
And while the American government has little other commitment to public arts than the NEA, Australia has a myriad of other avenues of public arts support to ensure that the arts remain a cultural priority. According to the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 5.5 billion is spent each year in Australia in support ofof arts and cultural and heritage (4.4 billion US), resulting in an arts and related industries sector of around $34 billion (27.2 billion US). Although it is difficult to accurately compare public participation in the arts in America and Australia due to the format of census questions and categories, a cursory comparison of 2005 statistics shows Australians strongly trump Americans when it comes to attending live performances, arts events or institutions.
In summary, Australia’s emphasis on the support of the arts arose through politicians effectively arguing the strong need for a new national identity, and over the years continued to justify strong support through a myriad of arguments including (but not limited to) “arts as industry,” “arts as export,” “arts as improver of quality of life,” and “arts as improver of civic planning.” To Australia’s great credit, the casual observer of Australian life will sees the strong results of these choices everywhere — from national opera houses to public pools. There cutting edge art stands alongside traditional indigenous works and hold a respected and very public place in everyday life.
Conversely, American support of culture began with the Works Progress Administration’s art programs of the 1930s but was soon waylaid by political argument. Momentum for a national arts policy died as each WPA arts program was eventually closed ((Mankin 1978, Mathews 1975, Rosenzweig 1990). The concept of a national arts council was not revived until LBJ’s establishment of the National Endowment for the Arts. In response to the recent economic crisis, President Obama’s administration pledged monies toward support of arts administrators and used the NEA’s granting entities to make the choices (www.nea.gov). This is far from the WPA’s direct support of artists, but it is a safe choice considering the current American attitude toward public support of the arts.
But if one sees Australia’s experience as an example of how true arts can be encouraged to benefit a community in myriad ways, Americans should consider the following changes to arts policy:
- American arts leadership could work to become a deeper part of public administration and relationships formed not only with current administrators but potential administrators;
- The arts could be re-defined as cultural arts, with an emphasis on a uniquely American identity as a means of avoiding labeling as elitist;
- The NEA could be pushed to include several of the roles taken on by the Australian Council for the Arts, such as working with businesses and local government to form partnerships with artists, and working to promote a higher international profile for American arts;
- Further study could be made to discover what economic benefits and increases to quality of life occur from public support of the arts;
- At little cost to government, Cultural Planning could be encouraged at the state, city and community level using Australian concepts;
- American arts leadership could form relationships and partnerships with Australian arts leaders and thereby strengthen both.
Australia has worked hard and to create a new national identity through its support of the arts to improve its arts, its people, its cities, and its institutions. Further study of Australian arts policy by those in American arts leadership is therefore warranted and, by this report, strongly encouraged.
REFERENCES
Australian Council for the Arts website: http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/about_us
Caust, Jo. “Putting the ‘Art’ back into Arts Policy Making: How Arts Policy has been ‘Captured’ by the Economists and the Marketers.” The International Journal of Cultural Policy 9, no. 1 (2003): 51-63.
Cultural Ministers Council of Australia and New Zealand website: http://www.cmc.gov.au/
De Roeper, Julia. “Serving Three Masters: The Cultural Gatekeeper’s Dilemma.” Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society 38, no. 1 (spring 2008): 51-69.
Grishin, Alexander. “A New History of Australian Art: Dialectic between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Art,” The International Journal of the Humanities 6, no. 7 (2008): 59-64.
The Independent, July 8, 2007: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/nude-girl-art-row-flares-in-australia-861720.html
Johanson, Katya and Hilary Glow. “Culture and Political Party Ideology in Australia.” Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society 38, no. 1 (spring 2008): 37-50.
Mankin, Lawrence D. “Public Policymaking and the Arts.” Journal of Aesthetic Education 12, no. 1 (January 1978): 33-44.
Mathews, Jane De Hart. “Arts and the People: The New Deal Quest for a Cultural Democracy.” The Journal of American History 62, no. 2 (September 1975): 316- 339.
Christopher Murn. “Empty Spaces: Government Regulation is Killing Australian Culture.” Institute of Public Affairs, July 2008: 30-31
Rosenzweig, Roy and Barbara Melosh. “Government and the Arts: Voices from the New Deal Era.” The Journal of American History 77, no. 2 (September 1990): 596- 608.
Stevenson, Deborah. “Cultural Planning in Australia: Texts and Contexts.” The Journal of Arts Mangement, Law and Society 35, no. 1(spring 2005): 36-48.
Ward, Stuart. “‘Culture up to our Arseholes’: Projecting Post-Imperial Australia.” Australian Journal of Politics and History 51, no. 1 (2005): 53-66.