TRAVEL DIARY

A weblog regularly updated by Jodi Rose.

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

9:46 AM
Posted by jodi rose

short divergence - here's the article about ozco and some comments from people in the australian sound art community.

The Australian article can be viewed at:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11623578%255E16947,00.html

An article in today's Australian newspaper reports on the Australia Council's decision to axe the New Media Board and the Community Cultural Development Board entirely.

This announcement, expected to be made today, follows a six-month review by the Australia Council.

I don't need to tell you that this extremely conservative decision by the Australia Council has massive ramifications for the future of public funding for innovative arts practice in this country. (sean)

The government are known philistines. But it also looks like yet another attack on the poor in society, with those programmes specifically for the underclass being targeted. "The Arts" are always a soft target, but it's also in line with a lot of other changes such as welfare.

How dependant do people on this list feel on government funding for their projects? Do people want to ark up about this issue, or is it just depressing? (andrew)

Re: government funding projects

(a) it all depends on what you think government is for...

Is government elected by the people, and thus they have mandates to do what they want
or, is government only to represent the needs of the majority
or, is government to represent needs of all voiced and unvoiced minorities

(b) government funds more than we think...

The question is more about 'direct' government funding (ie, an arts grant, or a post-grad uni scholarship) or 'indirect' funding (such as working for a govt org like ABC Radio or the ATO, or a govt subsidised org, like Virgin Blue - remember they have tax concessions in Qld where there head office is)

(c) therefore, in this sense, we are all completely dependent on government funding

I can't go to do any arts activity without drawing on services that have been directly and indirectly funded by government. The roads, electricity, water, my education which led me to my art practice, interesting radio, a variety of local, state and national government divisions.

It could be that in Australia, with the decline of direct Government funding of the arts sector (especially independent and critical practices) that other models will develop, some that we have not even imagined yet.

However, I personally would like the present government to consider what small proportion of funding goes to arts compared to science, sports and primary and secondary industries - and readdress this balance - but this would need the government to recognise the value of CULTURAL TOURSIM (and they don't seem keen on either vibrant cultural diversity [which often appears from the innovative and independent arts] nor vibrant diverse tourism [which means our relationship to peoples from all over the world, especially our south-east Asian neighbourhood - we sometimes seem better a sending people away or keeping them out]).

The recent best-seller amongst policy makers, "The Rise of the Creative Class" by Richard Florida (see
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.florida.html for an excellent SHORT article by Florida himself about the book) seems to address
how to get the creative class (no-collar, diversity-seeking, creative-designers, arts-loving types) to come and stay in your city, since the creative class is where the new economy is deriving its profits - the
creative class is good for business. What Florida doesn't seem to stress is how to HELP creatives be creative, rather he stresses how to help business
and town planners ATTRACT them. But how and where do creatives get creative?
Universities help out but there must be other things (esp since, at least in Australia, lots of very interesting cultural activity occurs outside of
unis). Which is where the debate and discussion about 'creative cities' needs to head perhaps... if it did, then local and state government might bet behind independent festivals like Straight Out of Brisbane (http://www.straightoutofbrisbane.com/) and This is Not Art (http://www.thisisnotart.org/) is a MUCH bigger way.
(Luke)

Which reminds me of a program I heard on The Deep End on Monday:

In the 70s, 80 per cent of all arts funding went to individual artists. Today it's 20 per cent.

According to musician Chris Latham, the problem is that most of the funding pie now goes to the giant corporations like the Sydney Festival, Adelaide Festival, dance companies and state theatre companies. So today's freelance artist is left feeling demoralised, not to mention broke.

In his new essay 'Survival of the Fittest: The Artist Versus the Corporate World' Chris Latham has a proposition for Australian artists - stop complaining, grasp the change, and find new ways to make money.

Chris says artists need to get real and find new ways of engaging with commerce to make money. He thinks artists, who typically compete with each other, need to start collaborating - organising into collectives, or trading skills. He also believes that artists need to take the DIY approach and use the internet to sell their wares.

that's enough of the outside world, back to my bubble now.