Motivation to paint
Introduction
Explaining the unexplainable
Existence
I think therefore I am
Impressionalism
Visualise the feeling
Self-portraits
Who am I?
Art that I like
Australia
Beauty in the wasteland
Europe
The underbelly
Iconography
Picture writing
Chinese Art
Traditional and modern
Pro Hart - Grasshopper
Government Involvement in the Arts
"When these relationships are investigated, it is clear that artistic and cultural forms that rely most heavily on government are the least popular. Moreover, these are the art forms consumed by audiences with the greatest capacity to purchase the culture they desire...Conversely, those artistic and cultural forms that rely least on government support are consumed in greater quantity, are more likely to have a mixed consumer base, and tend to offer greater choice." from Re-visioning Arts and Cultural Policy - Jennifer Craik
Government involvement in the arts, either via censorship or by funding, has always been a prickly topic. Some of the problems were seen in the early 20th century when Australia's early global dominance in the film industry was destroyed by Australia's state governments banning the bushranging genre of films. Consequently, instead of watching bushrangers duel with troopers, Australians grew up watching Cowboys shoot Indians. More recently, the film revival of the 70s and 80s was destroyed by government funding of objectionable films. Not only did the government films compete with the private films, they also insulted the audience in a way that alienated them from all Australian cinema.
Personally, I don't think there was any intended malice in the government's actions. However, I do think there was a certain economic inevitability that they should have been able to see. Whenever a government subsidises an industry, the market is flooded with crap. As a result, the market sees all the crap and turns away from it. This in turn makes the industry more dependent on government subsidies and a vicious cycle is created.
Government funding for the arts is particularly bad for me as an artist. If I want to make a living out of art, I must compete with all the government funded crap being produced. Furthermore, I have to struggle with the government funded crap alienating the market, which in turn reduces the popularity of the industry as a whole. Finally, government funded galleries have an interest in promoting government-funded friendly art. If artists can succeed without funding, then they undermine the gallery's own funding applications. Although that doesn't mean the galleries will only promote artists that receive grants, it does mean they don't look kindly upon people like myself who fail to conform to the ideology of their specific subculture.
The story of Pro Hart showed how it is still possible for private individuals to succeed, but also how that success can be curtailed by vested interests funded by government, and how the whole industry suffers as a result. Pro Hart was Australia's most commercially successful artist of the 20th century. From his home in Broken Hill, he gained a strong following amongst the working classes who have traditionally been hostile to the arts. Not only did the following make Hart a rich man, it also changed Broken Hill. Where once Broken Hill was nothing but a mining and drinking city, due to Hart, the city developed an appreciation for the arts. So much so, pubs were converted to art galleries.
What Hart did for Broken Hill could have been replicated Australia wide if the public galleries had embraced him. Unfortunately, the public galleries treated Hart with contempt. Alan Dodge, Director of Art Gallery of Western Australia, said of Hart,
"He is one of the most delightful illustrators of the Australian folk idiom, but let's not use the word art anywhere."
Derogatory sentiments were also uttered by Barry Pearce, the head curator of Australian art at the gallery of New South Wales. According to Pearce, comparing Hart with the artists who normally hang in the gallery would be "rather like Slim Dusty being compared to Mozart."
In 2005, I had the opportunity to see some of the works of the "Mozarts" that Pearce was referring to. One of them was an artist's name in Italic letters. Another one was vinyl records on the wall accompanied by an explanation. Maybe I am naïve, but the works seemed more reminiscent of a child banging on a triangle than a great European composure.
The thinking of the Dodges and Pearces of Australia can only prevail when funded by the government. As long as that funding remains, public galleries will continue to turn off the general public with their crap, and mainstream Australia will continue to maintain a hostility to arts. In the eyes of the public galleries, being popular diminishes an artist's worth because popularity undermines the justification for government funding. Furthermore, popularity undermines the gallerys' ability to be the kingmakers.
Aside from the economic argument against government intervention in the art, I also think there is also a concern about the government using the arts for propaganda purposes. This fact has even been admitted by politicians themselves. In 2007, the federal arts minister George Brandis accused the left of an instrumentalist attitude to the arts. According to Brandis,
"The problem about parties of the left is that their attitude to the arts is defined by instrumentalism. What artists do is not valued for its own sake. Rather the arts are seen as a means to some other end: an appendix to social policy, a vehicle for social change, an instrument for political causes, a propaganda tool."
Surprisingly, even some commentators of the left agreed with him. One such commentator was Alison Croggon, Melbourne theatre critic. However, Croggon then qualified her agreement by saying,
"He doesn't mention the instrumentalism of the right, which expresses itself as a form of economic rationalism, a version of the arts-as-tourism credo."
Where I disagree with the likes of Croggon is that the moment artists want to make a living out of their work they become entrepreneurs and need to be governed by economic rationalism. That doesn't mean that an economically rational decision can't have scope for an appreciation of the intangible, or emotional stimulation. For example, the economically rational forces that motivate the market to part with their hard-earned cash to feel the emotion of a football game, or enjoy the sights of a holiday, are similar to the forces that motivate someone to buy art. In a nutshell, there is nothing economically irrational about buying art. Croggon really should have been able to appreciate this. The fact that she can't makes me question what art really means to her. I would guess she wants the government to support artist, but is too much of a tight-arse to purchase art herself. In a word, she doesn't love art.
In any case, I am far more comfortable putting my art for sale than I am trying to justify it in a funding application. Furthermore, I think people in the private sector are more likely to see the benefits of the intangible than are people in the public sector. Public servants have a load of taxpayer money that they need to allocate using some kind of "pragmatic" justification. It is not a public servant's job to be driven by emotion, feeling, curiosity or by an appreciation of the intangible. As a consequence, they simply can't shape the arts in a positive way. It would be far better if they concentrated on how to best allocate money for schools, hospitals or public infrastructure. Art is best left alone for the artists and art lovers.
Judging Art