When one moves from the northern to the southern hemisphere, the shift in context is total. Even the stars suffer a topsy-turvy turn, and the sunlight that once intuitively directed in the right direction now quietly deceives; a sorted of mysterious cheated feeling sinks in. Why can’t I find north? This is especially troubling when one is trying to give it a go at social assimilation, because even when one might feel like they’ve “got it”, a persistent niggle says otherwise. Blame it on astronomy maybe, or just a stubborn disposition, either way it can make for long nights.
As I am a recent émigré to the city of Adelaide from the United States — somewhere near Seattle, best known as the stomping grounds of Kurt Cobain, K Records and home to the world’s best coffee (not Starbuck’s!) — the slow process of “getting it” has just begun. As a designer and musician, I have been deeply curious about just what makes up the “art industry” in this part of the wonderful world. The seeming abundance of bands, venues, nightly gigs and regular festivals were motivating factors in moving here, and I am looking forward to getting to know as many musos and others involved in what appears to be a flowering culture of the arts. But up to this point I had been naive about the way things are done here. As I started digging, I found some aspects that were quite surprising, and felt like I had to write this stuff down to help myself come to terms with what is a very different structure than what I knew back in the States — not to say better or worse, just very different. I am talking more about the business side of things and, to be blunt, how deeply involved the SA government seems to be with artists and many major events (their logo seems to appear on just about everything… http://www.creativesa.org/). The following is a sort of personal list of pros and cons about government involvement in the arts, and my attempt at a brain twist to see things from what is a new perspective for me.
Naturally, I start with the negations. Obviously these will grow out of a bunch of prior assumptions I bring with me from my past experience. “This doesn’t taste like Swiss chocolate” can only be spoken by those who have tasted. I have always worked best if I line up the sticky-wickets and have a go. So, first, the cons.
Government is designed — and more specifically Australian democratic government — as an egalitarian entity, representing the just interests of every person as far as they are able. This is a noble perspective when it comes to juridical concerns and should be applauded, but in the field of aesthetics, it means a flattening of expectations. In other words, everyone should have access, but by the very principle of equal-share implied by the political philosophy, no one can be excluded. Every artist that seeks funding or support is by virtue of an equal society free to share in that society’s tax-funded services. Now whether this actually happens is questionable, but the basic principle of government supported arts, implies that every citizen who claims to be an artist should have access, regardless of the quality or lasting significance of their work. No curating is allowed.
Government investment in the arts stifles profitable, private investment and a competitive, artistic marketplace. A lasting music industry infrastructure cannot compete with government “free” services that are the purvey of the private sector. Granted, the expansive industry in the United States has been problematic and at times presented a seemingly impenetrable wall to the working artist. For many it is just a monster. But there can be no doubt that it has also been the source of deep and lasting economic and artistic advancement for those who have worked within and understood the ins and outs of the institution. The experience and work-ethic of the U.S. music scene is driven by an entrepreneurial spirit that is based soundly on enterprise free from government investment or involvement. That same infrastructure could not have come into existence if government had offered services or access that competed with the private sector. Not to twist the thorn, but it is still a common story that an Australian artist must go elsewhere to “make it” and the reason for this may lie in the government’s misguided attempts at creating an industry. (The story of FORMAT (1), (2) is one to ponder in regards to government subsidies and the control of artistic direction).
Government involvement in the arts has the potential to stifle expressions of political and social dissent. A key ingredient of many great works as well as musical movements throughout history has been an open wrestling with the question of legitimate authority and the abuse thereof. Poetic dissent has been a motivating factor behind the American jazz scene, the international punk rock movement, many of the great Jamaican roots songs, and even rock and roll to varying degrees. Imagine Joe Strummer writing the lyrics to “Clamp Down” whilst on the government payroll or “Robert Nestor Marley, Government Musician”. Disingenuous perhaps? For both the government and the artist to maintain their integrity, it is necessary that both keep to their respective fields, and recognize the roles each are responsible to fulfill.
Government involvement with the arts requires a secular or neutralist bias towards the arts. This is less true in those contexts in which a particular faith or religious expression is generally accepted, but within an egalitarian, democratic political structure the irony is that those artists who hold to a particular faith-expression will face exclusion on the basis of the very ideals that are meant to protect personal freedoms. Government oversight and sponsorship requires that no one form of religious, artistic expression be put forth as the final truth. The government is not necessarily free to discriminate between religions, but the presence of government sponsored work suggests that it must do so in its role as representative of all citizens.
And now, the pros…
Government sponsorship of the arts could make possible the creation of work that exists without the marketplace in mind. The public, buying audience may not have the taste or foresight to accept and support artists that are ahead of their time, that express a motive that is not yet communally expressed. Government sponsorship can sustain the creative work of an artist for future success, for a time when the market is ready.
Government sponsorship can provide time to work for the art’s sake, to create works that are experimental and educational for the artist themselves and not for a paycheck or stipend. Great works are often born when no particular end is in mind. This takes time and economic freedom, two things that are difficult to come by when the artist is working a day job to support themselves and perhaps a family as well.
Government sponsorship may create a more communal, social awareness in the artist.
Conclusion
After sorting through my list, I found myself still unsure of just what to conclude. My prior assumptions make me want to error on the side of total privatization: get government out of the “industry” completely. But that seems unrealistic given how dependent SA is as a festival state, and the government funding of most of the major events that take place here. The notion of non-profit driven music endeavors is simply bad-business where I come from, but the abundance of artists and the opportunities to showcase work is refreshing. Balancing out economic concerns with the social benefits is not always easy, and when it comes to the arts, the social aspect can oftentimes trump the economic. Artists don’t mind starving as long as they get to make their art. But sustaining artistic growth, especially for musicians, will require a more long-term solution, one that must eventuate in economic sustainability, that is, home-grown, profit-making music businesses and events.
In the past patronage was enacted by private citizens, the Medici family of Florence being the classic model of the perfect benefactors. Michelangelo was a recipient of Lorenzo’s generosity, and the world benefitted. In lieu of any private sponsorship, governmental sponsorship may suffice at least temporarily. I take it as a truism that the wealthy have an obligation to support the arts, to be patrons of artists and to care for their welfare. Not simply as investors in past works or forms, but as supporters of future artists in all areas of creativity and new forms of expression.
No comments:
Post a Comment