If the arts sector needed reminding of its lowly status in the free market arcadia the response to my suggestion that the arts need more secure funding should confirm it. It is entertaining for a non-economist to observe the irritation produced by the invocation of that dirty word “protectionism”. It is certainly not surprising to see economic rationalists rush headlong into print at any suggestion of government regulation or even, God forbid, agenda setting. But the reality is that if we want to build a creative country where the arts are available, accessible and of the highest quality, then the government’s protection and material encouragement will be required.
Australian companies producing Australian stories must necessarily compete in a competitive global market. Government assistance is required to ensure that Australian cultural product is manufactured and competitive in that international market place. Given the power and might of the international entertainment industry, surely a citizen of a civilised society might reasonably expect the government of the day to devise policies to protect, nurture and safeguard the national culture?
A modest example from my own patch: despite attempts to create an open market for books on the pretext that books would be cheaper, to date Australian publishers have managed to block the flood of failed product multinational publishers would like to dump in this territory. In holding back the floodgates, Australian publishers have grown an indigenous publishing industry and have now created a prodigious public appetite for Australian stories. With the government’s support in “protecting” our market over 50% of all books sold in Australia are now originated here. With government support we have also built an extremely profitable export business in educational publishing. The “protected” local publishing industry is a genuine success story.
For over twenty years the Booker prize-winning novelist, Peter Carey, refused the lucrative imprecations of global publishing companies. He preferred instead to bring his mighty cultural capital to the University of Queensland Press. Carey understood the principle at stake and eschewed the short-term considerable personal financial gain for the long-term civic aspirations for an authentic, home grown Australian culture.
Eminent economists such as Professor David Throsby have done excellent research as to the economic benefits and contribution to the GDP made by the creative industries. But governments have many objectives of which economic progress is surely but one. If I am given the “talking stick” at the 2020 Summit I will be arguing that the Rudd Government should commit to cultural objectives as part of creating a civilised country.
Australia is internationally recognised as a creative and innovative nation when the Bangarra Dance Company performs in Asia, the Sydney Theatre Company dazzles the cynical theatre crowd in New York, and Australian publishing is the market focus for the Frankfurt Book Fair. Next week I will be part of the Australian presence at the London Book Fair, with the assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I will watch publishers from all over the world pick up a copy of Geoffrey Bardon’s landmark book, Papunya, on the Western Desert art movement. The book was written by a teacher educated when art was still part of the extended secondary school curriculum. The book was published with the support of the great Melbourne philanthropist Russell Grimwade under the Miegunyah Press imprint. The book was originally designed, edited, typeset and printed in Australia. With government support we have now sold rights to the US, UK and European territories. More importantly we have enabled a broad international audience to engage with a remarkable era in indigenous cultural production. Papunya is a choice example of the relationship between authentic local cultural activity and what is required to bring a remarkable story to the global market place.
Without a civic consensus and the political will to safeguard Australian culture, we are doomed to be the unfortunate consumers of second rate and second hand culture.
Louise, you cannot on one hand say Australia needs protectionism from foreign culture and then say how great Australian culture does overseas. If we protect Australian culture, what right do we have to export our culture overseas?
You are a prime example of rentseeking. Not that you would think that is a bad thing.
It is clear that the desirability, and high real estate prices, of the inner areas of Australia’s cities derives in part from the comparitive richness of their cultural resources, which are largely government subsidised. While this richness is valued by most inhabitants it would be impossible to provide them from private money alone. Increased, and more creative, public financing of the arts is essential if we want to live in a country that is vibrant and exciting. What use is all the additional wealth we are creating if we don’t do that?
I get the impression the govt believes the best art comes from planned insecurity, just as Button wound down the tariffs in the 80ies. This may be quite wrong as suggested above, but I would say the govt (both major parties) and certainly industry want artists to suffer, with a degree of sadism in there. Is this another legacy of Van Gogh’s ear? If he could etc ….
Nic, I’m confused, why does ‘protecting’ our culture preclude us from exporting it overseas? Maybe protection should be read in this article as encompassing the concepts of embracing and celebrating our culture and sharing it with others. I’m sure Louise Adler would not deny the oppurtunity for alternative cultures to promote their arts here, i think the thrust of this article is giving a more real and tangible support to Australian artists both for the benefit of Australians and the world.
Exporting our arts does not mean domination and colonising other cultures, which it seems you imply.
By providing adaquate support to the arts we recognise that in this nation we haven’t developed a broad support base for the arts despite the precense of a highly skilled artists, artists who are able to perform on the world stage.
Lets celebrate and embrace our artists and recognise the valuable contribution they make to our society in reflecting our lives, our stories, our homes and our voice
Depending on what sector of the arts you are in, the cultural market is actually rigged against the creators. Example: I make TV documentaries. Australian stories that export abroad . Yet no TV network here will pay anything like the real cost of what it takes to make my product. Despite being either a) publicly funded or b) earning billions from commercial licenses renting public airwaves, the networks collude in rigging the price they will pay…and I’m talking serious price abuse- offering perhaps 25% of the actual cost, if I’m lucky. And so we are forced cap in hand towards the public tit, soon to be administered by that motherly bunch at Tax Office. In any other industry it would be illegal monopolistic practice. But in Australia its typical of the system that makes it all but impossible to establish a true cultural industry. Better ways of doing it can be found ion many places. Britain’s excellent TV is produced in a environment devoid of public subsidy. Why not here?