David Marr is one of Australia's finest journalists. He delivered the 2005 Philip Parsons Memorial Lecture yesterday on the subject, "Theatre Under [John] Howard:"
"Expensive as they are, the arts need more money - not for the sake of the companies, certainly not for the bureaucrats, and not only for the sake of the artists. For our sake. To release this country's imagination by mining the creativity that's there, waiting to be discovered. In its private soul searching late last year, the Australia Council gave a figure that would transform the arts in this country: another $40 million a year. It's peanuts. It's a few miles of freeway. But there's no limit to where it could take us all."
Marr catalogues the curse of both Liberal and Labor governments wanting art that often reinforces, rather than challenges, the status quo. The problem with government funding is that, by definition, it will be affected by the political winds of the day. Personally, I believe in the concept of taxpayer fund work to shape, mould and provoke the wider community. True market fundamentalists argue that if the private sector can't fund something, it's clearly not worth doing. Wrong. We pay taxes because we want - or certainly I do - governments to support work that both confirms and challenges our own beliefs. That's why we live in a community with people, rather than simply individuals desperate to find the next dollar.
"Expensive as they are, the arts need more money - not for the sake of the companies, certainly not for the bureaucrats, and not only for the sake of the artists. For our sake. To release this country's imagination by mining the creativity that's there, waiting to be discovered. In its private soul searching late last year, the Australia Council gave a figure that would transform the arts in this country: another $40 million a year. It's peanuts. It's a few miles of freeway. But there's no limit to where it could take us all."
Marr catalogues the curse of both Liberal and Labor governments wanting art that often reinforces, rather than challenges, the status quo. The problem with government funding is that, by definition, it will be affected by the political winds of the day. Personally, I believe in the concept of taxpayer fund work to shape, mould and provoke the wider community. True market fundamentalists argue that if the private sector can't fund something, it's clearly not worth doing. Wrong. We pay taxes because we want - or certainly I do - governments to support work that both confirms and challenges our own beliefs. That's why we live in a community with people, rather than simply individuals desperate to find the next dollar.
14 Comments:
I just write about what interests, not really too fussed about the response from readers.
You disagree. Fair enough. Marr is certainly from a different generation to me, but believes in that the state should play an important role in society, not just re interest rates. It's imperfect, though, to be sure.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
And here we see the statist at work.
We pay taxes because we want - or certainly I do - governments to support work that both confirms and challenges our own beliefs.
So you think it's okay for you to enforce your prejudices and priorities onto everyone else? I suppose so - after all, it's what being a leftist is all about. Tell me about how you're an individualist, too - I'd love to see you walk that micrometre-thick tightrope.
Antony, how deeply have you thought about this? Why do you need government to challenge you? And before you cry "that's not what I said!" - think about it. The government doesn't have infinite resources; it can't support everything, thus it has to be selective in what it is to support. So the government is choosing what it's supporting based on the priorities of its constituent parts. What a fabulous outcome! You're being challenged by the government's choice of art, sport, literature, the works. Sounds like serfdom to me. Can't you seek out your own challenges independently? Get up off your knees and have some faith in the independent choice of individuals.
You said it, Paul. Public funding of the arts is one of the most disgraceful boondoggles around.
The Blacktown boilermaker you mentioned, and a whole manner of people in other professions of varying complexity and sophistication, are also likely to be insulated from their "beliefs being challenged" by some over-mighty publicly-funded arts programme. It's just a wet dream of the elitist left-wing - people like Marr. They are so clueless and out of touch, it's laughable.
And the greatest irony is that it's often those whinging about the arts needing greater funding who are least likely to put their hands in their own pockets to support the industry.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
So why aren't private enterprise funding schools
They do. They pay 30% of their profit to the tax man. And they collect a shitload of consumption tax, too.
Trucks cause most of the damage to them, too.
Ever had to pay registration for a truck? I can assure you it's considerably more than your family car. Also, transporting an oversized load requires further (expensive) licencing.
they are the primary beneficiaries of an educated workforce
No they're not, the educated individual who gets a better job is the primary beneficiary.
While we're at it lets get rid of the laws decreeing Australian content on TV
Good idea. Let the market decide.
Lets bring in the 112 hour week.
Nice to see the sane out in action.
BTW, I don't drink or smoke, exercise regularly and eat sensibly, so why should I subsidise the health costs of that Blackstown bloke who stereotypically smokes like a chimney, drinks like a fish, eats nothing but hamburgers, fish and chips or pies and whose only recreational exercise is hitting the buttons on the remote?
I'm glad to see you support user-pays, despite the initial sentiments in your post. I don't like subsidising (or being a burden on) others, either. I'd much rather pay my own way and take responsibility for myself, rather than delegating it to the government. You've arrived at classical liberalism. Congratulations.
Also, Ian, I'm finding it difficult to see how anything you've said in your comment relates to Antony's or Marr's befuddled opinions on arts funding. I'm sorry to inform you, but the publicly-funded arts industry is not analagous to private enterprise.
Oh. And private enterprise also generates a crapload of PAYE income tax through employment of individuals. Oh, and it also collects that tax and pays it to the government. So, Ian Westmore, how is private enterprise shaping up as a financial supporter of schools, roads, hospitals etc?
No. But I never said anything about a disabled lesbian puppet theatre, nor was the person who mentioned it directing their comment at me, so I felt no need to address that issue.
And, DBO, is that all you've got? What about the important points - as opposed to the tangential ones - that I and others have raised?
Paul -
if you mean the concept is silly, you haven't been to many fringe festivals (or the Brisbane Powerhouse)
I don't doubt it. This doesn't, however, justify the case against the existence of such art simply because you or I think it's silly - as I'm sure you agree. I'm also sure you agree that it is those who demand that the state support art (that most think is silly) are also most reluctant to personally support the art they appreciate and promote. For if they did, it wouldn't need government support.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Um. Perhaps you should update your definition of irony, Ian. Remember, Alanis Morissette isn't the best source if you're wanting to improve your vocabulary!
if you believe that business pays anywhere near the real cost of the infrastructure and services governments provide then you are greatly mistaken.
Prove it. You can't. You're just speculating, based on a gut instinct borne out of distrust and lack of understanding of markets. That statement of yours betrays such a deep ignorance that I can barely be bothered. If it weren't for private enterprise we wouldn't have a government to provide infrastructure. How do you think governments get income? Private enterprise is the greatest social force for good we possess.
Anyway, we should re-focus on arts funding. What do you have to counter the arguments made against government arts funding given by boredinhk, Paul, myself etc above?
If it's above 0 it's too high.
That goes for sport as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home