Opinion
March 5 2010
The great arts debate
Does
the value of art lie in its nature as a creative pursuit or its economic
value?
Associate Professor Jo Caust examines why stakeholders have polar
views – and how the conundrum might be solved.
An interesting reality about working in the arts is that there is limited
consensus about what is actually happening.
In a book called ‘Seven days in the Art World’ author and sociologist Sarah Thornton notes that the way art universe is viewed and understood is entirely dependent on where you are located in that world.
So if you are an art dealer, then it may be the price you sell a work, or, if you are the manager of a venue, it might be the number of times the venue is used. For a funder it might be how effective you believe your dollar was used and if you are an audience member, how well you were entertained.
Artists themselves have different views; while Salvador Dali approached his art-production from a position of how to sell it and for how much, other artists are less interested in the notion of selling and more interested in the act of ‘creation’ and finding the space to create.
So depending on where you locate yourself on a spectrum with ‘art for
art’s sake’ at one end and ‘art is business’ at the other, your views on
what you do and how you do it, will be different.
Those who believe arts practice to be a sacred and separate activity that
should never be compromised for baser or instrumental goals, might argue
that the more ‘management practices’ are introduced into the arts
environment, then the more likely it is that the ‘art’ part of the equation
diminishes.
Others who see the ‘management function’ in purely neutral terms may think that managing an arts organisation is the same as managing any activity- managing is managing- so there is no problem how the task of management is undertaken or what is being managed.
From the early seventies when large scale subsidy became a reality in Australia with the founding of both the Australia Council at the Federal level and the state arts funding agencies, there was a perception that limited accountability was expected of artists.
So if you were lucky enough to get a grant then this might mean that as long as you’re were doing good art, and not running off to Morocco with it, then everything was fine. Of course, as the money available for grants tightened, the accountability expectations increased.
The challenge though for the funders was the sort of accountability needed and what weighting should be given to intangible outcomes. So the emphasis increased on the tangible outcomes such as audience numbers, sales and earned income because they were measurable, rather than what was actually being funded, the quality of the art itself.
For the past couple of decades the framing of ‘society’, ‘life’, ‘community’ and ‘culture’ as an ‘economy’ has been uppermost. This has led to a growing assertion that arts practice should pay for itself and not be dependent on government hand outs.
This has also contributed to the re-framing of the arts into an ‘industry’ construct which means that either the arts are seen as part of a developing and important knowledge base industry, deserving government support or, that as part of an industry they need to demonstrate their economic impact and effectiveness and not require subsidy.
This seemingly contradictory argument has produced internal tension and conflict within the arts sector itself. A focus on ‘outcomes’ rather than ‘process’ and ‘procedures’ rather than ‘content’ has decreased understandings and respect for the importance of the work itself.
Strangely contemporary mainstream society talks much about ‘creativity’ but demonstrates little understanding of what it is or how to achieve it. An emphasis on economic outcomes also contributes to a reductionist approach and a focus on what again is purely measurable.
Yet there has been significant changes occurring across the world despite or in spite of the economic mantra and the cultural dominance of the West. Countries in the East are getting more economically powerful as the wealth of the west declines and ‘mother nature’ herself is exerting pressure on society to take a different path to that of economic development at any cost.
In his book ‘Revolution or Renaissance: Making the Transition from an Economic Age to a Cultural Age’ D. Paul Schafer argues that in fact the way forward is acknowledging the necessity of a transition from an economic age to a cultural age so that global harmony, environmental sustainability, economic viability, and human well-being can be achieved.
In ‘Cultural Value and the Crisis of Legitimacy: Why Culture Needs a Democratic Mandate’ author John Holden points out that there is a divide between what politicians and policy makers advocate and what the public and practitioners believe and desire. In the UK in 2007 the Arts Council of England organised the Great Arts Debate. They asked everyone: the general community, artists, decision makers and politicians, what kind of art they would prefer to see and be funded by government?
Most people concluded that innovation is essential to heighten the experience of the arts – even if that experience is sometimes difficult or disturbing. For this reason, the arts need to keep moving and pushing back boundaries.
In another recent UK study commissioned by the Federal Department of Culture, the McMasters Report, undertaken by Sir Brian McMaster, former Director of the Edinburgh International Festival, there was general agreement from the arts community that they would prefer to be judged by the quality of their work and not by how financially profitable they were or whether they had success in achieving government performance measurement targets.
So despite the impact of a reductionist approach in the arts sector there are still many voices requesting a focus on what the arts actually means and the important role it can play in society as a whole.
Associate Professor Jo Caust is the Program Director of the Arts
and Cultural Management Program in the
School of
Management at the University of South Australia. She is also the
Managing Editor of the
Asia Pacific Journal
of Arts and Cultural Management.
Published in the Independent Weekly newspaper on March 5th, 2010