• Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email

Has Australia’s artist-centric arts funding model led artists to produce what benefits them, rather than what the citizens who pay for it all actually want to see? Jason Potts makes the case.

Malcolm Turnbull wants to be a 21st century leader of a 21st century government with a 21st century frontbench. So how might that translate into a 21st century Australian arts policy? First, let’s take a look at how we got here.

Arts policy began in the depths of World War II Britain with the formation of the Committee for the Encouragement for Music and the Arts, the forerunner of all modern Arts Councils, the first chair of which was the arts patron and economist John Maynard Keynes.

John Maynard Keynes, a profoundly influential British economist, shaped the future of culture funding.Modern arts policy has never really departed much from this initial charter of Keynesian-type tax-and-transfer justifications and centralized elite representation. This can be observed plainly in the International Federation of Arts Councils and Cultural Agencies, which, for all its new-management speak of “good practice guides”, is still an industry lobby devoted to spending taxpayer money on its clients. This is not the place to look for 21st century solutions.

To bring arts policy into the 21st century, we need to update and correct the basic economic flaws that were baked into the mid-20th century model. We must recognise that: (1) the once plausible market failure justification is no longer, (2) producer-focused industry protection has systematically failed, and (3) that an elite, protectionist focus is unsustainable... Keep reading on The Conversation