Comments on: Adler: Quality arts require government protection

By: Nic

Nic — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: David Sanderson

David Sanderson — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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?

By: Tom McLoughlin

Tom McLoughlin — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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 ….

By: mikey

mikey — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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

By: simon

simon — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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?