Comments on: Evolution and Creation: Australia’s Funding Bodies (Meanjin Essay)

By: Andrew Mac

Andrew Mac — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:40:48 +0000

Rebecca, Marcus you are both making so much sense here. Marcus, this is some of your best work.

The industry feels stagnant, I feel stagnant, the Culture is stagnant.

Personally, I don’t want funding and all it comes with, but there is zero incentive to keep sustaining initiatives – and taxes, administration and compliance are killing a lot initiatives and stunting growth.

I wonder that there could be more incentives to the commercial and corporate world to get involved (ala USA), alongside a complete overhaul of State funding of arts. Many orgs and artists are funded to a level that engenders failure and low ambition, doesn’t encourage EXPORTING and interaction with international networks. The web is only so good, physically Australia is a cul-de-sac.

By: marcus

marcus — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:13:31 +0000

The question of what is and isn’t for profit is a perenial one and one that is rarely resolved. Most artists are essentially micro for profit enterprises in that they intend to make a living from what they do but often don’t. Similarly there are a whole range of for profit gallerists, producers and publishers who are direcetly and indirectly funded from the public purse. It is a question that needs some serious looking at as it ends up being more than just a for profit v. not for profit question but becomes one of resourcing beaucracy v. iniative.

By: Rebecca Cannon

Rebecca Cannon — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:03:47 +0000

I’d add to your list orgs which are trying to be economically sustainable (by proving this in a for-profit model) which are unable to receive any arts funding because of their for profit status, even if they are going to benefit culture long term.

I’d like to see start-up funding initiatives for building economically sustainable cultural businesses which don’t rely on funding long term.