Comments on: Crowdsourcing a cultural policy?

By: john

john — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:30:49 +0000

The problem with “audience development” – that is building demand.” — paying people to be audiences is very costly, so costly that there is nothing leftover to pay for artists to make art is by now pretty obvious.
As for “developing programs that fund cultural activites in response to a demand” the various boards have for decades found ways to subvert the many government attempts to force them into such a minor supporting role .
Early in the OZCO history there were reported problems with payments to “phantom employees ” ; ‘art’ entities that in reality were constructs of the council. The concept behind this has over the decades proved to be useful — management paid to be ,phantom audiences .

By: Peter Anderson

Peter Anderson — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:58:49 +0000

The relationship between arts funding and ’supply and demand’ arguments is an interesting one. On numerous occasions in debates about government support for the arts, the issue of how to focus on the ‘demand’ rather than the ’supply’ side has been raised. One factor in this debate is the way that most ‘demand’ for support for the arts comes from within the arts, rather than though a broader notion of the ‘market’ – leading to the argument that bodies like the Australia Council have become a ‘captive of their clients’ (see the report Patronage Power and The Muse from 1986 for an early version of this argument – it explictly argued that the Australia Council had become a ‘captive of its clients’, suggesting that the only justification for arts funding was a notion of ‘public benefit’.).

Further, one key argument in favour of government funding of the arts is because of ‘market failure’ – the arts need to be funded because there is not enough demand to ensure supply without it (the public benefit being the provision of a wide mix of arts activities, some of which would wither without support). This is certainly the argument for funding opera, rather than rock music (which, if I recall correctly, is the example Prof. David Throsby once used when explaining this justification for government arts support).

One way the OZCO has shifted its focus to the ‘demand side’ is to look at ways of supporting ‘audience development’ – that is building demand. This is quite different from developing programs that fund cultural activites in response to a demand.

I guess one part of the problem for a cultural policy is working out which ‘demand’ to listen to … and why. It might, for example, be decided that ‘market forces’ (however you like to think of them) should dictate, with there being no clear role for the government to play in ’shaping culture’. In other words, the policy could be that the government does not have a policy – and that it gets out of the area of arts and cultural funding completely.
Which still leaves the problem of adjacent policy and its impact on culture … from IP law to tax incentives, graffiti bylaws and building regulations.

By: john

john — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:21:00 +0000

I have just had a read of the ‘Crowdsourcing’ and you’r right, it is all over the shop.
Judging by the posts there is a very big disconnect about
arts-cultural policy and what it might actually mean.
It might help if there was some sort of guide as to what it is definitely not.
Personally I think it reflects this; the funded arts system has largely lost touch with reality, it has been in a huddle talking to itself for far to long. It has blindly focused on supply of art and ignored demand and demand ,in this case, is the world outside the little room called art.