Cultural Policy in Australia - Essay Example

Cultural Policy in Australia [Name of the Writer] [Name of the Institution] Cultural Policy in Australia Introduction The paper aims to identify, with reference to the recent Australian federal election policies, how has Keating’s Creative Nation had a lasting impact on Cultural policy in Australia? Following this, paper reviews the period, Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating viewed the arts and cultural movement as critical parts in a renewed attention on cultural individuality then Australian cultural policy got an unparalleled level of attention from him. Keating’s government gave Australia, the growth of its first cultural policy declaration, Creative Nation, a structure that keeps figuring the policy precedence of the current day. After Bob Hawke, Paul Keating took place as a prime minister in 1991. Keating’s government governed the public profile of Australian arts and cultures a great enhancement, because Keating was an arts enthusiast, he made it happen. Keating’s government gave a big increase in the Australia Council’s appropriation (Milne 2004). The shape of Australian arts and culture was also joined to Keating’s dream for Australia’s prospect financial and communal feasibility, which involved a attendant group on the road to republicanism, settlement with Australia’s native common people, and growing ties with the Asia Pacific district (Kelly 1994). Brett (2002) positioned when Keating won the 1993 election, he bowed his concentration to big picture problems, attending to Australia’s artistic and nationalised identity (Brett 183). Keating’s big issue was, Brett writes, “extravagant” since he “demanded for manual labor for all the changing enthusiasm in Australia’s political life” (184). According to Keating republicanism was not only as pleasing but as important to Australia’s financial and social benefit. It would make Australia, a bright social democratic system, a performer of stuff in the globe, incorporated with this area and wealthy in a new way that Australia had never been before not only in every consoles but in creation and invention; in order to produce and sell to the world” (Keating 1995, 155). In Keating’s viewpoint artists occupied an important role and they have a sense of cultural individuality that would be vital to the achievement of this change. “The shift we’ve made in this country from just being a quarry and a farm to a great manufacturing society, as we’re becoming, that shift to innovation and manufacturing is a call on the fountainhead, a call upon the ideas and the art” (Keating 1993, 2–3). Keating kept thoughts about cultural identity, republicanism, and business growth as diverse parts of the similar occurrence: “the Arts and industry are one, can be one, should be one, because. . . both give of the sense of creativity which this country has . . . we’ll never get pride from a truckload of coal” (Keating 2–3). Keeping a changed focus on cultural identity was a part of Keating’s nationalist analysis of Australia’s past and his majestic idea for its prospect. It was a dream endorsed by his confidence in a unique Australian autonomy and the magnitude of state self-realisation. But, right that time, this was the period when Australia was commencing to sense the bang of globalisation; that along with Keating’s ideology of free-market had the latent to weaken national limits and heart-felt autonomist feeling. Keating, keeping a foot in each boat, saw analysed himself with a target to reclassify the state (Curran 2004). According to Curran, Keating discarded the thought that due to globalisation the elimination of the nation-state was required and instead sustained “an enduring, central role for government in a globalized world” (208). Keating released Creative Nation in 1994 (Commonwealth of Australia 1994), the first complete artistic policy report by a session government (previous speeches had leaned to be element of a political party’s preelection policy) which set the standard for Australian enriching policy in all its succeeding governments (Smith 2001). Creative Nation declared that Australia’s fragile national cultural identity would preserve by not only being open to the world but also by cultural protectionism (Commonwealth of Australia 1994, 6). As far as Australians are certain about their own heritage value and talents, Australia can advantage from the gathering of imported and national cultures (Commonwealth of Australia 1994, 6). Thus, the Australian $250 million in added financial support that it assured to cultural foundations was geared toward over four years escalating the assortment of civilizing tricks in Australia and encouraging cultural distinctiveness. The government acknowledged five extensive groups in Creative Nation, for centralising the function of cultural expansion: “nurturing creativity and excellence; enabling all Australians to enjoy the widest possible range of cultural experience; preserving Australia’s heritage; promoting the expression of Australia’s cultural identity, including its great diversity; and developing lively and sustainable cultural industries, including those evolving with the emergence of new technologies” (Commonwealth of Australia 1994). For a number of reasons, this new policy structure was momentous. It targeted a new and keen stage of public gratitude of the input of cultural manufacturing to the national financial system. It persisted that culture be taken and stated as a superior and more varied kind of action than that oblique by the arts. It documented, for example, the significance of the latest time and technological arts (Smith 2001). The policy also became a source of elevating political influence of the cultural businesses because for the first time communications and the arts were gathered in the one portfolio that “positioned ‘culture’ or rather, cultural production in a pivotal position at the centre of governmental strategy” (Bennett and Carter 2001, 23). Creative Nation also summarised a novel method of thoughtful the positions and reasons of culture by keeping forward “an industry/economic argument for culture’s significance to the nation” (Bennett and Carter 5). Johanson (2000) and Gibson (2001) disagree that since the Industry Assistance Commission Report, which, as early as 1976, the arts as industry example was obvious in Australian political thinking at least, that the arts could be taken as one industry among many. Even though the report was discarded in its day, it however has been critical to the way the art has come to develop itself as a market (Gibson 2001, 79). Creative Nation was distinctive about its arrangement of a miscellaneous strategy to the explanation of the state’s support of the arts. The importance of arts as a means for the construction of national response sustained to emphasize by the policy objective that had noticed the work of the Australia Council from its beginning in the late 1960s. the values of participation and diversity, which had been the hallmark of policy development in the 1980s, were supported by the policy through the effort of multicultural arts and the Community Arts Board. But the strain it kept on the economic worth of cultural construction was the conspicuous new policy growth. Unlike other earlier cultural policy statements, Creative Nation asked for a cross-fertilisation of thoughts to create new goods and new promotions (Rentschler 2002, 30). Creative Nation emphasised on the cooperation between arts and economics, which shapes: Thiѕ cultural policy alѕo represents economic policy. wealth is formed by rich culture. Broadly explained Australian cultural induѕtrieѕ produce thirteen billion dollarѕ a year (Commonwealth of Australia 1994, 7). Culture iѕ a symbol of Australian induѕtry which multiplies value, generates an important part to invention, industry and deѕign. new economic imperativeѕ are dependent upon the level of originality necessarily resolves nation’s ability to become accustomed. It iѕ a valuable export in itѕelf and an eѕѕential accompaniment to the export of other goods and also attractѕ touriѕtѕ. It iѕ eѕѕential for a great economic ѕucceѕѕ. (Commonwealth of Australia 1994, 7) Behind Keating’s commitment to republicanism, Aboriginal reconciliation, and furthering Australia’s status within the Asia–Pacific region was an assurance that Australia’s social and economic future in the world could be created and steered and that its “success in the world does depend on our strength as a nation, on our faith in ourselves and the way we represent that faith” (Keating 1995, 39). In this perceived need to define, fortify, and represent Australian identity was the importance of cultural policy, as culture was “the skeleton, heart and mind of a community” (1995, 39). In John McDonald (1994) argued that even the generosity of Creative Nation reproduced the republicanism after it, since it associated Australia with the big cultural representatives like France and Germany relatively than Britain. “Anglo-Saxon inheritance behind Paul Keating is very strong which is making the arts a main character of government policy” (McDonald 14a). Arts organizations are supported by cultural tourism in particular to continued a priority and as a strategy that benefits, as well as promote opportunities for Australia’s individual states, that give entry to international and local tourism markets (Stevenson 2000). In development of new audiences and marketing the arts, Australian Council’s role was ever more leaning. Recent council’s intensified commitment to researching audience development and marketing are testified by Australia Council publications to uphold these concerns and approaches to the arts community (Australia Council 2000; Australia Council 2000). This shift in the council’s concerns was an indication of a sustained association missing from the contributing side of subsidy programs, which is a sign of artistic creativity, productivity and development (Rentschler, 2002). Audience development, consumption, and demand are main focus of the council. Howard’s government as a shift and the new policy regime from citizens to consumers increased instigated economic rationalism (Brett, 2003 172). This shift entails the divide of citizens into self-interested persons who turn into patrons and clients of regime (175). current cultural policies have impact of philosophical commitment to consumerism, for e.g. industrialisation of arts and universities. The height of corporate support for art galleries and museums has amplified, as levels of government financial support for culture have stayed static or weaken, (McKnight 2005). Public broadcasting is another example of the government shift toward private enterprise in contemporary cultural policy. Howard government established uncertainty on the way to ABC, Australia’s largest government-funded broadcaster, which curtail from an “ideological aversion for public-sector participation in every area they see as being enhanced left to private venture” (Throsby, 2006 10). Blurring of the ideological boundaries between the Left and the Right has been a part of Australian political prospect for past decade. (McKnight 2005). Howard’s Liberal government from 1996–2007 preserved the economic rationalist approaches and purposes recognized by Keating’s Labor government in the first phase of the 1990s. This way, the thoughts of the two parties have merged, which marked itself in the distorted prototypes of voter maintenance and associations of traditional class-based party. Lack of dialectical ideological appointment has costs for cultural policy where there is a clear lack of curiosity about the job of arts and culture. The development of cultural policy seem difficult to develop in this type of political vacuum, political parties have debated and redefined its political objectives for more than twenty years of interrogation, which now appears to be stopped. At the time of publication, Australia’s current Labor government was halfway through its first term and had had little opportunity to define a cultural policy. However, there are some suggestions that cultural policy is being considered more broadly in relation to the government’s policy. Prior to its election, the Labor Party predicted funding boosted and new plans to improve diverse fractions of the cultural sector, creative communities, including native arts , and arts and crafts and pointed that it would plan to guard the sovereignty of the Australia Council. These initiatives are crucial but they lack bringing fresh thinking to the project of cultural policy. These steps lack in representing a significant ideological appointment with wider problems around the sociopolitical function of culture. Conclusion Previously, party ideologies of political parties’ shaped their distinctive approach to cultural policy but this influence is less clear in the policies of the past decade and as a result political opposition in cultural policy discussion is left behind. Many distinguished critics, for e.g. as Archer (2005), Hall (2005), Marr (2005), Throsby (2006), and Battersby (2005) have critically reviewed federal cultural policy. Though, when there are no dialectical ideologies debate between the two political parties and their cultural policies’ arguments had been proved historically that these oppositional voices are hardly heard. This way we agree with Wimmer’s analysis of the deadlock in Austrian cultural policy growth in where he writes: “the major objective of the . . . approach of conservative cultural policy seems to be to end public debate on cultural policy” and thus has established a “silent cultural hegemony” (Wimmer 2004). But there is silence for a few countervailing influence like such as Hall’s, in Australia. Australian political and cultural reading of historical development emphasise its basic association with varying party political ideology. Deficiency of this argumentative commitment may cause cultural policy to be suffered. Bibliography Archer, R. 2005. The myth of the mainstream: Politics and the performing arts in Australia today. Strawberry Hills, New South Wales: Currency House. Bennett, T., and D. Carter, eds. 2001. Culture in Australia: Policies, publics and programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Battersby, J. 2005. Councils on wrong track: Empower artists, don’t manage them. The Australian Financial Review, May 12, 2001. Commonwealth of Australia. 1994. Creative nation: Commonwealth cultural policy. Canberra: Department of Communications and the Arts. Curran, J. 2004. The power of speech: Australian prime ministers defining the national image. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Gibson, L. 2001. The uses of art: Constructing Australian identities. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press. Hall, R. 2005. Give wings to the arts: A new model for arts funding. Unpublished report, Australian Labor Party, Office of Senator Bob McMullan, July 2005. Johanson, K. 2000. The role of Australia’s cultural council 1945–1995. PhD diss., University of Melbourne. Keating, P. 1993. Transcript of ALP Cultural Policy Launch. Sydney, State Theatre. February 28, 1993. Keating, P. 1995. Starting the process. In Advancing Australia: The speeches of Paul Keating, ed. M. Ryan, (153–160) Sydney: Big Picture Publications. Kelly, P. 1994. The end of certainty. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Radbourne, J. 1997. Creative Nation—a policy for leaders or followers? The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 26: 271–83. Marr, D. 2005. Theatre under Howard: The 9th Philip Parson’s memorial lecture on the performing arts. October 9, 2005. Seymour Centre Sydney. http//www.currencyhouse.org.au/pages/ downloads/html (accessed June 24, 2008). Rentschler, R. 2002. The entrepreneurial arts leader. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press. McDonald, J. A Nation of Art Lovers for $252 million, Arts, Sydney Morning Herald, October 22, 1994. McKnight, D. 2005. Beyond right and left: New politics and the culture wars. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Milne, G. 2004. Theatre Australia (un)limited: Australian theatre since the 1950s. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Smith, T. 2001. The visual arts: Imploding infrastructure, shifting frames, uncertain futures. In Culture in Australia: Policies, publics and programs, ed. T. Bennett and D. Carter, 66–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stevenson, D. 2000. Art and organisation: Making Australian cultural policy. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press. Throsby, D. 2006. Does Australia need a cultural policy? Sydney: Currency House Wu, C. T. 2003. Privatising culture. London: Verso Wimmer, M. 2004. The political dimensions of cultural policy: The need of policy analysis in the field of cultural policy. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Cultural Policy Research. Montreal, Canada, August 25–28, 2004. Read More

It was a dream endorsed by his confidence in a unique Australian autonomy and the magnitude of state self-realisation. But, right that time, this was the period when Australia was commencing to sense the bang of globalisation; that along with Keating’s ideology of free-market had the latent to weaken national limits and heart-felt autonomist feeling. Keating, keeping a foot in each boat, saw analysed himself with a target to reclassify the state (Curran 2004). According to Curran, Keating discarded the thought that due to globalisation the elimination of the nation-state was required and instead sustained “an enduring, central role for government in a globalized world” (208).

Keating released Creative Nation in 1994 (Commonwealth of Australia 1994), the first complete artistic policy report by a session government (previous speeches had leaned to be element of a political party’s preelection policy) which set the standard for Australian enriching policy in all its succeeding governments (Smith 2001). Creative Nation declared that Australia’s fragile national cultural identity would preserve by not only being open to the world but also by cultural protectionism (Commonwealth of Australia 1994, 6).

As far as Australians are certain about their own heritage value and talents, Australia can advantage from the gathering of imported and national cultures (Commonwealth of Australia 1994, 6). Thus, the Australian $250 million in added financial support that it assured to cultural foundations was geared toward over four years escalating the assortment of civilizing tricks in Australia and encouraging cultural distinctiveness. The government acknowledged five extensive groups in Creative Nation, for centralising the function of cultural expansion: “nurturing creativity and excellence; enabling all Australians to enjoy the widest possible range of cultural experience; preserving Australia’s heritage; promoting the expression of Australia’s cultural identity, including its great diversity; and developing lively and sustainable cultural industries, including those evolving with the emergence of new technologies” (Commonwealth of Australia 1994).

For a number of reasons, this new policy structure was momentous. It targeted a new and keen stage of public gratitude of the input of cultural manufacturing to the national financial system. It persisted that culture be taken and stated as a superior and more varied kind of action than that oblique by the arts. It documented, for example, the significance of the latest time and technological arts (Smith 2001). The policy also became a source of elevating political influence of the cultural businesses because for the first time communications and the arts were gathered in the one portfolio that “positioned ‘culture’ or rather, cultural production in a pivotal position at the centre of governmental strategy” (Bennett and Carter 2001, 23).

Creative Nation also summarised a novel method of thoughtful the positions and reasons of culture by keeping forward “an industry/economic argument for culture’s significance to the nation” (Bennett and Carter 5). Johanson (2000) and Gibson (2001) disagree that since the Industry Assistance Commission Report, which, as early as 1976, the arts as industry example was obvious in Australian political thinking at least, that the arts could be taken as one industry among many. Even though the report was discarded in its day, it however has been critical to the way the art has come to develop itself as a market (Gibson 2001, 79).

Creative Nation was distinctive about its arrangement of a miscellaneous strategy to the explanation of the state’s support of the arts. The importance of arts as a means for the construction of national response sustained to emphasize by the policy objective that had noticed the work of the Australia Council from its beginning in the late 1960s. the values of participation and diversity, which had been the hallmark of policy development in the 1980s, were supported by the policy through the effort of multicultural arts and the Community Arts Board.

Read More