Arts and Cultural Policy in Australia - Term Paper Example

 The Future Prospects of Australian Cultural Art Policy Culture can be defined as the total of ways that a group of human beings come up with on which to base their lives and which are passed on from one generation to the next (Vadi, 2008); heritage is loosely derived, in part, from ‘inheritance’ and it refers to that which comes to one by virtue of their birth. UNESCO has divided the concept of cultural heritage into three parts, the tangible culture that includes relics and objects such as coins monuments sculpture archaeological sites and other similarly concrete tangible elements (Gfeller 2013). Under intangible culture on the other hand there includes concepts such as oral traditions, performance arts and rituals; finally, natural heritage is composed of cultural landscapes in the physical sense such biological or geographical formation. Similar to any other nation, the Australian policy can only be understood if it is examined within the historical contest of the nation, its people and to some extent its constitutional structures. The history of the country is especially rich in regard to indigenousinhabitants who are believed to have inhabited for over 40,000 years the island which is today known as Tasmania (Gott 2002). Before the 18thcentury, the French Dutch and Portuguese made forays into the continent but it was the British who laid claim on the eastern part of the continent in 1770 when the first fleet landed in what came to later be known as Sydney where the first English penal colony was established. After two centuries of colonial occupation, the colonies, which had in most cases prospered through fishing and agricultural activities, became a federated nation known as the commonwealth of Australia (Hollinsworth 2010). This is made up of 6 states; New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, and Tasmania as well as the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory (McLintock, 1966).The constituencies each developed their own instruments towards the development and implementation of cultural policy that was underpinned by the commonwealth policy framework. Considering that each state had an autonomous provincial government, which could sometimes not be in good terms with the national one, there was a notable retention of creative tension and state relationships with the national government in most areas culture prominently among them were not always conducive to its promotion. The fact that the early constitutions failed to recognize aboriginal people as equal to white Australians was another major cause of creative tension within the commonwealth, which was only curbed when after the 1967 referendum the aboriginal people were recognized as having equal rights as everyone else. The referendum as well as a range of pressure from inside and outside the country also had a great deal of influence in the long and often protracted battles over land rights for aboriginals as well as the exploitation of their cultural heritage(Alexander 1993). This especially was a key part of their recognition and absorption into the nation as the state took serious efforts to overcome the misuse of their art, which had previously been sold and reproduced without their consent or benefit. The richness of Australia in terms of all these classes is unequivocal and the country remains one of the biggest cultural reservoirs in the world especially in view of the diverse and deep-sited cultural practices and elements that date back centuries. However when it comes to preserving and protecting these cultural heritage, there appears to by myriad challenges, while everyone generally agrees that steps should be takes to protect the richness of the culture.The efforts being made are not always supported and over the course of the last century several elements of the cultural heritage have been gradually watered down or even discarded altogether (Johanson and Rentschler 2005).This begs the question, what does the future hold for Australia’s cultural heritage? What can the future generations expect to inherit and what steps should be taken to preserve this culture the one answer which covers albeit only partly all the emerging questions is the issue of cultural policy. This paper will discuss the retrospective, current and attempt to theorize on the posterity of Australian cultural policy basing its arguments on historical and contemporary evidence of the interaction between the state and various policy. Cultural policy is by no means an easy concept to define since there is considerable diversity in the global understanding of the term. In France for instance, they cultural policy is quite direct and the minister of culture is charged with the responsibility of cultivating the notion of French culture art and language. Britain on the other hand is focused on an ideal of a “creative Britain” an agenda that headlined under cultural policy. The concept has however not received much in the way of a definition or even tacit understanding in Australia, over 10 years ago, a document titled “Creative Nation” was produced and it attempted to map up the efforts of the federal government in promoting art and culture (Homan 2011). While it did in fact get some attention and lead to several changes, they were not sustainable and after the coalition government in 1996, the document appears to have been relegated to the back burner gradually disappearing from the primary concerns in the national agenda (Throsby, 2004). According to John Harding who is a playwright and author of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander heritage a cultural policy needs to be inclusive of everyone; more so, the indigenous peoples who have often been forced to struggle hard to cut for themselves a niche in the complex and often difficult Australian cultural world (Watt, 2006).David Throsby one of the foremost experts on the subject of culture argues that the cultural heritage of Australia has been radially changes by issues such as deregulation, immigration and the war on terror. In retrospect, the state generally seemed to relegate issues of art to a secondary position given the attitude of the government on matters of culture in the last decade; one must admit that the future of art in the country could be rather bleak if no action is taken. In 2006 for example, UNESCO invited 154 nations around the world to assert their respect for basic human values by adopting a treaty drafted with the end of protecting cultural diversity (Henk 2006). They hoped to, among other developments emphasized on creative works making exemptions for creative works in trade agreements, while an overwhelming 148 countries voted in favour, Australia refrained. This action was evidence of the fact that the government of Australia was unwilling to commit itself to the task of developing and nurturing the cultural heritage on a serious scale and it definitely did not deem it as a particularly worthwhile pursuit otherwise why would it have denied itself protection that way. However, while Throsby’s line of enquiry was fundamentallyjustifiedbased on the time around which he was making it, the developments in the past few years lead one to adopt and more optimistic perspective. In 2013, Simon Crean the arts minister released the latest national culture policy, which he dubbed the cultural policy of the decade (Scarlett 2013). The policy officially titled creative Australia is long overdue given that the government promised one by 2007 in their election campaign; it is made up of over 150 pages of document in which a comprehensive set of actions both in the long and short term. The document was a refreshing change for stake holders in the cultural industry both within and without Australia since it heralded a future where art would be rescued from obscurity. However, while the policy itself is highly promising its sustainability is in doubt given that the next government may not be as enthusiastic about the proposal. As witnessed when the media reforms were instituted and then gradually run to the ground, matters that have an underlying connection to the state tend to behighlysensitive to regime change. Like the 1994, creative nation commonwealth policy cultural policy, creative Australia presents a vision of an Australia that is both proudly local yet open to the rest of the world. In 1994, only 300,000 people were employed in the industry while the current policy has employed well over half a million. This and other prevailing factors in the Australianculturaland economic landscape lend credence to the idea that the policy may both be sustainable and practical in the short and long term. Althoughmuch attention is being given to the mineral industry, there is little doubt that the arts and culture are set to become the true keys to the nation’s spiritual and economic growth. Unlike its predecessor, that flopped midway, creative Australia is bolder and less anxious about being swamped by international content and culture, instead it is focused on the creation of opportunities facilitating growth in posterity.There is a great deal of emphasis on “joining the dot” as the stakeholders attempt to determine the connection between art policy and other domains covered by various national policies. One of the elements of the contemporary culture and art policy that makes it promising and likely to be sustainable in the long is the fact that the new national curriculum has embedded art and media education in the schools from the primary level going up. There can be no surer way of sustaining and given concept than providing the younger generations with both awareness and the skills to appreciate, create and support it in posterity. Inculcation of art in schools is a sign of the state’s renewed commitment art and culture and by far a more eloquent one than could have been achieved by purelytheoretical and legislative policies. In addition to promoting the uptake of art in pedagogy, culturaldiplomacy has been enshrined in the new policy more so in emerging partners such as china and other important Asian nations (He 2011). The funding for the creative project is estimated to around $235 million, most of this will be new money channelled by the government specifically to promote the policy. While not going as far as to say the policy is bound to achievelong-lasting success, there is no doubt that taking to account the level of support it has gotten from the federal government that it stands a far better chance than any other attempt in retrospect. Compared to other nations such as the UK, the Australian cultural policy is a remarkable document that has been described as having many virtues compressed in a rather brief document. It sets out the beliefs on which a practical cultural policy should be founded and justifies itself by stipulating that: arts are a key part of the Australian identity as both a nation and community and an increasingly growing aspect of the economy.Therefore, the policy must be based on the shared assumption that a creative nation ultimately produces a more inclusive, expressive and confident society of citizens. This is a particularly objective line of thought that indicates that those who crafted the policy had taken time to investigate the implication of a culturally aware social space and appreciate the underlying benefits that it brings. The document is based on bedrock of ideology taking cognizance that without a foundation of transparent beliefs and the commitment that often follows them, policies will be doomed to flop degenerating to conflict and confusion about the measurements and empirical evidence. Nevertheless, the policy recognizes and uses evidence where it is applicable and none of the recommendations and stipulations is arbitrary. For example, in justification of including an art education in schools, the policy cites retrospective studies that prove that arts education results in improved student achievement and makes the students more effective in engaging with each other within the school community as well as with outsiders without (Tayler 2011). If the policy is applied effectively, the success levels are likely to be relatively high and as a result, the economy will reap the benefits of such an intensive investment in the cultural heritage. The current generation of students will grow up with more knowledge and expertise on their cultural heritage understanding culture and art as more than just abstract and old fashioned concepts. Educating students in the arts means that there will be numerous professionals in posterity who will work in developing both the cultural artistic work but improving and coming up with new policies as well. Given the contribution of art to national integration and cohesion, the policy will undoubtedly act as a bridge between some of the creators of art who may have been precluded from the mainstream more so the aboriginals. The society will have a better understanding and appreciation of art from the experience under the policy and as a result, Australia as a nation will better for it. In addition to including education, the new art policy also includes other areas most notable infrastructure (Sanners et al., 2010), the government is aware that culture is a relevant aspect of every aspect of government and including the role and connections it has in international affairs. The recognition of this relevance facilitates for a binary advantage in several ways, for one, the economic importance is demonstrated by the readiness of the state to invest in cultural infrastructure such as roads and airports for cultural tourists. On the other hand, these infrastructures and hardware indirectly create cultural opportunities by exposing potential creators to new content as well as allowing them the flexibility to travel and therefore diversify and add on their experiences. The cultural policies strongest point is perhaps founded on the fact that it commences from an ideological perspective then moves on to an empirical one, it has been crafted out as a ten years strategic plan with allowances for changing needs and emerging issues. For any such endeavour to be successful, these characteristics must be present since otherwise the implementation would happen in a haphazard manner and the collapse of the whole idea would inevitably follow. However, after Crean was relegated to the backbench in the last election, there are concerns that the new government may derail either by not showing enough interest or because they are not entirely in support of the framework that was put up by their predecessors. The ministerial reshuffle in 2013 that saw the removal of Crean was a worrying sign but it appears that his successor Tony Burke is intent on following in his predecessors footsteps. Nevertheless, the fact that the person in charge of the ministry could be so easily dismissed and the whole demonstrated the vulnerability of the policy in the political arena. It appears that culture is more dependent on the ministers who can lobby of its interests rather than its own autonomous ends which is ironic given that the creative industries in Australia has employed 5.3% of the workforce who are however seen as an afterthought by the state. Ultimately, the future does indeed appear to be bright for the current policy given that it is the most heavily funded and supported in the history of Australia, nevertheless, its sustainably will largely depend on political consistency and the maintaining of priorities in the cultural from by the federal government. References Alexander, P., 1993, Feb 07. Indigenous Art Gets Notice Abroad. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext), 16. ISSN 04583035. Gfeller, A.E., 2013. Negotiating the meaning of global heritage: 'cultural landscapes' in the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, 1972-92. Journal of Global History, 8(3), pp. 483-503. Gott, B., 2002. Fire-making in Tasmania: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Current anthropology, 43(4), pp. 650-656. He, B. 2011. The Awkwardness of Australian Engagement with Asia: The Dilemmas of Australian Idea of Regionalism.Japanese Journal of Political Science, 12(2), pp. 267-285. Henk, T.H., 2006. The Activities of UNESCO in the Area of Ethics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal, 16(4), pp. 333-51. Hollinsworth, D., 2010. Racism and Indigenous People in Australia. Global Dialogue (Online), 12(2), pp. 1-11. Homan, S., 2011. "I Tote and I Vote": Australian live music and cultural policy. Arts Marketing, 1(2), pp. 96-107. Johanson, K. and Rentschler, R., 2005. Nationalism and Art in Australia: Change in a Time of Conservatism, 1948-1968. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 35(1), pp. 8-20. Scarlett. 2013. Arts Minister Simon Crean Announces National Cultural Policy. 2013. Music SW. [online] available from http://www.musicnsw.com/2013/03/arts-minister-simon-crean-announces-national-cultural-policy/ Sanner, S. et al. 2010. The impact of cultural diversity forum on students' openness to diversity. Journal of cultural diversity, 17(2), pp. 56-61. Tayler, C., 2011. Changing Policy, Changing Culture: Steps Toward Early Learning Quality Improvement in Australia.International Journal of Early Childhood, 43(3), pp. 211-225. Throsby, D., 2004. Assessing the Impacts of a Cultural Industry. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 34(3), pp. 188-204. Vadi, V.S. 2008, "Cultural Heritage and International Investment Law: A Stormy Relationship", International Journal of Cultural Property, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1-24. Watt, J. 2006. Does Australia need a cultural policy? ABC.[Online] available from http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2006/08/06/1706342.htm McLintock, A.H. 1966. An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand", Wellington, NZ:R.E. Owen, Government Printer, vol 3 p. 526. Read More