Hi Trevor
I guess what counts is how the money is spent, as much as how much is tabbed
for "the arts" by the government. And how they define "arts" - does the
money go into yet more buildings and admin (politicians love real estate),
or "heritage", or does it go to artists to make actual art? I think the
Australia Council has got many things pretty well right; but, like Medicare,
another enlightened institution started by the Whitlam government in the
1970s, it used to work much better when it was funded properly. Most art
grants are designed so individuals can apply for and get them, and the
funding institutions are particularly strong on funding young (emerging)
artists. For those in it for the long haul, things get a bit tougher by the
time grey hairs appear, although I can hardly complain: government funding
has paid for a lot of my dinners. Though the government giveth with its
right hand and taketh away with its left: all income, even prizes, is taxed,
and we all wish they took an Irish view of it. But as a general dilemma, we
seem to build a lot of theatres and then wonder what to put inside them as
they squat there, dark.
All the best
A
Alison Croggon
Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
Editor, Masthead: http://masthead.net.au
Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com
|