The state of the arts in tough economic times
Posted
An audience at Windibri Homestead watches La Boite's production of Long Gone Lonesome Cowgirls. (Supplied: La Boite)
It's said we may be heading for the big R - recession. If that's the case, how will the arts be affected?
When there is talk of economic slowdown, people tend to say: "I suppose that's the end of sponsorship for the arts." Actually, it's not.
Maybe people who make those comments are thinking of the old style sponsorships that were based on "the chairman's whim" (or even "the chairman's wife's whim") where the chairman would give money to their favourite art form in exchange for good seats and a few glasses of champagne. That kind of discretionary spending is easily cut.
But partnerships these days are much more about strategic benefits - for both the arts and the business. Companies invest in the arts because there are business benefits - to markets, employees, customers, communities, shareholders. Arts organisations gain financial support, in-kind benefits, and access to business expertise.
It's often said that Australians are obsessed with sport, and we naturally see a lot of that in an Olympic year. But surveys show that more Australians participate in the arts and attend arts events every year than they do sport.
There are no overall signs of arts audiences declining - on the contrary, many arts events are experiencing significantly greater audience numbers. An estimated 1 million people attended this year's Sydney Festival. Nearly 80,000 people attended Adelaide's world music festival, WOMADelaide and more than 230,000 people visited the Warhol exhibition at GoMA in Brisbane - a record that may be broken by the current wildly successful Picasso exhibition.
So if reaching a wide audience were the aim, sponsorship of popular events like these makes a lot of business sense.
And whereas sponsoring major arts events can cost millions, an arts partnership can bring real business benefits for a much smaller outlay. We are seeing remarkable success from the AbaF Premier's Arts Partnership Funds recently introduced in South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia, through which the cash support from a small-to-medium business for a new partnership with an arts organisation is matched dollar-for-dollar.
That doesn't mean that everything is rosy for the arts. Many arts organisations are facing challenges, particularly those committed to touring regional and rural Australia when rising costs mean that taking shows on the road has become very expensive.
There are many opportunities for businesses - especially companies with markets in an extended geographical reach - to step in and sponsor regional tours. What a great way to demonstrate support for customers in regional and rural communities.
Following its AbaF Toyota Community Award in 2007, Queensland Gas has just re-signed its partnership with La Boite, a Brisbane theatre company. Queensland Gas is providing support for special performances and productions in a remote part of Queensland where the company has its operations. It's supported the building of a new outdoor theatre for La Boite. This adds to the cultural energy of the community, provides a new revenue stream for the theatre company, and enables the business to demonstrate its social responsibility.
Another great motivator for businesses to support the arts is staff benefits. In an era of full employment, attracting, retaining and developing staff is critical for business success. It's a 'no-cost' opportunity for a business and an enormous boon for an arts organisation.
We are seeing a steady increase in the numbers of business people volunteering to share their knowledge and skills with arts organisations - either on specific projects (through our adviceBank program), or by joining their boards (boardBank).
Enlightened companies welcome this because they know it helps people stay motivated, develop their expertise and communication and mentoring skills, and gives them a healthy dose of creativity.
Theatre director Wesley Enoch recently told us: "adviceBank is one of the secrets which every artist should find out about. It's great to meet dedicated and talented people who can be both detached and enthusiastic for a project. It worked well for us because it helped hone the ideas we already had and provided that much needed outside eye."
So I believe that mutually useful connections between business and the arts are here to stay - regardless of economic fluctuations.
Jane Haley is the CEO of the Australia Business Arts Foundation, a Commonwealth government company that promotes private sector support for the arts.
Search for news
Comments (41)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
-
Aussie:
20 Aug 2008 9:03:56am
Forget the arts. Our olympians need more money - the Brits are beating us!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
dragon:
20 Aug 2008 9:31:49am
How will Australia's Arts survive during a recession ?
WHO CARES !
What was the last Australian funded movie that actually made a profit ? ...... Croc Dundee ?
I'm sick of funding the Arts with my tax when I still pay top dollar for the medicines for my daughter's illness !Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ford:
20 Aug 2008 10:40:14am
Hmm, Gabriel, Lantana, Muriel's Wedding, Priscilla, that one about the kid at school...214 or something it was called...nearly all the Australian cinema releases in recent memory have run a profit.
No doubt many people are sick of funding your children, but that's how it works in a cohesive society.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
dragon:
20 Aug 2008 11:23:05am
That's certainly a conclusive list then !
So that's about 4 out of 1000 !
Great industry propping up the Australian economy heh ?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Greg h:
20 Aug 2008 12:07:27pm
'nearly all the Australian cinema releases in recent memory have run a profit.'
Thats nonsense.
Less than 10% of Australian cinema releases in the past 10 years have made a profit.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
quinny:
20 Aug 2008 12:59:54pm
Hollywood movies rarely make a profit either, only the rare few. Profit is not a measurement of how worthy a production is or whether we should just 'give up' on homegrown industry. It certainly doesn't stop the hollywood machine.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
dragon:
20 Aug 2008 1:07:38pm
The point is Hollywood studios don't crawl to the taxpayer for funding when a new script comes in !
And I'm pretty safe in saying that the Hollywood failure (profit wise) rate would be much less than 90%Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Mardy:
20 Aug 2008 2:02:56pm
yes, but more recently we have had Somersault, Sample People, Jindabyne and Little Fish - incredibly tedious and pretentious drivel.
I haven't seen a good Australian "woman's coming of age" film since My Brilliant Career. Or Puberty Blues (whatever came out last)Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
NT boy:
20 Aug 2008 12:26:59pm
this kinda mocks your comments about Australia's last success
read to article on ABC site.
Six Australian films are among the 312 features and shorts chosen for the 2008 edition of the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF).
The 10-day festival, which begins on September 4, ranks with Cannes, Sundance, Venice and Berlin in its influence on the movie industry.
It is seen by many as the kick-off to Hollywood's Oscar season.
"TIFF offers the best launching pad into the North American market and traditionally has a strong Australian line-up," said Screen Australia spokesman Tait Brady.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
dragon:
20 Aug 2008 12:31:29pm
And I'll be waiting with baited breath as to how many of these classics will actually make a profit ?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
toby:
20 Aug 2008 1:04:18pm
Is whether a film makes a profit really the issue here; there are quality Australian (and international) films that have not made a profit.
If every arts endeavour made a profit then we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. But, funnily enough, a good bottom line does not equate with good art.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Scot:
20 Aug 2008 9:33:46am
To say a million people attended the Sydney Festival sounds a bit like creative accounting me. That would be what - one in three Sydneysiders? I think they're counting repeat visitors there.
I'm an artist myself (film maker) and I feel alot of business's want to sponsor arts just to be seen to be doing the right thing, but they're not really that interested in it. And when it comes down to it their core values are quite different to that of the art their supporting. Maybe that's a good thing. But I for one couldn't care less if big sponsorship went out of art - because art should exist for it's own reason and the greatest power it has is in it's own independence.Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
kaity:
20 Aug 2008 10:32:50am
I completely agree. Business involvment in the arts can affect what is actually produced and this may not be a true representation of what is going on in society, which typically acts as the well-spring of artistic inspiration. In other words, we get only what is 'commercially viable'.
To give you a real life and recent example; I have 2 friends - one a film maker, the other a highly regarded expert in her field of childbirth. They have other experts lined up throughout the world who are willing to participate in their documentary (some have offered money) about an issue that has been academically proven to be sociologically relevant to society. They have done all their pitches to big business, got close, but to no avail because it's not commercially viable. They have had a choice to 'sell out' and dumb it down to make it commercially viable, but do not want to compromise for they feel it is too important an issue. Thus, we as a society do not get the full artistic picture and artists are increasingly pressured to comply.
You are right, business doesn't care about the arts. You get nothing for nothing. They're in it so they can put at the bottom of their advertisments, "sponsor of such and such theatre company" just to get kudos. They are thinking of their image and nothing else (of course, I recognise that is a generalisation). Anyway, its a catch 22. The money has to come from somewhere. I just don't want the arts to sell out - be free and create what you want, no matter what the market-place tells you.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
SpaceChimp:
20 Aug 2008 11:03:42am
I question the validity of companies (especially in the commodities / utilities sector) funding these programs when it means that such costs are passed to the consumer, or could represent a potential reduction in costs to consumers. I would strenuously argue this point in regards to costs large numbers of people struggle with - electricity, gas and petrol.
Also if you look at the organisation that the author of this article represents (Australia Business Arts Foundation, a Commonwealth government company that promotes private sector support for the arts), it would seem that there is a potential base saving for the consumer, but also a layer of taxpayer funded administration linking art and the private sector.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
NT boy:
20 Aug 2008 11:48:44am
In Tasmania's last "10 days on the Island" art Festival, the name sponsor was Forestry, which understandably, ruled out a large number of local artists who for their own personal belief's based on Forestries environmental record would not be apart of the event. artists along with companies make choices.. as an Artist, i dont have a problem with companies sponsoring arts or events as long as they allow freedom of expression. And as a side note, artists pay taxes too, and sometime they are not happy about how the government spends their taxes like spending billions on sport, but hey, thats how the cookie crumbles..
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
nanks:
20 Aug 2008 12:54:12pm
Give me a break - the only people who think the arts are well supported in Australia - either financially or socially - are arts bureaucrats or academics promoting the 'creative industries' agenda.
Have a look at arts support in even a small city like Linz or a largish one like Vienna, or Berlin or... more or less any place in Europe. Far greater. And the 'support' you quote is not for Australian art anyway, it's for 'blockbuster ' shows of old international art - Warhol and Picasso are scarcely current.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
NT boy:
20 Aug 2008 1:30:27pm
true, not current but they make profit so we can fund regional arts - therefore it seems useful to spend the money to get them here.. "old adgage spend money to get money"
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
nanks:
20 Aug 2008 2:29:12pm
not trolling - I'd be interested to see the information on the cross subsidising into regional arts if you have a reference
And of course it is not necessary - one could just fund regional arts properly anyway. There is no end of money sloshed out to subsidise other sectors of the economy - much greater sums than anyone ever asks for in the arts.
But conceptually it is nonetheless a poor strategy to continually position old international art as more or less the only art that is significant. Other countries - with no better economies - can fund frequent small and large scale exhibitions of contemporary art that integrates international with local.
Of course it is only a poor strategy if you wish to see Australians value their country being represented by Australian artistsAgree (1) Alert moderator
-
NT boy:
20 Aug 2008 2:58:32pm
As I was one of 2 Australians invited to exhibit in Florence for the 1999 bienalle I understand first hand that other countries have better art events but that is basially because we as a nation sadly and wrongly hold the belief that if it comes from overseas It has got to be better than homegrown -
If arts was funded at the same rate as sport we would also be a world leader... sadly it just aint gunna happenAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
nanks:
20 Aug 2008 3:48:50pm
Congratulations on selection for Florence. Were you pleased to come back ? Or did you feel a little depressed and/or angry?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
JayR:
20 Aug 2008 4:54:30pm
Well said
Australians arent exactly an overly cultural bunch - just one look at our built environment and the obvious lack of design input gives you some idea. We just arent a creative country by any shot - the dull, one dimensional emphasis on swimming faster, kicking further etc seems to be what excites the aussie simpletons mind, sadly.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
NT boy:
20 Aug 2008 3:34:42pm
Many of the artworks in permanent collections of major 'city' galleries are from regional artists.. I believe the gallery pays these artists money, yes actually pays the artists cold hard cash to increase their [Gallery] collections.. for example NT Indigenous arts is well represented in these collections.. and they get this money from major international exhibitions.. hence my reference to funding regional artists
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
Scot:
20 Aug 2008 2:20:02pm
Of course another down side to funding the arts is that you get a cultural elite with their heads so far up their backsides they lose touch with the common people and what they're experiencing. They become so full of self importance and snobbery that they actually put people off practising or attending arts events, and yet demand to be funded because it is supposedly a sign of a well developed society.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
geebung:
20 Aug 2008 2:31:11pm
Have you actually attended some of these exhibitions (ie Warhol and Picasso) - the mix of people who have attended the exhibitions is very very diverse - all age groups and all socio-economic backgrounds. Suggest you take a look at the people who are attending our exhibitions. Also, considering that most (not all) exhibitions are free entry then who is going to cover the costs.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Stop_the_madness:
20 Aug 2008 3:13:45pm
It may surprise you to know that the audiences at a lot of the opera and orchestral performances I've attended are not snobby cultural elitists, but rather ordinary people who enjoy the performances they're attending. It's ridiculous to suggest that a pretentious few are representative of the majority.
Likewise, it's ridiculous for you to want to impose your cultural cringe on the rest of us!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Scot:
20 Aug 2008 4:11:05pm
I was directing it more to the artistic administrators and creators than the audience, and yes it is good that some people are coming to these events - but what about the tens of thousands who aren't? Look at it that way and your arguement doesn't stack up. I am an artist and have worked in the performing arts industry for over two decades and I know that elitism is a major turn off for a huge proportion of potential audience members.
There's no point in saying I or others have a cultural cringe because that won't get bums on seats or create artists and administrators that have a more realistic view of the world, and whom don't think the world owes them a living.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
dkril:
21 Aug 2008 6:36:20am
Most definitely! A film should work as a story, even if I don't understand the issues it's discussing (or don't even know that it IS commenting on some social issue).
Same for a picture: it should be recognisable as something, even if I have no idea what it's about. A landscape, easy. Scream, don't really understand Existential angst, but I can see it's a person freaked out about something. What on Earth is Blue Poles, apart from an expensive mess?
If the Arts community want to attract and involve the common man (at least beyond his tax dollars), they need to remember that even they started at the bottom -- do some art that we find interesting or compelling, and can understand (with minimal or no explanations), and let us work our way up from there.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
PeterB:
20 Aug 2008 3:55:11pm
But Scot, you have just defined the result of sports funding in Australia - in reverse perhaps. People with their heads so far up their backsides that they become common and imagine that anyone who does not agree with their own view is full of self importance and snobbery.
Fortunately for these common people society sponsors sport - an activity that requires certain physical dexterity and, at the top level, a mind closed to anything other than training, training, training. Sports are enjoyable to watch, or even participate in, as a recreation, but obviously don't provide satisfaction for a large section of the community judging by the continued call for sponsorship of the arts.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Jane Haley:
20 Aug 2008 2:30:07pm
Many arts events couldnt survive without sponsorship, even if government funding was increased. When theres a good match between the arts event and the business, whats the problem? The Melbourne Writers Festival is sponsored by, among other people, the citys major newspaper and a leading independent bookshop. There are obvious mutual benefits there. As for the idea that sponsorship would interfere with the art there is no way that any arts organisation should let a sponsor do so, nor would any reputable business seek to do so. Apart from anything else, it would drive the audience away pretty quick.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
toby:
20 Aug 2008 3:24:25pm
It's not as cut-and-dry as that, Jane. Many sponsors are quite unbudging when it comes to their half of a sponsorship deal. In such take-it-or-leave-it deals, an arts organisation is left with the choice of refusing funding (and jeopardising their project) or pandering to sponsors' often compromising requests.
One sponsor (that shall remain nameless) over here in the West would provide sponsorship as long as the event was "smoke free". It doesn't matter so much these days as smoking is pretty much banned anywhere, but at the time it impinged upon the liberties of those attending a performance as well as the content of the actual performance, which is just outrageous. On the flipside, in the bad old days of smoking advertising, cigarette companies used to spruik their poison at ballet performances of all places.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
BJ:
20 Aug 2008 9:49:03pm
I agree Jane.
I cannot believe the Philistines commenting here, more obsessed with the relative ranking of arts funding cf. other lines of government expenditure.
I thought the ABC audience was reasonably progressive. Seems to me the hard core Liberal apparatchiks couldn't avoid forum trolling...
I won't go into it again in this post, but see my comment in response to a comment below about art performing a critical function in society at the forefront of cultural expression and an accurate recorder of history of humanity and its environs.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Ron T:
20 Aug 2008 2:53:37pm
Muriels Wedding is the first reason why my tax money should not go to to movie producers. And as for the artists, better off they spend some time in Canberra telling us how to ...Oh they did.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Loose Bruce:
20 Aug 2008 2:56:50pm
Jane, get a mining job, work hard, help stave off any alarmist talk about recession and come back for arts funding when you're done.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
NT boy:
20 Aug 2008 3:43:24pm
If an Artist does, amazingly, get a grant to develop artworks it is usually a pitiful amount and you have to do vast multi triplicat reports on every cent - but gee, we have huge spending sports academies and sport institutes that teach sports for free
for example - tennis players are taught how to play.. but do we get any of that funding back? - is there a hecs on our tennis players who earn millions? no but if you get an arts grant you better have an accounting degree to answer the gov's questionsAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Fratelli:
20 Aug 2008 4:11:26pm
"It's said we may be heading for the big R - recession. If that's the case, how will the arts be affected?"
Yes indeed! I'm sure thats what the improverished will be thinking! The homeless! The struggling small businessperson! The drought-stricken farmer! The refugee!
I'm pretty sure there are bigger issues to come out of a possible recession.
Besides, the sole purpose of art is to simply exist as an expression and communication. It has no practical purpose other than to be there, independant of everything else, for the sake of itself. Therefore, art should and can survive under any circumstances.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
BJ:
20 Aug 2008 9:45:13pm
What an appallingly narrow mindset.
Arts deserves to be supported by the Australian taxpayer, the same as sports, the same as any other community or recreational based activity - even the same as those expenses on homelessness, drought relief etc.
In a world where aspects of history are constantly being expunged or revised to comply with the norms of contemporary views, art has proved an enduring historical record as well as a vehicle for expression.
I don't haunt art galleries all day nor do I see all exhibits / artist visits, movies, or live theatre etc. going around, but we must support this ultimate freedom of expression.
Without it life would be exceedingly bland. We'd all notice that.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Stealth Pooch:
20 Aug 2008 6:58:47pm
As a board member of a couple of galleries - one high profile, professional gallery and a second smaller Artist Run Initiative - I can say that business is just not interested in us. The professional gallery runs off public funding which seems to get smaller each year, and the ARI relies on miniscule grants and cake stall fundraisers. It's all well to mention galleries such as GOMA, where corporations can have their names in glossy writing in the foyer, but what about the other galleries that rely on public funding? In a recession is the government really going to keep spending on the arts?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Bazza:
20 Aug 2008 11:47:18pm
Get your priorities right! I can't see the logic or the benefits of putting the funding for the Arts in higher preference to the care and financial support of the needy i.e Pensioners and the disabled . A happy Senior would love to be able, to visit and enjoy a movie, without the guilt of missing out on some essential
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
nanks:
21 Aug 2008 7:56:52am
Social and cultural matters need not be pitted against each other - we can have sport and art, health and education. In fact there is ample money for all if our governments did not spend billions on subsidies for industries that do not need those subsidies (eg the automative industry) or spent some of the 'surplus' on carers and artists and sports people etc etc. The surplus itself is just a construction by government to suit political ends ie increase benefits to themselves and their supporters. There is no true surplus whilst Australians are suffering disadvantage. Instead there is just the misallocation of funds.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
John Michaels:
21 Aug 2008 12:32:38am
Sadly tough economic times will treat the arts much the same as the Howard Government did during the last 11 years. There will still be plenty of "private" money for the opera and classical music though.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
hevnalf:
21 Aug 2008 7:59:27am
What arts are we discussing? If the archibald type of art can be got rid of,it will be a step in the right direction. No doubt,there is art and art!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
