The whinges of the artistically affronted

Readers will probably be aware that the Labor (i.e. left-wing/progressive) government of Australia was defeated in an election over the weekend.  The new government coalition is center-right in orientation.  It will dominate the lower house of Parliament, but have a minority in the Senate, setting the stage for some epic power struggles.

I couldn't help but notice the whingeing from a Sydney Morning Herald opinion columnist, who tried to influence the election by appealing to emotion about the arts.  Here's an excerpt.

While the Labor Party has released its $235 million Creative Australia platform, the Coalition, which is relying on Australians to switch allegiances in order to assume power, have no official arts policy. We've had plenty of words of promising intent, such as opposition arts spokesman George Brandis, who in western Sydney in mid August promised "Our approach will be based on six key principles: excellence, integrity, artistic freedom, self-confidence, sustainability and accessibility".

But, er, where's the detail? Where's the commitment to grow not shrink the arts? Or the warning that particular cuts are needed? What are the plans to tackle the complex global issues facing those who make and sell creative content?

Make no mistake: having no publicly available formal policy (or even costed policy positions) is a slap in the face to people who care about the arts, culture and entertainment. It suggests that what happens in the next three years to the film and television sectors, the music industry, theatre, publishing and the performing arts is not a priority. But it also means the Coalition - should they win, as expected – can't be held to account over specific policy decisions; surely to claim a mandate on culture specific ideas need to be tested at the polls?

. . .

Just maybe, in an election where the presidential-style choice (vote for the least dislikeable leader) is a turn-off, maybe a vote for policy makes a lot of sense. Maybe the policy that matters most to you is arts and culture?

There's more at the link.

It's a favorite argument of the artsy-fartsy crowd that state funding is a necessity for the 'arts' (as they define the arts, of course) - indeed, it's a noble cause.  They point to the fact that kings of old subsidized artists, musicians and other 'creative' people, and claim that a democratic government should do the same for the good of society as a whole.

I've yet to hear one of them concede any of the following points:

• One man's art is another man's dreck.  I absolutely refuse to acknowledge 'Piss Christ' or the genital photography of Robert Mapplethorpe as being 'art' in any way, shape or form - but the liberal left would doubtless disagree with me.  If they try to take my tax money and subsidize such 'artists' with it, I'm likely to do something fairly robust about it.
• Why should taxpayer money be used to subsidize something that's of no immediate, tangible benefit to the nation?  We need roads, airports, bridges, harbors, a defense force, that sort of thing.  We don't need paintings - they're a luxury.  Same goes for operas, sculpture or drama.  None of them should be a drain on the public purse, which exists to fund public needs.
• Why not ask those who like a particular art form to subsidize or fund it?  I happen to like classical music, and I'll gladly pay a certain amount to ensure that it remains available and enjoyable.  I loathe rap and hip-hop (both alleged to be categories of music, which I dispute hotly), and not one cent of my money will go towards subsidizing them.  On the other hand, I'm sure I have readers who'll take the diametrically opposite position.  Why shouldn't each of us subsidize what we enjoy, without trying to force the other to fund (through taxation) something they don't like?

Why can't the liberals and progressives address those fundamentals, instead of whingeing about how we 'need' to pay more to fund the arts?  That makes them like the beggars who irritate me by aggressively panhandling on street corners . . . with the result that I shut out both categories of people.

I might add that I now have a personal stake in the 'funding for the arts' debate.  I'm now a full-time writer, dependent for my living on publishing books and selling them.  I'm not asking anyone to subsidize me as a struggling artist:  instead, I'm writing books that I hope people will like, and relying on them to buy them if they do.  If I write books that don't attract buyers, should I whine and moan and demand a subsidy so that I can survive while writing unmarketable dreck?  Or should I change my writing style, genre and subject, and write books that people do want to buy?

The answer's easy when you put it that way, isn't it?

Peter