|
|
|
A vision of art for art’s sake, not for measuring individual political agendas
In the real world art does not in the least resemble the role of a community pain relief assigned to it by officialdom.
For politicians vision is a bit like good sex. The less they have it, the more they talk about it.
No government publication is complete without several references to what president George W. Bush called the “vision thing”. Julia Gillard frequently makes references to her many visions, which invariably turn out to be less then prophetic. So her recent assertion, “my vision for Australia is for a nation that rewards hard work” is a statement of the obvious.
When public figures hold forth about their visions, do not expect the insights traditionally associated with a visionary. The banality of vision rhetoric is strikingly communicated by the government’s National Cultural Policy: A Discussion Paper. The tone of this document is set in the introductory message from Arts Minister Simon Crean.
“Your comments on this paper will assist in shaping a 10-year vision,” he reassures his reader. A 10-year vision that can be shaped by the public is a monument to Orwellian doublespeak.
There was a time when, as the Oxford English Dictionary stated, vision meant “something which is apparently seen otherwise than by ordinary sight”. A real visionary such as Jules Verne could transcend the limitations of his time and see the outlines of the future. His vision is very different to one that can be manufactured through a consultation exercise. Real visions catch visionaries unaware. Today we have vision constructed to a timetable through the medium of a public-relations exercise. It is evident that whatever the minister incites us to “shape” or “articulate” has little to do with a prophetic insight.
Political jargon does not merely signify an absence of clarity, it is also used to obscure reality. And the reality the National Cultural Policy attempts to mystify is that it is actually indifferent to art and culture as accomplishments that ought to be valued in their own right.
Crean is interested not in art but on its policy effects on social and economic life. That’s what he means when he promises that his government’s policy will show how “arts and culture can contribute to achieving Australia’s goals by helping to build an inclusive society, delivering an arts education to young Australians, creating career pathways, providing avenues for expression for our citizens, driving innovation and contributing to productivity”. A minister who actually believes that art can be delivered is unlikely to value the qualities that are integral to the cultural experience.
One would hope that a minister for the arts would regard as his core mission the promotion of art as something to be valued in its own right. Real art transcends conventional boundaries and excites the imagination so that it cannot be translated into the technical jargon of policy making. That is why the attempt to assess art and culture through a template of output figures betrays the philistinism of someone for whom art has no inner meaning.
When art is treated as a medium for achieving a policy objective, its impact will be translated into the language of figures. So inevitably the discussion document insists that the “progress” of Australia’s future cultural policy “must be measurable”.
But how do you measure culture? Apparently by throwing money at it. The consultation paper promises that government will “invest in ways to assess the impact that the National Cultural Policy has on society and the economy”. So the apparition projected by this 10-year vision is an expanded bureaucracy devoted to cultural accounting.
That is some vision! Taxpayers’ money will be spent on inventing auditing instruments that will audit something that thankfully defies quantification. How long before authors, artists or filmmakers are assessed on the basis of their officially designated personalised impact factor?
In an enlightened and civilised society it is human creativity, the spirit of experimentation and of imagination, that encourages the flourishing of the arts. Through people’s response and engagement with such creative accomplishments a common culture is forged. So what will determine the quality of Australia’s art and culture is the freedom and affirmation it gains to develop in accordance with its autonomous instincts.
It is not the job of government to transform art and culture into an instrument for promoting its values and policies. Yet that is precisely what defines the agenda of the present government. The policy document advocates art education because it “encourages academic achievement and improves students’ self esteem”. Apparently it also leads to “higher school retention rates”. Art policy not only helps compensate for the problems of schooling, it also develops community and social cohesion.
According to the authors of the discussion paper, art and culture possess formidable properties that can also cure the malaise that afflicts communities. It claims that “there is strong evidence to support the principle that fostering creativity at a young age will build the foundations of a strong, resilient population, armed with capacities for critical inquiry, lateral thinking, innovative solutions and powerful communication”. From this perspective, art is interpreted as an all-purpose antidote to the failings of society.
In the real world art does not in the least resemble the role of a community pain relief assigned to it by officialdom. There is no doubt that arts and culture stimulate the imagination and enhance the quality of life. But the creative tension contained within art and culture drives the imagination in unexpected directions. Its very unpredictability, together with its capacity to disturb, challenge, inspire and disrupt, means that so often art subverts the intentions of officialdom.
It is not always the case that art and culture raise self-esteem or encourage the project of social inclusion. Some forms of art and culture can overwhelm the individual and undermine their assumptions. Art can truly disturb and distract and may not foster “lateral thinking” or “innovative solutions”. Experience shows that far from being inclusive, great art and cultural innovation may well offend and alienate parts of the community.
The attempt to harness the power of art to achieve policy objectives invariably threatens to empty culture of its aesthetic meaning. What serves as a vehicle of state propaganda has as much to do with art as a prophetic revelation with the vision of the arts minister. But thankfully Australia does not need a national cultural policy. In fact, the greatest contribution that policymakers can make to the flourishing of art and culture is to stop intervening in this domain of human experience.
Instead of turning culture into a vehicle for the promotion of poorly thought-out social engineering, they should devote their energies towards working out policies that address social and educational problems in their own terms. Just pause and think - do we really want government to be arbiters of culture?
First
published by The Australian, 9 December 2011
|
|
