Rebutting Christopher Madden: part 1

Recently I had a piece published Overland magazine calling for radical reform, perhaps even abolition, of the Australia Council for the Arts. This week, the Overland website carries a response by cultural policy analyst Christopher Madden.

I think Madden’s rebuttal misguided in several important respects and so today I’m going to unpick his piece item by item … but before I do that I think it’s worth saying that we agree on many things. More than that, I welcome this debate – it’s exactly what I hoped to provoke with the piece. Madden’s response to my article is robust, informed, detailed and well-intentioned. It’s also, I think, quite wrong.

On to specifics. In my original article for Overland, I argued that the Australia Council  “should be abolished” for three main reasons, which I repeat here:

1) the Australia Council has become irrelevant to the broader debate around cultural policy. The policies our governments adopt about culture range across a vast ambit, from copyright laws and internet censorship to the planning regulations and liquor licensing laws that affect small bars. The Australia Council has long been silent in this broader debate, and in any case remains uninterested in cultural expressions outside its core responsibilities.

2) culture is changing but the Australia Council is not changing with it. ‘Culture’ is not only bigger than ‘the arts’, it is also being rapidly transformed by new technologies in ways that OzCo refuses to come to terms with. In an age when screen-based art forms dominate the everyday consumption and creation habits of Australians, the Australia Council remains stubbornly focused on a dwindling core of traditionally defined performing arts.

3) The Australia Council has become reactionary. In a tale familiar to students of public policy in other spheres, OzCo has fallen victim to industry capture and institutional inertia. Although it contributes small but significant amounts of funding to smaller companies and individual artists, taken as a whole, the Australia Council now exists largely as a conduit to funnel money to a small number of larger arts organisations.

How does Madden respond? Sadly, not really by dealing with these substantive points.

Instead, Madden responds essentially by attacking my “methodology.” I think this is rather missing the point in what was, by definition, a polemical essay rather than a scholarly policy analysis, but let Madden state his case:

I have difficulty understanding the concepts of art and culture that underpin Eltham’s analysis. Though much is left undefined, I am uneasy about his treatment of old and new media, high and popular culture, cultural and technological innovation. Medium and content seem to get mixed up in the analysis. I am no cultural theorist, so will not delve deeper into this. But if, as Eltham argues, policy contains certain prejudices about art and culture, I worry he may be supplanting those prejudices with his own.

It’s a shame Madden hasn’t delved deeper here, because it’s hard to know what he objects to.  But perhaps the real problem here is the urge to define at all. Madden’s comment about mixing up “medium and content” illustrates, I gently suggest, that he may be out of touch with some of the more important contemporary currents of cultural theory.

That’s because culture is both medium and content. Forty-plus years after McLuhan, this is (or should be) a trivial observation – but even at the prosaic level of the policies of arts funding bodies, it is immediately clear that all sorts of different artforms can be performed or reproduced in any number  of media: we can read books online, we can watch video art in a gallery, and so on; opera itself is in one important respect a 19th century form of hybrid performance, as Wagner himself liked to observe. The silliness of splitting funding up by government-defined artform definitions is precisely one off the things I most objected to in my article.

But again, it’s hard to specifically rebut Madden’s comments here, because they are pretty vague ( including a casual smear about “certain prejudices about art and culture.” ) Of course, for those of us writing from a tradition of cultural studies, admitting to prejudices is almost the first step. What observer does not enjoy some forms of art more than others, and what policy analyst doesn’t harbour preferences, know more or less about some artforms than others, and otherwise suffer from information asymmetries, blind-spots – in a word, prejudices?

I think I’ve been pretty upfront about my prejudices. For instance, I think that online culture is important – every bit as important as the sort of cultural expressions to be found in well-funded large cultural institutions and the Australia Council’s so-called “Major Performance Observations”. And it may well be this prejudice – or preference, or opinion – that Madden is taking issue with.

Let’s turn to his next criticism, about my “methodological” problems:

Eltham states that ‘screen based art forms dominate the everyday consumption and creation habits of Australians’. This may be true for cultural consumption, thanks to television and movies, but I can find little evidence that screen-based forms dominate creation. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Work in culture/leisure collection, participation in ‘traditional’ creative cultural activities is at least as popular as in new media activities. In 2007, the 552 000 Australians ‘creating artwork with a computer’ was less than the number taking creative photographs and about the same number as those drawing. Other technologically-based activities – such as designing websites, producing films and designing games and interactive media – have lower involvement rates than ‘traditional’ activities like textile and woodworking crafts. The Australia Council’s recent researchMore than Bums on Seats tells a similar story for a wider notion of participation.

I believe Madden has simply missed the key point here: that digital technologies are transforming cultural particpation. You can see this from his treatment of the ABS Work in Culture/Leisure statistics, which actually show that participation in screen-based practices are very important, and growing.  Madden is right to point that craft activities like woodwork, jewellery and furniture making are involving growing numbers of Australians. But he fundamentally misses the broader trend, which is the digital transformation of nearly every aspect of cultural practice. The ABS data includes activities such as photography, design, web and game design, all of which are highly digital and rapidly increasing in popularity. Madden is correct when he says that “some craft involvements grew by staggering amounts”, pointing to a doubling of popularity in jewellery-making. But even greater increases can be seen in some digital involvements: “designing websites” almost tripled in popularity.

More broadly, Maddens argument that “these numbers are hardly representative of an Australian culture being overrun by digital practice. If anything, they evoke the opposite – resilience in ‘traditional’ culture, maybe even a cultural equivalent of the ‘slow food’ movement” is simply not supportable by the data he himself cites – especially when one considers the way that once-traditional practices like writing and photography are nowadays fundamentally screen-based activity, as Madden, a blogger, would surely acknowledge. If anything, one could argue the methodological sloppiness here is Madden’s.

The nub of our disagreement may well be this paragraph:

Eltham argues that new media activities should receive greater support because they ‘dominate’ or ‘proliferate’. There is, however, no policy logic stating that, the more people are engaged in a cultural activity, the more reason there is to support it. Lots of people tend to their Facebook page every day but this does not mean government should support Facebook participation.

Let’s leave aside for a minute the many valid and important arguments for addressing issues of digital literacy and the digital divide – issues that Madden dismisses here with a disappointing swipe at Facebook. Is there really “no policy logic stating that the more people are engaged in a cultural activity, the more reason there is to support it”? I can think of a number of well-known policy logics to justify exactly that, including Benthamite utilitarian arguments, Lockean social contract arguments, not to mention the original and subtle arguments of Keynes in favour of support for cultural funding that I mentioned in my original article.

The most disappointing argument advanced by Madden is this:

One reason for this is that funding is strongly influenced by cost differences between art forms. To illustrate, consider a funding decision involving live symphony music and live folk music. The council identifies public benefits in both activities and decides to support them to ensure supply. But orchestras are not cheap. The level of funding required to ensure supply of live orchestral music will be large relative to the level required to ensure supply of live folk music. To successfully support both activities, their funding levels will differ, and will reflect inter-art form cost differentials as much as the value placed on them by the council.

This is a pretty astonishing claim, especially to anyone with any understanding of public sector finance or the concept of opportunity cost. It may indeed be true that it costs more to support a symphony orchestra than it does to support a solo folk musician, but this is a particularly weak argument. In effect, Madden is begging the question, by saying that the reason some artforms get more funding than others is that they cost more.

Not to put too fine a point on it: this argument is not backed up by any of the Australia Council’s stated policies or funding programs. Big-budget computer games cost tens of millions to develop; they receive no funding. Poetry costs little to develop: it does receive funding.

I’d wager that the promoters of multi-state travelling rock festivals like the Big  Day Out would also find this a rather surprising argument. The Big Day Out has a production budget of tens of millions, in the same kind of quantum and audience engagement as Opera Australia. It employs hundreds of musicians, stage managers and crew. The Big Day Out receives no Australia Council funding (I’m not saying it should either, but let’s make the argument).  If the Australia Council devoted roughly $90 million to funding contemporary music in this country, could plenty of contemporary music be supplied? In fact, could more music, musicians and performances be supported than are supported by comparable funding for the large orchestras and opera companies produces? I know which side of the argument I’m tipping.

Madden makes exactly this point later in the article, stating that

The point here is not to defend orchestra funding but to illustrate that funding distributions are not an accurate reflection of the public benefits or perceived importance of those activities. More persuasive evidence would focus on public benefit rather than funding levels.

But, as Madden should know, in Australia at least, there is no robust available evidence for the different levels of public benefit produced by the funding of different artforms. There sin’t even the beginnings of a debate about what the “public benefits” bestowed by folk musicians, symphony orchestras and installation artists might actually look like, and how we should compare them. What evidence we do have suggests that the Australia Council’s funding priorities have nothing to do with public benefit at all – but are in fact the result of the pragmatic political reality of well-funded lobbying and the history of entrenched special interests.

Tomorrow, I’ll have a look at some of Madden’s slightly naive ideas about the formulation of public policy, and what this might tell us about his advice for those who might want to “improve their chances of success in arguing for policy reform.”

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Rebutting Christopher Madden: part 1

  1. “Big-budget computer games cost tens of millions to develop; they receive no funding. Poetry costs little to develop: it does receive funding.”

    Ben … statements like this really need unpacking. Perhaps you could also add an outcomes element into the mix. Such as … big budget computer games cost tens of millions to develop, but they often make very large profits. Poetry costs little to develop, but it also tends not to be particularly profitable to publish. Would big budget computer games still be developed if they had such little expectation of providing a return on the investment as poetry?

    I think it’s important to come to grips with the notion of ‘subsidy’ as it applies to the role of the Australia Council. One of the fundamental elements in the process of applying for funding is the demonstration of a need for the subsidy, which usually means ‘break even’ budgets. This is very different from a model that is based on ‘seed funding’ or ‘venture capital investment’, which expects profits and a return to investors.

    Your comment that the Council is now subject to ‘industry capture’ sounds very similar to the claims made in Patronage, Power & The Muse (the McLeay Report), back in 1986 … here the argument was that the Council had become a ‘captive of its clients’… that report also argued that funding was not a ‘special form of welfare for artists’ and that the only justification for funding was public benefit. My view is that the subsequent development of an ‘arts as industry’ model over the late 80s & early 90s was in large part the result of an attempt to justify on-going subsidy of the arts on economic grounds (with these being seen to be a clear and quantifiable ‘public benefit).

    Peter Anderson

    • Peter –

      I think you’re right, we need to unpack such statements. But while we’re at it, let’s unpack the assumptions that underpin arts funding … they’re not really about the profitability or otherwise of particular companies or artforms … they are in fact far more about the political pressure applied by large cultural institutions to governments for ongoing subsidy. The Macleay Report of course has a long and interesting history but it is unarguable, in my opinion, that the Council has become captured by its larger clients – the very fact that funding decisions for the MPO Board are neither peer-reviewed nor open to application from other organisations underlines this.

    • The point of this line about big budget computer game development NOT being subsidised while poetry (an inexpensive artform if ever there was one) DOES receive structured subsidy was that you can’t run the argument that big budget orchestras cost more and therefore need more funding more than less expensive solo folk music performers. The equation/algorithm is much more complex, and involves precedent (amongst other things) as well as the more idealistic “public benefit” element.

      “Public benefit” might well be an ideologically disappointing funding argument, but if one is to use it in determining funding distribution then one needs a more extensive understanding of who constitutes the public and what constitutes a benefit [than simply assuming an orchestra is the best provider in the field of music]. It could easily be argued that there are vast public benefits to a range of cultural expressions that miss out on funding for reasons primarily of precedent and administrative inappropriateness (no established administrative framework or lobby, for example).

      I’m not arguing that orchestras shouldn’t be funded. But an arts policy (and its funding outcomes) should not be based on doing what we’ve always done, or holding the same assumptions we’ve always held.

      As you point out, panderson58, there is little chance that poetry will break even. But this then becomes a different argument: art forms should be funded which have no likelihood of a return on investment (at the expensive of other speculative art forms that do have a chance – not a certainty! – of making money). This argument, when taken to its logical conclusion, encourages projects designed to appeal to ever diminishing audiences – and *lack* of public interest becomes evidence of the ‘value’, a nonsensical situation.

  2. I agree with the above comment, and also worry, in a more general sense, that what you are proposing is effectively a neo-liberal re-imagining of arts funding, whereby arts funding applies directly to forms that are popular, commercial and (technologically) innovative above all else–that arts or (as you term it) ‘culture’ funding will be directly related to instrumentality (how ‘useful’ culture is) and exchange value (how many people use it/consume the form–although I suspect you’d reply with the notion of the producer/consumer). Isn’t the whole point of arts funding to support ventures that aren’t otherwise commercially viable projects? Certainly every grant assessment panel I’ve ever sat on has worked from this premise.

    • No, I think it’s possible distinguish between the statistical evidence about what sorts of cultural activities Australians are engaged in from the pro-market theories associated with neo-liberalism.

      The “whole point of arts funding” in Australia is fundamentally confused, as a glance at the history of arts funding shows. Most of the arguments as to the market failure of a particular artform of cultural practice come from the industries affected themselves … you don’t have to be a neo-liberal to spot rent-seeking in government subsidies … as Stephen Conroy’s recent decision to rebate $200 million+ in license fees to the commercial TV networks on the dubious grounds of promoting local content shows.

  3. Hey Ben
    I agree that a debate about all of this is indeed healthy. One thing I am still unsure about is your claim that “designing websites” almost tripled in popularity. I get only a 34 percent increase in website designing between 2004 and 2007 (from 189 to 254 thousand people involved).

    I provided a data table with my article that Overland didn’t publish, but have reproduced it at http://artspolicies.org/2010/10/13/an-arts-council-by-any-other-name/.

    I can’t work out where you get your figures from, but happy for you to present an alternative interpretation.

    • Sorry, that was a typo, I lost the “1” in 189 on my Excel spreadsheet.

      The broader point I think is still valid, however, which is that many cultural practices that were hitherto almost exclusively analogue are now rapidly digitalising, like writing, design, photography and so on.

  4. Perhaps it’s not a good idea to get bogged down in the specifics of the data from the Work In Culture/Leisure study – I’m not sure it is all that reliable. This, if you recall is the study that was released with the “visual artists double in number” headline in the media release. According to the subsequent study by Throsby/Zednik (Do Your Really Expect to Get Paid?), there’s been a fall in visual artist numbers.

    I’m not at all sure that a cultural policy debate of this sort should get caught up in the short term figures for something like ‘designing web sites’ (what ever that means). I ‘designed’ a web site back in the mid 90s … in pen, on a few sheets of paper … mapping out the links and content(and wrote all the text in MSword, but could have typed it or written it long hand)… then someone else did all the HTML coding (which was not the same thing as ‘designing the site’). These days, the process would probably be different. In other words, you can ‘design a website’ without using a computer – making a web site is a different matter.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s