I wrote a book

screen-shot-2016-09-26-at-8-31-32-pm

It is remiss of me not to mention it here, but last month I published a book. Available now from various Australian bookstores, my first monograph is entitled When the Goal Posts Move: Patronage, power and resistance in Australian cultural policy 2013-2016. It is published by Currency House as part of their long-running Platform Papers series.

The book is a short history of Australian cultural policy in the years 2013-2016, encompassing the end of the Rudd-Gillard Labor government and the first term of the Abbott-Turnbull Coalition government.

This was a tumultuous period in Australian cultural policy. Significant austerity was imposed on federal arts and cultural funding. Around $400 million was cut from the budget of the ABC, and around $300 million from the budgets of federal cultural agencies like Screen Australia the Australia Council for the Arts.

Most controversially, at least for the purposes of readers here, the federal government under former arts minister George Brandis, launched an audacious funding raid on the Australia Council in 2015. $105 million was subtracted from the Australia Council and given to a new cultural slush fund, revealingly entitled the National Program for Excellence in the Arts.

Brandis’ funding raid was about more than just moving the budget line around: it was nothing less than an assault on the institution of the Australia Council itself, and with it a four-decade tradition of arms-length funding decided by artistic peers. The politics were just as blatant: Brandis wanted to punish what he saw as undeserving (and politically suspect) art funded by the Australia Council, and redistribute the money to a palette of works and artforms that he liked: classical Western music and opera, by and large.

The pain of the Excellence raid fell squarely on the parts of Australian culture that many consider to be the most creative and innovative: the so-called “small-to-medium” sector of smaller arts companies, and the great bulk of individual artists and small collectives applying to the Australia Council’s grant programs. In a decision of remarkable cynicism, Brandis specifically ruled that the Australia Council must protect the funding of the 28 so-called “major performing arts” companies that make up the bulk of the Australia Council’s budget, thus making it inevitable that the funding cuts would fall on smaller players.

The Excellence raid revealed major schisms within Australian culture. The Australia Council and its board were shown to be impotent, even supine, in the face of the calculated political assault. Major cultural institutions that many thought would defend their colleagues were conspicuously silent; Opera Australia even welcomed the decision. The Australia Council’s board, which features media celebrities and well-known former artistic directors, said nothing.

The raid sparked national protests from artists and led to a Senate Inquiry, which took 2,700 submissions and issued a scathing report on the government’s actions. It also spurred a remarkable grass-roots protest movement from affected artists and small companies — one that proved surprisingly politically effective — called Free the Arts.

Why was the Australia Council so vulnerable? And what is the future for Australian cultural policy? This paper explores the broader socio-political environment that allowed a conservative government to launch the most damaging attack on the integrity of the Australia Council for forty years. It argues that Australian artists and so-called “cultural leaders” have largely lost or forgotten the vocabulary of public value that might be used to defend the public policy of culture here, a development not unlike that which has occurred in other parts of the public sphere, like universities and public science agencies.

The essay ends with a call to arms to rediscover the ethical and moral imperative of culture making, and the opportunity of convincing fellow citizens of that imperative.

Jo Caust on Australian cultural policy under Labor

Respected South Australian academic and consultant Jo Caust has a new paper out in the International Journal of Cultural Policy. Entitled “Cultural wars in an Australian context: challenges in developing a national cultural policy,” it’s the first detailed academic examination of Australia’s tortuous journey towards a national cultural policy during the six years of the Rudd-Gillard Labor government of 2007-13.

Regular readers of this blog and of my arts journalism will know what a rocky road that was. Labor originally promised a new cultural policy in opposition, under charismatic arts spokesman and later Arts minister, Peter Garrett. By the time that the eventual policy, Creative Australia, was finally announced, it was 2013. Garrett had come and gone as Arts minister, and Labor had also replaced Kevin Rudd as prime minister with Julia Gillard. Creative Australia ended up being the policy of the land for only seven months, with Labor losing the 2013 election.

Caust’s paper covers this history, and analyses the development of Creative Australia and the legislative reforms to the Australia Council that passed the Australian Parliament in 2013. Perhaps her single most salient insight is the degree to which the Canadian model of arts funding has influenced the current reforms. For those who covered the issues on a daily basis for the last six years, there is much that rings true. Although there is nothing particularly new in what she observes, she has done everyone a service by putting it all together in one place. As a result, her paper is a fine summary of the troubled and turbulent political environment under which cultural policy was made during the last government. For international readers in particular, this is a useful ‘first draft of history’ with which to begin the discussion of Labor’s cultural policy legacy. (Disclosure: Caust cites my work frequently in the paper, so I may be biased).

Caust concludes her paper with the following remarks:

From the early part of this millennium there has been much public discussion about the framing and delivery of cultural policy and arts funding in Australia. When a Labor government was elected in 2007 this resulted in a conversation with a select group about the concept of a ‘Creative Australia’ followed by a series of government initiated reviews on aspects of arts and cultural delivery, culminating in the publication of a Creative Australia in March 2013. This document shifted the conversation about cultural policy to embrace a broader definition of culture as well as update, to a limited extent, current approaches to arts funding. At the same time another government initiated review recommended significant changes to the national major arts funding body, the Australia Council. In this process, there was a shift towards more government influence over the workings of the Council while at the same time there was a recommendation for increased funding. However, a change in government 6 months later made the implementation of all of the recommendations unlikely.

In fact in the new Coalition government there is already evidence that there may be significant cuts in funding, and in this likelihood, the high arts would be given preference. In addition a broader embrace of cultural policy issues is unlikely under a Coalition government given their stated resistance to this paradigm. So in the short term any perceived shifts in understanding and valuing of arts and cultural issues in the Australian context, as an outcome of the latest approach to developing an Australian Cultural Policy, may have a limited tenure. Certainly the framing and content of national arts and cultural policies continue to be a political issue in Australia as they are elsewhere. Even so there is also a possibility that the present Coalition Government, while publicly rejecting the framework of Creative Australia, may still embrace aspects of it, if it should suit their political agenda.

Australian federal budget 2011: wrap-up of arts and cultural funding

The following article appeared in Crikey on Friday May 13th 2011. 

The 2011 federal budget contained some modest announcements for the arts and culture.

In the Arts portfolio, the government delivered on its 2010 election promise for $10 million over five years in new grants for artists to create work. The funding will support “up to 150 additional artistic works, presentations and fellowships over the next five years through the New Support for the Arts program.”

As well, $400,000 has been found for the federal government’s Contemporary Music Touring Program, a successful program which supports popular mid-level contemporary music acts to tour regional areas.

In broadcasting, $12.5 million has been provided for the proverbially penurious community radio sector, an increase of 25% for a critical area of broadcasting that generally receives very little government support

There was also a package for the screen industry, with a headline figure of $66 million (as we will see, it is actually less than this). Much of the extra money goes to production subsidies through the tax system in the form of lower qualifying thresholds for the Screen Production Incentive. According to Screen Australia, the changes include:

  • Lowering the threshold for Producer Offset eligibility from $1 million to $500,000, for features, TV and online programs

  • Replacing the Producer Offset for low-budget docos with a Producer Equity payment

  • Converting the 65 episode cap to 65 commercial hours for TV

  • Exempting documentaries from the 20% above-the-line cap

  • A reduction in qualifying Australian production expenditure thresholds, and allowances for a broader range of expenses to be eligible for QAPE.

Some really good news is the restoration of the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ screen industry survey, which provided gold-standard data on the state of the industry and which hasn’t been performed since 2007-08 (shortly before the Rudd government slashed funding to the ABS in its first budget).

But how much new money for screen is really here? Go to Budget Paper 2 and you will find that the total extra funding is only $8 million. This is because, quoting from the budget papers, “these changes will be partly offset by $48 million in savings over four years from 2011-12 by removing the Goods and Services Tax (GST) amounts from [qualifying production expenditure] for the film tax offsets and increasing the minimum expenditure thresholds for documentaries to $500,000 in production (from the current threshold of $250,000).”

Money is also being clawed back from cultural agencies through the increased efficiency dividend. Rising to 1.5% in future years, the efficiency dividend hits smaller agencies much harder than big ones. And everything in the arts is small.

The efficiency dividend measures mean the Australia Council is being asked to save $3.3 million over the forward estimates, the Australian Film Television and Radio School will have to find $1 million, the National Film and Sound Archive $1.1 million, the National Gallery $1.4 million, the National Library $2.1 million, the National Museum $1.7, and Screen Australia $759,000. That’s more than $12 million in funding cuts for cultural agencies over the forward estimates.

If we look a little closer at the portfolio budget statements, for instance from the Australia Council, we can see the effects of the efficiency dividend in falling support for artists and cultural organisations. This year there will be “a decrease of approximately $2.5 million in forecast grants expenses compared with 2010-11.” Australia Council grants funding will be only 2% above 2010 levels in 2014-15. But CPI is forecast to run at 3% annually, meaning Australia Council support for artists and organisations will fall in real terms — by perhaps as much as 10%.

In other words, the “New Funding for the Arts” money announced in this budget will be almost completely clawed back by the effects of static funding and the increased efficiency dividend on the Australia Council.

The one really big-ticket spending item in culture was of dubious policy value: the $376 million spend on helping pensioners and senior Australians to make the switch to digital TV. Opposition leader Tony Abbott has already pilloried the program as “Building the Entertainment Revolution”, while our own Bernard Keane and Glenn Dyer have pointed out “the political imperative of ensuring pensioners aren’t left without television as analog signals switch off”.

Personally, I’m sympathetic to the argument that television represents an important human service that allows older Australians to stay connected with the broader community. But the spending program should also be seen in the context of the broader budget, in which $211 million in spending is being “saved” from aged care itself. The government appears to be prioritising access to daytime television over places in aged-care facilities.

Money for art and culture is often spuriously disparaged by critics as diverting resources away from the critical services that governments provide. In reality, of course, the numbers are tiny compared to the investments annually in roads, schools and hospitals. But in this case it really does seem as though the owners of television networks are getting a subsidy at the expense of much-needed investment in aged care infrastructure.


The Australia Council’s recent Arts and Creative Industries report

The following article appeared in Crikey on February 4th. There’s been quite a bit of debate over at Crikey in the comments pages of this article, so head on over to see the discussion.

The plan to provoke a profound shake-up to the arts

In a week where so much has happened in the world, it’s not surprising a report from the Australia Council has not made the news. But in the rarefied atmosphere of arts policy, the release of a report entitled Arts and creative industries will make waves — the document, if followed to its logical conclusions, implies a profound shake-up to the current status quo. 

Authored by a team of QUT academics led by Professor Justin O’Connor, Arts and creative industries is a long, detailed and rigorous examination of the context, shape and setting of arts and cultural policy in Australia. It’s not quite the Henry Tax Review, but it’s certainly the most academically informed piece of research to be released by the Australia Council in a long time.

Beginning with a historical overview of 19th century culture and the genesis of “cultural policy” in postwar Britain, the report then examines each of the issues that has bedeviled the arts debate: the role of public subsidy, the growth of the industries that produce popular culture, the divide between high art and low art, and the emergence of the so-called “creative industries” in the 1990s. It’s as good a summary of the current state of play as you’re likely to find anywhere, including in the international academic literature.

O’Connor and his co-writers conclude that “the creative industries need not be —  indeed should not be — counter posed to cultural policy; they are a development of it” and that economic objectives (in other words, industry policy) should be a legitimate aim of cultural policy.

Taken as a whole, the argument has big implications for the way Australia currently pursues the regulation and funding of culture. For instance, it argues that “the ‘free market’ simply does not describe the tendencies of monopoly, agglomeration, cartels, restrictive practices, exploitation and unfair competition which mark the cultural industries” and that this in turn justifies greater regulation of cultural industries like the media. That’s a conclusion that few in the Productivity Commission or Treasury — let alone Kerry Stokes or James Packer — are likely to agree with.

The report also argues the divide between the high arts and popular culture has now largely disappeared, and that therefore “it is increasingly difficult for arts agencies to concern themselves only with direct subsidy and only with the non-commercial”. This is an argument which directly challenges the entire basis of the Australia Council’s funding model, in which opera and orchestral music receives 98% of the council’s music funding pie. No wonder the Australia Council’s CEO, Kathy Keele, writes in the foreword: “This study proposes to challenge many of our current conceptions, definitions, and even policies.”

Intriguingly, the report stops short of any concrete policy recommendations. Perhaps this is because some existed, but were excised from the report. Or perhaps it’s because any recommendations that genuinely flowed from this report would imply the break-up or radical overhaul of the Australia Council itself.

As Marcus Westbury this week observed in The Age: ”While the Australia Council isn’t backward in promoting research, reports and good news stories that validate the status quo, there is not much precedent for it challenging it.”

That’s because the real guardian of the current funding model is not the Australia Council, but the small coterie of large performing arts companies and high-status impresarios that are its greatest beneficiaries. It won’t be long before a coalition of high arts types, from Richard Tognetti to Richard Mills, start clamouring to defend their privilege.

Why culture is bigger than the arts: Rebutting Christopher Madden part 2

The main thrust of Christopher Madden’s recent article in response to my criticism of the Australia Council can be summarised by his title, “An arts council by any other name.”

To quote Madden:

Eltham calls for the Australia Council to be ‘abolished’. Yet the agency described in his ‘new model’ – what I will refer to as a ‘culture council’ – looks suspiciously like the Australia Council with a new name and a different focus. The new agency is not described in detail. Is it at arm’s length like the Australia Council? Would it support all of culture, from Facebook to historic places? What powers would it have? How would its ‘radically strengthened and diversified’ peer review processes work? Whatever the details, I would caution that an arts council by any other name would smell as sweet.

Today, an online survey popped into the inbox of my partner Sarah-Jane which, I think, proves exactly why what I’m calling for is not “an arts council by any other name”. It’s a survey of emerging artists who have applied for or been funded by the Australia Council in the past twelve months. Sarah-Jane is a film-maker: a director and producer who has received funding through OzCo’s Story of the Future initiative (an initiative which has since been discontinued). And yet, what are the types of artforms that the survey asks about? Here they are:

A7i. Which types of artistic work have you been practising in over the last 12 months?
If you don’t think these options describe your work, please select the best options and add a comment in the box below.
Please click all that apply
Music
Theatre
Dance
Writing
Visual Arts
Crafts
Hybrid Arts
Community Arts
Other

Notice how there are no film related categories here? That’s because the Australia Council doesn’t fund film-makers – Screen Australia does. Nothing wrong with that.

But what is an issue is the result of that distinction: the fact that OzCo only collects statistics about the things it already funds. We saw exactly the same issue in the Australia Council’s recent research about artists occupations.

You can see the problem here. If OzCo doesn’t fund it, the Australia Council does not consider it an “artform”. The reason for this is not any coherent theory of cultural practice – which is probably just as well, because just exactly what makes jewellery more artistic than cinematography anyway? No, the distinction is all about bureaucratic demarcation.

The result is that things that OzCo doesn’t fund, like game design or film-making, are not part of the Australia Council’s statistics, its evidence base, or its policy advocacy. This alone demonstrates why Madden is wrong: a different council, by another name and with a different ambit of cultural practice, would be a very different organisation, with very different policy imperatives.

In response to Kathy Keele

Australia Council CEO Kathy Keele has formally responded to my article in Overland about the future of Australia’s art funding body. In this post, I continue the dialogue.

Firstly, I should acknowledge Keele’s engagement in the debate, and I welcome the fact she has taken the opportunity to respond.

Secondly, there are some specific points Keele raises which I should address. These relate to my imprecise phrasing in certain sections of the Overland article. Basically, where I’ve said the Australia Council “doesn’t fund” certain artforms, I should have written “the Australia Council contributes tiny or negligible funding”. You can see what I mean below. Keele’s points first, then my response:

  • [Eltham] states that the council ‘funds opera but not musicals (except when opera companies mount musicals)’. This is incorrect. The music and theatre boards have an initiative called Music Theatre which supports the development of musicals.

This is true in the narrow sense, but in the broader sense my point holds. The Australia Council does fund a Music Theatre Initiative, but at a risible level. The Initiative distributes a tiny proportion of funding compared to that devoted to opera. In 2009, the Music Theatre Initiative gave out $288,000 to 9 projects. Opera Australia received $17.9 million and Opera Queensland received another $318,000. Hence, music theatre totalled less than 1.6% of opera funding. In fact, the extra money Opera Australia received to produce Bliss nearly totalled what the Music Theatre Initiative distributed!

  • He argues for the artistic importance of gaming, and asks ‘why doesn’t the Australia Council support gaming?’ It does. The council has over many years funded artists who create game art works and explore game culture as an artistic practice.

The Australia Council’s support for game art and game culture is tiny. There is no game art board, in the way there are Theatre, Music, Dance or Major Performing Arts Boards. The Council has over many years funded all sorts of things with very small amounts, but that doesn’t change the big picture, which is that the Australia Council overwhelmingly funds a very narrow palette of artforms and practices – gaming is not one of them.

  • He states that the council supports ‘serious novels, generally, but not genre fiction or online writing’. Not true. The Literature Board has funded genre novels, interactive media writing, websites, iPhone apps and graphic novels through our New Work and Write in Your Face grants programs. The board recently completed a three-year initiative called the Story of the Future and published the Writer’s Guide to Making a Digital Living.

Again, this is true in the narrow sense, and these intiatives are important. Unfortunately, they are also comparatively minor. Indeed, Keele’s response only reinforces my point – Story of the Future, for instance, the Literature Board’s most substantive effort to support these practices, has finished and has not been renewed. The Write In Your Face initiative, while worthy, distributes tiny grants of only $5000 to a lucky few applicants. Go through the New Work Assessment Meeting Reports and you will see mainly literary writers working in traditional forms sch as novels or literary non-fiction.

In fact, the Literature Board itself recognises that it is not really addressing digital literacy and writing in its Sector Plan. One of the goals of the Sector Plan is “Targeted support for multimedia writers by the end of 2011” –  suggesting that not only is there a need for such support, but that the Literature Board does not currently meet that need.

  • Eltham states that the council ‘funds companies that only produce a few works a year but not festivals that produce hundreds’. In fact, each year the council funds dozens of works that are presented at festivals all over the country. We also fund the Major Festivals Initiative which commissions new Australian work for presentation at the seven capital city festivals.

Again, while it is true that Australia Council funds works that appear at festivals, it is stretching the truth to argue that the Australia Council provides much meaningful funding to the festival sector. Key festivals like the Melbourne Fringe and Adelaide Fringe receive nothing from the Australia Council, despite their key role in presenting small-to-medium work. The Major Festivals Initiative, at $3 million over four years, is a tiny fraction of the funding given to Opera Australia or the orchestras, and largely funds major performing arts board organisations anyway.

Where does the money go? We know where the majority goes: to the big companies in the Major Performing Arts Board.

Australia Council CEO Kathy Keele replies

Australia Council CEO Kathy Keele has responded to my article in Overland. For the record, she does identify some factual errors in my piece which I freely acknowledge and will address in a subsequent post.

Here is the text of her reply:

Kathy Keele,  Australia Council CEO, responds to Ben Eltham’s Overland 199 article

Ben Eltham’s article raises a number of important issues worthy of further debate. I welcome his passion for the vitality of the arts in this country and the need for a dynamic approach to cultural policy.

I agree completely that culture is much bigger than the arts and indeed that the arts are bigger than ‘what the Australia Council funds’. We made this point in our submission to the National Cultural Policy consultation process. How we set the parameters of ‘culture’ so that it yields a policy that’s workable for government is a good topic for discussion.
But there are a number of points in his essay that need to be corrected.

One of Eltham’s key criticisms of the Australia Council is that its view of the arts is antiquated, remaining largely unchanged from the 1970s. As examples, he names arts practices that are not supported by the council’s art form boards – gaming, genre fiction, online writing, and musicals, to name a few.

The problem is that this isn’t true. For a healthy debate to proceed, it’s important to correct these and some other factual inaccuracies.

  • He states that the council ‘funds opera but not musicals (except when opera companies mount musicals)’. This is incorrect. The music and theatre boards have an initiative called Music Theatre which supports the development of musicals.
  • He argues for the artistic importance of gaming, and asks ‘why doesn’t the Australia Council support gaming?’ It does. The council has over many years funded artists who create game art works and explore game culture as an artistic practice.
  • He states that the council supports ‘serious novels, generally, but not genre fiction or online writing’. Not true. The Literature Board has funded genre novels, interactive media writing, websites, iPhone apps and graphic novels through our New Work and Write in Your Face grants programs. The board recently completed a three-year initiative called the Story of the Future and published the Writer’s Guide to Making a Digital Living.
  • Eltham states that the council ‘funds companies that only produce a few works a year but not festivals that produce hundreds’. In fact, each year the council funds dozens of works that are presented at festivals all over the country. We also fund the Major Festivals Initiative which commissions new Australian work for presentation at the seven capital city festivals.

Questioning the amount of funding allocated to these various new art practices is one thing. I worry, however, that his critique is based on an idea that the council doesn’t fund these arts practices at all.

What I want to make clear is that many ‘new’ art practices are currently funded by the Australia Council from within the existing art form boards, through our inter-arts section and, indeed, through programs and initiatives across council. The key criterion, no matter what its form, is that the art is excellent.

I also need to correct the impression left by Eltham that abolition of the Community Cultural Development Board in 2005 demonstrated that the council ‘turned its back on community arts’. He fails to mention that the Community Partnerships Committee, with an upgraded remit to support community arts practice across the nation, was formed the following year. This year Community Partnerships will be allocating approximately $10 million in funding.

Eltham also notes his objections to the funding allocated to the major performing arts companies. It is useful to note that while the Australia Council manages the distribution of this funding, decisions as to which organisations are funded and by how much are set by the six state arts ministers and the federal arts minister.

In spite of these errors and misunderstandings, I do believe Eltham’s piece raises a fundamental question: how do we most effectively fund the ever-changing way that art is created? This question needs to be constantly revisited by those sitting both inside and outside our arts funding agencies.

Kathy Keele
CEO Australia Council for the Arts

 

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. Continue reading

The arts policy debate in Australia

As regular readers of this blog will know, Marcus Westbury and I have been gently exploring the policy paradoxes of Australia’s arts funding regime for the better part of 2010.

Now the debate is starting to gather steam. Over at his blog, Marcus has a post summarising the various work we’ve done together to highlight the inequities and inconsistencies in the current Australia Council funding model.

As Marcus writes:

I could respond point by point to every comment and criticism but I think it’s best to let a lot of it pass. I do want to pick up on one thing though. It’s the mentality that it is Orchestras, Opera and Classical music under siege in Australia right now. Frankly, that’s either ignorant, disingenuous or a bare faced lie. As a simple look at the numbers reveals even after years of gently raising these issues opera and orchestras are by far the biggest recipients of Australia Council funds, they get 98% of all music funding, and they receive several times more Australia Council funding than every other artist in every other artform in Australia combined. If the directors of those companies can not respond to the idea that other artists in Australia are being shut out of a system that is stacked absurdly in their favour with a response other than insults, scare campaigns and offensive diatribes their position will become increasingly untenable.

Tomorrow, I’m going to examine the policy record of the Australia Council more carefully, and try to explain why I think it should be abolished in favour of a new federal structure for supporting arts and culture in this country.

The Australia Council’s funding policies: bigger is better

Over at his blog, Marcus Westbury has done some careful analysis of the way the Australia Council slices up its funding pie.

It’s confirmation of a long-running trend towards the preferential funding of large performin arts organisations over … well … everything else:

The Australia Council's 2009-10 funding, by artform category. Large performing arts organisations are favoured over the other artforms supported by the Australia Council. Source: Marcus Westbury, using Australia Council data

As Marcus writes:

As you can see there is still massive discrepancy between the amounts of money that go into the major performing arts and how much goes intoeverything else combined.

My favourite little factoid: Opera Australia last year received more funding from the Australia Council than all the applicants for all 6 of the Australia Council’s major artform boards combined.  Opera Australia alone received $18.3 million. By contrast the Australia Council’s entire competitive funds for literature ($4.2m), music ($3.6m), theatre ($2.5m), dance ($1.8m) visual arts ($4.8m) and inter-arts or cross artform projects ($0.8m) combined totaled just $17.6 million. That’s one opera company receiving more than seven hundred and eighty one separate projects, organisations and individuals competitively funded across all those forms.

And the new media funding that is apparently all the rage if you believe the scare campaigns? Opera Australia’s budget could power the the “inter-arts” office for the next 23 years — there’s a pretty good chance new media will be heritage itself by then. Even if you add in the $386,000 from the positive but spread-rather-thinly “Arts in the digital era strategy” that figure reduces to about 16 years.