Monday, 19 May 2008

Why Michael Duffy's wrong about arts in Australia

As first published in Crikey.

Sydney Morning Herald columnist Michael Duffy needs to get out more. In Saturday’s op-ed pages Duffy wrote one of the more generalised and least researched pieces I have read from him in quite a while.

"One of the mysteries of my lifetime has been the disappearance of significant Australian artists, in any art form," Duffy starts.

"When I was at school, and an undergraduate in the 1970s, there was a pantheon of first-rate artists whose names were familiar to most Australians, at least among the middle class. Their work was widely taught or hung on walls or shown in cinemas: it was part of the national consciousness."

Duffy complains that he doesn’t know of any artists of any "significance". He longs for a time when there were names like Arthur Boyd, Patrick White and John Olsen. He even attempts to drag Australian culture to its glorious colonial past by quoting English writer John Betjeman who "visited Australia in the early '60s and wrote that we were experiencing a new Elizabethan age".

Unfortunately for Duffy, the artists out there creating and making and exploring -- and the audiences that see and experience and buy artistic work -- no longer need the approval of some authority from the motherland.

The fact is that Duffy ignores the great changes that have happened to artistic expression since he was a poor undergraduate. The time of the great exclusive artist who produces a "masterpiece" are thankfully gone as more and more people experience art in everyday situations. From community centres, to sold-out fringe theatres, inner city and regional galleries, alternative warehouse spaces, to street art and festivals, artists and their audiences are experiencing everything from cloth to film to dance and are making cities and towns come alive with colour and vibrancy.

Art is going on all around you Michael, with or without the support of you and your colleagues in the media. Australians attend more theatre and live performance than they do sport. But one look at our media organisations and you'd never know it.

I hope that Duffy took the time to read through to another section of the newspaper and he may have found the answer to why he doesn’t know any local artists. A quick glance at the Good Weekend magazine featured a very interesting article on the Australian Institute of Sport.

"The AIS produces the winners Australians love: by some counts, more than half the total medals at the last Olympics were associated with the AIS. And yet it produces them in exactly the way Australians like least: by creating a highly elite, exclusive, expensive system. So elite and exclusive in fact, it has to have a special mandate under the federal Anti-Discrimination Act to exist at all; and so expensive that its budget for 2007-08 is a cool $43 million, and each full-time scholarship is worth $30,000 a year," the article explains.

If you tried to have this type of funding model for an arts training program you could guarantee that media outlets across the country would have a field day. But for sports it’s ok.

The artists are there, but as far as the media is concerned, sport is what we care about. Each night, close to half of news bulletins is made up by sport. Each day in our newspapers, pages and pages and pages of analysis, reports, previews, articles and opinions are dedicated to sport.

The world that Duffy portrays makes you feel as though artists throughout the country are getting money left right and centre. If only that were true. The Sydney Theatre Company, as an example of funding, gets just under $7 per ticket in funding for theatre.

Duffy goes on to make the wild claim that he suspects that "government funding has had something to do with this drying up of major talent. An artist who depends substantially on subsidies, even if just in the early years, creates work for those who give out the subsidies rather than for the general public."

By that logic, if The Sydney Morning Herald stopped paying Duffy, we might get some better articles. Not a bad idea at all.

4 comments:

Michael Webster said...

At least we now have proof (as if any were needed) of where the editors of the SMH stand on the issue of the Yartz. It's in a coma ... or already cremated. Take your pick.

What a hapless, nostalgic yearning for a time long passed.

I'll tell you what I think is wrong with the Arts in Australia. It's that we have apathetic and unengaged coverage in the our media – of which Duffy's piece is a outrageous example – that belies and betrays the great and ever-changing landscape of creative endeavour in this country.

No wonder the next generation are growing impatient waiting for us all to die so they can have their way.

sydney arts journo said...

Absolutely right Michael. Articles by Duffy et al just show how out of touch everyone is with what is going on in this country.

Take this from one of our weekend papers over the weekend -

"Many audience members would assume, given her star billing on all the production posters, that Blanchett would continue to work diligently behind the scenes in her director's role.

"Not so, says a Sydney Theatre Company spokesman, who pointed out that it is normal practice for directors to turn up only occasionally when their plays are being staged."

How scintillating.

Alison Croggon said...

God that's depressing. Add it up to a piece in the Age on the weekend on how the chief thing Australians like about Picasso is that they can laugh at how transparently bad he is, and you start wanting to emigrate.

I've struck too often the commentators of a certain generation claiming that nothing has happened since their glory days passed. It's a great way of erasing what is actually happening. And on the money, Michael. That is precisely what's wrong.

Michael Webster said...

Has Michael Duffy never been to The Old Fitzroy? The Stables? The Darlinghurst Theatre? Carriageworks? The Seymour Centre? Belvoir Street? Upstairs and/or downstairs? The Performance Space?

Did he not see "Happy Feet"? Has he slept through Mel Gibson's invigorating career as a film maker?

Judging by this observation, it would seem he hasn't been to anything since the premier of "Picnic at Hanging Rock" ... oh no, wait a minute ... he doesn't even mention it! Or Peter Weir. Or Schepisi, or Tankard, or the Oscar-winning Blanchett, or the Oscar-winning Kidman, or the Tony Award-winning Jackman, or ...

I was picked up by a taxi-driver who chose to reminisce about Bazza McKenzie. Something about " ... if it was raining virgins I'd be stuck in a lift with a poof."

Now I know where he finds solace for his opinion: he must be a SMH subscriber.