Page 3849 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 8 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Another issue of concern is the growing centralisation of arts facilities in the ACT - a process that is not necessarily desirable. One answer to these concerns may be the co-locating of the facilities proposed for Childers Street with studio complexes such as those of Australian National Capital Artists. It may be that the most appropriate way for these issues to be resolved is by their being referred to the cultural planner. The Minister might like to consider that before he responds to the remarks made by members in this debate.
Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, these are all welcome developments, but they are all bricks and mortar developments. The Canberra poet Mark O'Connor said, of the Creative Nation statement, that most of the money earmarked in the policy was going to the building industry and not to individual writers and artists. This is a caution which we would do well to heed in the context of the ACT.
Madam Speaker, I, too, am pleased to see the vision of a studio for local artists realised with the establishment of the Australian National Capital Artists, or ANCA, studios in Dickson and Mitchell. I have had the opportunity to visit the Dickson campus of ANCA on a number of occasions, and I find it a delightful environment, with a strong and developing sense of community. It is a wonderful addition to arts facilities in the Territory. One minor issue of concern on which the Minister may care to elaborate is the fact that substantial cracking developed in the walls of the studios on the northern side of the complex shortly after the completion of the building. ANCA may be put to considerable expense to rectify this.
Madam Speaker, speaking of the ANCA studios brings to mind a concern that I have heard expressed in a number of quarters, and that is a concern about the growth of the arts bureaucracy. We must be aware, in this Territory, of the capacity for patronage to stifle the diversity which is needed to foster a vibrant artistic community. We must take steps to ensure that the dead hand of bureaucracy does not impede a continuation of the progress which has been made so far. The issue of nepotism flows from the patronage system. The fundamental and very real concern is that a small group or coterie does not take control of the grants process and dole out grants to friends and those who do not rock the boat, while denying grants to those who are not part of the "in crowd" or who voice views that differ from those accepted by the coterie. This is a very real concern, particularly in a small arts community such as that in Canberra. I would suggest that it requires a high level of scrutiny, to ensure that emerging artists are able to take their rightful place in the arts community. The truism about artists starving in garrets and becoming famous after their death reflects the fact that great art often is not fashionable and that fashionable art often is not great. We must take care, Madam Speaker, that the very real dangers of censorship and nepotism, which can result from a system of patronage, do not stifle the very artists that the system is designed to foster.
Madam Speaker, in closing I would like to quote once again from Creative Nation, in which the Prime Minister said:
The statement does not attempt to impose a cultural landscape on Australia, but to respond to one which is already in bloom.
These are appropriate sentiments, as pertinent to the ACT as they are to Australia.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .