The industry of the amateur
A decade ago in his influential, and still very useful, account of Australian arts funding, Arguing The Arts, Tim Rowse was able to note: "the idea that artists (in the widest sense of the term) are workers in industries is still very new in the consideration of cultural policy" (p .80). So new perhaps, that it was not until very recently that discussions of "the arts industry" were accepted in mainstream arts policy debate. In the lead up to the launch of last year's Commonwealth cultural policy statement, Creative Nation, the Department of Communication and the Arts held a major national conference, Creating Culture: The New Growth Industries, which treated the arts and culture very much in industry terms. While introducing his presentation at this event, former Arts Minister Senator Bob McMullan, suggested that the conference marked something of a change in attitude. "Even a mere year or two ago we wouldn't have taken seriously proposing to hold such a conference", he said. But now, "more than ever before", it is being recognized that the cultural industries "occupy a significant place in the Australian economy."
In such a context it is worth noting that while Creative Nation is clearly a cultural policy, it concludes its introductory section by emphatically stating: "This cultural policy is also an economic policy. Culture creates wealth" (p. 7). But along with this idea that culture creates wealth, is a focus on economic viability, on the survival of the arts within a market, and on policy initiatives that will increase the economic spin-offs from cultural activity. What sort of impact might this change in attitude have on how governments treat the cultural sector? What sort of... The rest of this article is available to subscribers of Eyeline