Cut the subsidies and revive the arts       by Gunduz Kalic

Arts budget cuts are not the tragedy arts industry spokespeople are attempting to lead the public to believe.  Rather, the weaning of the arts from financial dependence upon government - and from artistic management by the arts bureaucracy - is a cause for celebration.

From where should the cuts come?  First and foremost the principle that, in future, any arts subsidies should be distributed through audiences ought to be introduced in next year’s funding.  In other words, it is the public appeal of art forms and artistic creations that should guide arts policy - ie, bums on seats in the case of the performing arts and cash sales of artistic product for visual arts, writing and other areas.

The Australia Council annual report shows that the performing arts receive the lion’s share of Federal Government arts monies.  The Government ought to begin whittling back the “per ticket” subsidy this year and set in place further phased reductions for years to come.

Consider the not uncommon case of a State theatre company subsidised to the tune of a $2 million by federal, State and local government and which draws an audience of 90,000 people for its annual season (though this figure is heavily padded by counting performances for school children and free performances in public places).

The rule of thumb average ticket price is $26 a head.  Calculation will show that, even on the suspect audience figures, the hidden government subsidy is a whopping $22 a head or 85 percent of the ticket price.  What percentage of patrons would be prepared to pay the full price?  A few perhaps, but the majority would doubtless vote with their feet and stay away unless the production was extraordinary.

Therefore, what “lean and mean” - and creative - changes would the artistic director and general manager have to make to their productions in order to retain and increase audience size without the ready and comfortable government handouts?  These are likely to be much more interesting and exciting artistic efforts than the current stuff, produced by public sector mindsets and spending habits.

It is in this direction that the Government should be encouraging the arts via judiciously applied cuts.  Subsidies should be granted on a very clear, ticket sold basis, with the understanding that these will be phased out and replaced with direct subsidies to audiences.

An anomaly of the current situation is that unsubsidised artistic effort is subject to unfair competition from government-funded market “giants”.  For example, how does one compete with the enormous advertising budgets of the subsidised companies?  With the exception, perhaps, of the big national and international production houses, it is far too difficult for unfunded companies competing for a share of the public’s arts dollar.

The Budget should take steps towards “deregulating” the arts marketplace, so that in the not too distant future consumers, rather than failed bureaucratic processes such as peer assessment, are choosing the deserving recipients of any monies the taxpayer can spare.

Additional cuts can be made to those arts or art forms which have little or no public appeal.  As Gore Vidal says about the arts, “what doesn’t adapt, dies”.  As growing up is painful, so will arts cuts be.

Hopefully, however, the financial readjustment will be a constructive dress rehearsal for an eventual separation of arts and government.

This article appeared in the Australian Financial Review, Monday August 19, 1996.