The art of finding cash

Press, 31 August 1977, Page 38

The art of finding cash

By

Howard McNaughton

The arts in New Zealand, are like nasturtiums in New) Zealand — hardy exotic , annuals which, miraculously, seem to come up in much the same places each year. Growth, hybridisation, and proliferation all seem to be 'governed by the essentially annual nature of the) Iphenomenon which, in 1977,1 [is not as radically different from its state in 1877 as many would like to believe. The popular complaint is that the arts are under-financed, as, by comparable overseas standards, they certainly are; Government funding thus becomes the ultimate scapegoat. The popular justification for low subsidy levels involves the much-heard argument that in times of economic depression luxury markets like whisky, perfume, and ballet should be [the first to suffer. On this basis, the stoics among us justify the reduced input of public money into the Arts Council, a fall from 4.2 cents in every $lOO of public spending to a mere 3.2 cents in two years. At such a low funding level, such variation i cannot be without its disasters.

In practical terms, this means that for every four-dollar ticket the concert-goer is buying a i product w’hich might realistically be costed at above 10 dollars — and that it is quite likely that less than half the difference has been supplied by Government subsidy. The rest, of course, comes from a large variety of sources motivated oy benevolent and mercenary instincts;- without question, the arts are a valuable secondary investment for our tourist industry, but the precise value is impossible to (gauge. However, in the (performing arts in particular, the main subsidiser is the [man who is often regarded as I the exploiter of the whole [situation — the artist himself.

, Any professional worker [expects abnormal demands on [his time: he should not expect to have to plead for the day-to-day trivia that give a degree of continuity to his work, especially when he has! beer, encouraged into his profession by Government blessing. The arts in New 'Zealand should not pivot on the generosity of, for example, freight companies.

The visual artist takes consolation with the news of dealer galleries with 1976

turnovers running into six] figures; the national “total subsidy” of museums and [public art galleries is justified by 1976 attendances of over three million. The performer, however, is expected to cope with all the perils and humiliations of a private enterprise gamble without any prospect of a big pay-off. Here, the parable of the nasturtium becomes pertinent. No arts organisation can flourish in terms of both established excellence and experimental growth as long as it is treated as an annual. Too much of every artistic 'year is spent in covertly satisfying the Arts Council, which means that too little, is spent in satisfying the supporting population. Plans are announced and then inexplicably dropped: a front of optimism is maintained because to admit decline is to court virtual annihilation. It is easy for most such organisations to improve their statistics simply by indulging populist tastes; one nude scene may not make a good opera, but it guarantees a good house. There is no short-term solution to these problems, because they arise from too much short-term thinking, from too many top-level

I decisions being made at too (many summit conferences. I For the New Zealand arts to achieve the stability of the [New Zealand education system, they too must be administrated on a quinquennial basis. Plenty of our arts organisations have proved their ability to maintain high-quality work over a number of years, and they deserve greater Government [confidence than the threatening reality of annual review. [After all, the Arts Council

was instituted in .963 notionally to implement a gift to the Queen, a gift which appeared to be supplemented by the new act of 1974; an annual system of review and reduction looks like a threat to take back the gift. A quinquennial system, it may be objected, would limit subsidised new growth to five-yearly spurts. The reality is that, on present funding, the New Zealand arts cannot afford new growth or even substantial experimentation within the established structure: the economic battle is essentially just to maintain the present “standard of professional excellence.” When a new venture of unpredictable quality and permanence appears, the obvious solution is to subsidise not the artist but the audience, to introduce a voucher system such as has been widely advocated in) Europe, to introduce a genuine “democratisation” of the Arts Council by letting sectors of the public vote for subsidy by using discount vouchers. Pensioners, students, unionmembers, school children, and similar groups might thus participate in a dis-

count system which could lead to valuable research. All debates on the economics of the arts in New Zealand are inconclusive I simply because the subject [area is under-taught and chronically under-researched.

The New Zealand -st) may attract public attention; by a dozen different routes) from 50 different | under-staffed teaching institutions. It is ludicrous to insist on ‘professionalism’ in the arts when the few professional teachers we have are operating in near isolation, teaching whole art forms without being able to: concentrate on their specialist areas. New Zealand dentists train at Otago under a specialist staff of more than 50; there is no reason why New Zealand arts teaching should not be concentrated in a similar manner. “Under-researched” is the index to the state of desperation current in the New Zealand arts. No manufacturer would unleash a solitary toothbrush without' knowing far more than is known about the market for the New Zealand arts now. Various dealer galleries and well-established performing arts groups carry out their own pragmatic research, and the Arts Council has supported several promising schemes (the results of most have not been released in detail). But no-one really knows the ratio of New Zealanders’ current preferences of museums and art galleries to the performing arts, and few people seem to care: it is pleasant to know that our arts administration are full of aesthetes, but the real need is for sociologists.

So what is the solution? We, as audience, may think that one New Zealand art form is better than it was five years ago — but that Imay be an illusion because a current director happens to 'be better at selling himself to

We may think that ;a quinquennial funding would 'solve everything — but that still leaves the Arts Council (with its problem of making an aesthetic comparison [between the Sydenham Sun [Club and the Dallington [Dadaists, within the terms of (miniscule Government fundling. The unpleasant reality of (the state of the New Zealand [arts in 1977 is that, until we lean no longer cal) them under-taught and under-researched, many people will regard them as being financed capriciously — and thus over-financed.