Today's post is by Ben Tan
Introduction
The current government has placed a lot of emphasis in
Science and Technology, with a clearly articulated set of aims (for example,
the National Statement of Science
Investment), and actions like providing increased funding for
teaching/research in STEM subjects (Science. Technology,
Engineering, Mathematics), or the formation of the National Science Challenges.
There is a general consensus that STEM is an important part of our economy, and
certainly something that needs a lot of active guidance and cultivation. The
government has a vision for “a highly dynamic science system that enriches New
Zealand, making a more visible, measurable contribution to our productivity and
well-being through excellent science.”
In contrast, ‘the arts’ is often seen as the diametric
opposite of STEM. It is not as easily defined and its impacts are hard(er) to
measure. Creative arts are often seen as a hobby, recreational activity, or
something nice, but not especially important overall - and in my exploration of
this area for this piece, it seems to me that the arts in NZ is treated as
something that seems to keep ticking away, with arty people doing whatever it
is that arty people do, and not much else in terms of higher level strategic
thinking or discussion, at least, from the perspective of public policy-making.
At the time of writing, the
only statement I could find from any political party about Arts, Culture, and
Heritage was from the Green Party with a
policy statement from 2014. In many ways, the arts (and culture) is an example
of an area that the Government has some interest in, but as it has not been
identified as the source or symptom of a
“problem”, it is not really discussed. That doesn’t mean that it is all
hunky-dory in the arts; at least anecdotally, funding availability is tightening,
and that, unlike in other parts of the world, there is not a huge community of
philanthropy for the arts (especially in terms of younger philanthropists). But
while many might argue that we have far more pressing issues to address, like
infrastructure and healthcare, at the
very least, we should be having ongoing discussions about the arts, and where
it sits in our society. I don’t get a sense that there is a big picture vision
for what the arts should, or could, be.
As such, this piece will attempt to serve as a cursory
discussion about the arts and associated policy in NZ generally. First, I’ll
look at some of the background and context for the arts sector in New Zealand,
and discuss some of the merits and attitudes around the arts generally. I’ll
explore some possible policy directions for the arts, as well as implications
for the arts, and its role, in the future.
Background
The arts, and more generally, the “Cultural Sector” typically refers to a collection of
industries including “film, music, broadcasting, design and digital
technologies; our built heritage, libraries, literature, museums and galleries,
performing and visual arts”. According to research published in 2014,
New Zealanders as a whole have a positive attitude about the creative arts,
recognising that “the arts are good for you (88% agree)”, and that “the arts
help improve New Zealand society (82% agree)”. Economically, the arts also
contributes; according to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, “the sector is an engine of
growth for the New Zealand economy. In recent years, it has either
matched or outpaced other sectors of the economy in terms of income, employment
and value added”. There are numerous benefits for support and wide
participation in the arts, and Creative New Zealand (the
Crown Entity responsible for promoting and supporting the arts, as well as
managing government funding of the arts), has a section on their website
dedicated to information and research espousing myriad contributions of the
arts.
Early government support for the arts was formalised in the 1940s
with the establishment of the first ‘cultural office’ embedded within the
Department of Internal Affairs, the creation of the New Zealand Film Unit, and
the initial setup of the national orchestra. A ministerial portfolio for the arts
was created in 1975, and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage (MCH) as it is
today was formed in 2000. In general, the Ministry describes New Zealand as
favouring an “arm’s length” model for
supporting the arts, and today, one of its main institutional roles is the
administration of funding for cultural statutory bodies, like Creative New
Zealand (Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa), the New Zealand Film
Commission, Heritage New Zealand, the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, and Te
Papa (Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa). As far as MCH is concerned,
their mandate is to achieve:
The most efficient use
of public resources to maximise understanding and appreciation of, access to
and participation in New Zealand culture, and to promote the enhancement of New
Zealand’s cultural identity
As part of the general “arm’s length” approach, government
funding to creative arts organisations and projects (other than the NZSO) is
managed by Creative New Zealand, where the Arts Council “makes
grants to companies, individuals and national and community projects in
literature, theatre, music, opera, the visual arts, crafts, dance, multi-media
and experimental film and video (and combinations of these art forms)”. About ⅓
of Creative New Zealand’s funding comes from the budget, and ⅔ from the New Zealand Lottery Grants Board,
where decreasing lottery revenues have caused some alarm within the arts sector. Arts endeavours are also
often supported by grants from local government bodies, such as through Auckland Council’s Community Grant
Policy, although the scale of funding available through these
sources are lower. With this current structure, there is some uncertainty and
risk for people working in the arts, as funding levels are quite volatile, and
as such, planning for growth is a significant challenge.
Aside from funding the arts sector, the government also
supports the arts through education. The New Zealand Curriculum’s vision
includes creativity, and the aim to “secure a sustainable...cultural...future for
our country”. In the arts specifically, the curriculum remarks on how art
education “explores, challenges, affirms, and celebrates unique artistic
expressions of self, community, and culture”, enhances “students’ personal
well-being”, and “stimulates creative action and response by engaging and
connecting thinking, imagination, senses, and feelings”, increasing their
“confidence to take risks” - all good things. And yet, once students leave
school, there is no real sense of that the arts might provide an important (and
viable) place to contribute to NZ society. Funding for arts disciplines at the tertiary
level hasn't increased since 2012. In my time looking through the websites and documents of our
major political parties, as well as MCH and Creative New Zealand, vision and
ambition seem to be somewhat undernourished.
Do we need more vision in policy? Does anyone have a
substantial arts policy?
There’s a lot of implication that the arts are important;
that the creation of new cultural repertoire and engagement in the community is
worthwhile, and yet, there doesn’t seem to be any appetite for really
cultivating growth in the sector. There’s a rise in the idea of spreading
adoption of STEM, and with that rise, associated funding increases,
but while science is science wherever you are in the world, the art and culture
of NZ is distinctly our own - no doubt something to be cherished. But what do
the arts really mean to us a society? I think we owe a lot to the arts for
shaping and developing our sense of culture and uniqueness in the world. And as
such, I wonder if it’s time now to revisit what the arts means to New Zealand,
and the future of New Zealand as a whole.
For a start, maybe we need to think more carefully and
articulate a vision for the arts in New Zealand. For example, take Sweden, where
“Creativity, diversity and artistic quality are to be integral parts of
society’s development”, and a clearly enumerated goal to “promote opportunities
for everyone to experience culture, participate in educational programmes and
develop their creative abilities” (emphasis mine). Singapore, in its Arts
and Culture Strategic Review, lays out a goal to be achieved by 2025 of
producing “A nation of cultured and gracious people, at home with our heritage,
proud of our Singaporean identity” where “Arts and culture will be an integral
part of our people’s lives”. Singapore’s National Arts Council
also produces a 5-year Arts Master Plan. In contrast, Creative New Zealand has
a Statement of Intent, with such aspirational goals as the improvement of
“service delivery” alongside the refinement of “investment to ensure that the
arts continue to develop in New Zealand for New Zealanders”. This level of
inspiration is probably linked to our funding situation and priorities, where
we need to be conservative and evidently, not too ambitious. Is this really all
that arts policy in NZ has to offer us?
I think there’s an opportunity waiting for us in the arts. Norway, which has a
population not too dissimilar to our own, has a fund that is entirely financed
by their Ministry of Culture of
about 132 million euros, and also has a fund which provides stipends to
individual artists to encourage innovation. They have no need to encourage
gambling or playing lotto in order to enrich their cultural treasures. Many countries fund much more money into subsets of
the arts (like in music alone). Germany subsidises health
insurance for independent artists so they can be more entrepreneurial. Our
Green Party has even proposed reinstating a “financial support scheme for arts
and cultural employment”, as well as training Work and Income staff to
“recognise and respect the arts as a valid vocational choice”. There’s
obviously merit and rationale for strategic
fostering and support of the arts. Does a thriving society feature a strong
participation and involvement in arts and culture? I certainly think so, but
there just doesn’t seem to be all that much happening in the policy space in NZ
right now.
I’m not advocating for a simple injection of more money into
the arts in NZ (although I’m sure a less volatile funding source would be
welcomed by those in the sector), especially in light of all the many pressing
challenges. Instead, at the very least, I think we need to think (or at least
encourage thinking) about the arts, our vision for the arts. There’s a wide
community who would welcome some leadership from government.
Ben Tan is currently a PhD candidate in Engineering (yep… STEM), but also a keen art-enthusiast, largely as a participant in NZ’s world-class choral music scene, but also as an audience member of theatre, and a consumer of literature. He was also a one-time member of a political party in NZ (but then they kicked up a fuss about surnames in a bad way, so that membership lapsed, although he still gets the emails).
Ben Tan is currently a PhD candidate in Engineering (yep… STEM), but also a keen art-enthusiast, largely as a participant in NZ’s world-class choral music scene, but also as an audience member of theatre, and a consumer of literature. He was also a one-time member of a political party in NZ (but then they kicked up a fuss about surnames in a bad way, so that membership lapsed, although he still gets the emails).
Wow, great post.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteAwesome writing.
ReplyDelete