Clyde Fitch Report: At the end of the 20th century, a review of the state of Australia’s culture sector added a fourth goal: sustaining financial viability. Three funding streams were instituted to execute the mandated goals and each carried specific obligations for recipients. Institutions deemed representative of Australian culture to the world at large had an obligation to tour internationally, others to tour Australia (increasing access) or they were regional companies supported in the commissioning of work — all to promote a rich and vibrant creative ecology throughout the nation.
1 comment:
I wasn’t aware that Australia had such a clear policy for arts funding. I liked that it took into consideration different scales: regional, national, and international. Obviously, Australia has the Sydney Opera House, so it is unsurprising that they pay special attention to Opera funding. I believe Cirque du Soleil started with Canadian arts funding, which is similar to Australia’s stated goal supporting shows that tour internationally. Switzerland also has a strong arts funding system, particularly contemporary visual arts. I have no idea where the US government focuses arts funding, so I have to agree with the article’s author that some stated goals could help. I’m certain that the US is involved in the arts in some way, but the only example that comes to mind is the Smithsonian art museums and Kennedy Center. Those are really more regional and aren’t (to my knowledge) involved in producing new art.
Post a Comment