By GILBERT WONG arts editor
Uniquely New Zealand. That was the title of the Labour Party's policy on arts and culture before it came to power.
The kingsize $80 million package delivered yesterday went a long way to putting the money where the party's mouth was. But a more honest name than Cultural Recovery Package would be Cultural Band-Aid.
It is a lot of money but it is going to a sector of society that has felt on the outer with Governments for years, starved of funds and attention; at best seen as an optional add-on, at worst dispensable. To that sector the Prime Minister is St Helen, the politician who can do no wrong.
The two men smiling today are Te Papa chairman Ron Trotter and NZ Symphony Orchestra chief executive Ian Fraser. They won their games of brinkmanship: in Fraser's case threatening to shut up shop in a fortnight if the politicians would not cough up the cash. Bullish negotiator Trotter made it plain that Te Papa was facing strangulation for its interactive and crowd-pleasing attractions. Whether the demise of the virtual bungi jump is a loss is open to debate.
So the NZSO receives enough to wipe out its losses for the coming year and the last, plus an extra $1.4 million to ensure it continues to perform in the regions.
Te Papa has the funds it needs to keep the current level of service, although what that level should be and exactly what the national museum should provide must await the inquiry into Te Papa ordered by Helen Clark.
The money will keep cultural institutions tanked up, but some of those institutions need to examine why the audiences aren't coming in enough numbers to let them stand on their own feet. Somehow the balance must be found between artistic excellence and great box office.
The Cultural Band-Aid package inevitably leaves bystanders watching the money train pass by. It is individuals, not institutions, who produce most of our creative activity: artists, actors, writers and musicians. Some of them eke out a living that confines them to the fringes of society. They work at their art, beset by the pressure of worrying where the next dollar will come from. A lot give up.
Like it or not, it is upon these creative individuals that much of the cultural economy depends. For these, mostly younger, members of the creative sector the hope must be that the Government might follow up on another of the promises made in pre-election cultural policy - an arts allowance for developing artists, equivalent to the unemployment benefit, which will make it possible to follow an arts-based career.
That might prove to be a more sustainable way to fund creativity than the project-based grants that will be coming from the $20 million handed to Creative New Zealand.
The problem the Government and the creative sector must now face is that more money does not necessarily make better art or economically viable arts institutions.
Like the dot.com company boom that miraculously manages to be worth zillions while making a loss, the cultural economy accounts for $4 billion a year of GDP, yet our biggest cultural institutions still need propping up.
The example of Australia is often cited. Our neighbour has a lively film and television industry, world-class performing arts companies, and a healthy regard of the necessary place the arts have in any modern democracy.
Yet last year the federal Government initiated a major performing arts inquiry. The politicians wanted to know why their world-class performing arts companies were continually on the brink of financial disaster and closure.
The solution? A culture budget for this year that gave a boost of $A70.2 million ($80 million) to safeguard the future of the 31 companies.
Even the figure sounds familiar.
Arts get just what the doctor ordered
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.