Brian Rudman: Art lovers outside Auckland have more sense than money

It's nice to know the Wellington arts czars appreciate that Aucklanders have their uses. Even if it is only to top up the shortfall on Creative New Zealand's single most extravagant waste of taxpayers' money - the biennial trek to the Venice Art Biennale.

Perhaps it's a sign that arts lovers in the rest of the country have more sense than money, but in the just-released report evaluating New Zealand's participation in the past three Venice art shows, Te Papa director Seddon Bennington is quoted bemoaning how hard it is "to generate support outside Auckland".

He despairs "there does seem to be more wealth expressed in support of the arts in Auckland".

It emerges that private donors, mainly connected with "Friends of Auckland Gallery" stumped up $191,000 to add to the $500,000 contributed by Creative New Zealand for last year's show.

The eye-opener for those of us who think that even the officially quoted figure of $500,000 is excessive is that the actual cost for the 2005 exhibition, which featured an "installation" by the non-communicative "et al" of braying dunny fame, was $1,323,000.

And that doesn't include the $50,000 of 42 Below Vodka and Montana bubbly which made the New Zealand opening party one of the more memorable.

Among the additional costs, not previously revealed, included $280,000 for Creative NZ "in house" staff labour, $100,000 in time gifted by Govett-Brewster Gallery and $80,000 in staff time gifted by Te Papa.

Other donated time for attendants and creative team members totalled $166,300.

And for that $1,323,000, what benefits flowed? Sydney's SGS Economics and Planning says they are "numerous". However, "isolating and quantifying a limited range of them for the purposes of an economic evaluation is difficult, and in many cases not possible ... "

Indeed, at the risk of sounding flippant, you get the impression that brandwise, 42 Below Vodka might have been the main beneficiary from the trip to gondola city.

Remember all the hype back in 2000 when the Kiwi assault on the world's arterati was first announced? Prime Minister Helen Clark hailed it as "a major opportunity to promote New Zealand art to a massive and influential international audience." Creative New Zealand chairman Christopher Finlayson called it "an extraordinary opportunity for cultural diplomacy", claiming "the level of media interest is phenomenal".

Talk about donkey's braying. In the six months of last year's biennale, just 30,300 of the 915,000 who attended visited the New Zealand show. Its remote location did not help.

Nor, according to my one-time colleague Graham Reid, did the sign at the entry of what seemed to be a building site, reading "All visitors must report to site office on arrival".

The "phenomenal" media interest didn't translate into much press coverage. After the 2005 show, SGS trawled the world's media and found just 20 previews and, post-biennale, "a number of reviews ... particularly in New Zealand, Australian and Southeast Asian publications." Europe? The Americas? It seems not. Most coverage was local, reflecting our highly negative fascination with the artist's refusal to reveal herself.

Such churlishness was not unique. The 2000 benefactress, Jacqueline Fraser, had no sooner plonked herself down beside the canals of Venice than she was bad-mouthing home critics for draining her confidence, saying, "I won't exhibit in New Zealand again".

Unable to quantify any benefits, SGS quickly succumbed to drivel. "Most anecdotal research ... suggests that both New Zealand and its exhibiting artists are seen as rising stars in the world art firmament ...

"If New Zealand's stature continues to soar as a nation notable for its art, a small pocket of cult tourism will open up involving tours to local artists' studios by international collectors ... " etc, etc.

The most sensible observation came towards the end of the 145-page report from Paula Latos-Valier, chief executive of Biennale of Sydney.

Venice was "not necessarily the most cost-effective solution" to promoting New Zealand art, she said. Instead group exhibitions could be sponsored through overseas galleries.

In addition, I would have thought, Creative New Zealand could make the "cult tourism" mentioned above happen, by hosting tours of overseas art opinion leaders through the country. Let them meet our artists, view their works, sniff the environment, eat our food.

Any of the above sounds better than trying to set up shop beside a smelly canal in alien Italy.