A recent opinion piece promoted the idea that ‘Australia could unleash a cultural renaissance by paying artists a living wage’. [Lauren Harris, July 20, 2022]. With caveats detailing just who an artist is and is not, it is an idea worth pursuing and as Harris points out, it is something being pursued in Ireland and with the advent of a new Labour government in Australia, something that Arts Minister Burke should be taking on board. Is it likely to happen beyond just pie in the sky optimism – that would depend upon who you talk to.? While there is nothing wrong with the idea, and as a practicing artist I would of course welcome it, there are some underlying assumptions that may not be so palatable.

In order for there to be a Renaissance, there has to be a precedent for nationwide cultural awareness and acceptance. We have our institutions and a plethora of art prizes, mostly conservative in nature and reinforcing specific ways of working and specific acceptable products, but the nature of art for me is not about conservatism and the status quo. There have been instances in the past where artists were given grants to experiment, with committees set up to distribute money subject to proposals. State government and union funds came and went leaving only the big ticket orchestras and dance companies competing for funds through the Arts Council. The latter are inevitably subject to a viable business model while justifying their existence as Culture. What Lauren Harris is proposing though, is quite different. All that could be required of an artist is a provable working practice over an agreed time frame – in other words, a professional, sustainable practice. To quote Harris again, ‘Ireland’s Basic Income for the Arts pilot scheme requires artists, writers, dancers, theatre makers, filmmakers and authors to prove five years of creative practice and income, and/or membership to a professional organisation such as the Irish Writers Union’. [ibid] The two key terms here are ‘creative practise’ and ‘income’.

Tying the two terms together, is, in many ways, self-defeating. To produce income means having a product that is saleable, acceptable to the art market, portable and ‘inoffensive’. If your creative practice is not geared to sales, what then? The assumption that all art has to be sold to justify both it and the artist’s existence, puts a monetary value on creativity rather than seeing creativity as an end in itself. Exhibiting on a ‘regular’ basis, particularly when you are paying for the gallery space, as is common practise in Adelaide, does not guarantee sales or ‘income’. The tax office recognises few more than 500 artists Australia-wide who earn enough to warrant GST – that is, earning more than $70,000 a year. Anyone earning more than that doesn’t need a state income.

There is also the assumption that the Arts and artists are valued. There is certainly an upward trend to be attending Arts events [sodden outdoor music festivals aside] in the wake of the last two years of covid cancellations. The public entertainment side of the Arts remains strong with thousands attending Illuminate in Adelaide, the travelling Archibald winners at the State Gallery and the upcoming SALA [South Australian Living Artists Festival] but does that translate into living support for artists? I would suggest that the person in the street separates the events from the artist and while they may or may not be happy to pay for tickets or Art, paying artists out of tax dollars when so much infrastructure needs upgrading or replacing [I saw another burst water main this week and water gushing down a city street with a ten-worker squad in attendance] will undoubtedly take precedence.

The history of support for the arts, let alone support for artists beyond the odd grant or residency, is chequered to say the least. Has the Liberal/Conservative end of politics ever taken the Arts seriously? [I wait with bated breath to be contradicted]. Labour has a better record but any gains made were quickly undone as public opinion shifted. Is this the way it will continue to work? If it is going to work at all then a non-political fund is needed administered independently but even then, the funds have to come from somewhere.  The Irish figure is some €25 million over a three-year period which translates to A$36 million to pay selected artists A$483 per week. That is basically $A1.50 per person over the three-year period with our current population in Australia, or 50 cents per year, to support a living wage scheme. It doesn’t sound like much but then again, the handful of cents per tax dollar to run the ABC, is annually eroded by governments who see little value in a public broadcaster and continually review content in search of bias. The very nature of the Visual and Performing Arts challenges thinking and entrenched attitudes. If that annual 50 cent contribution from the public purse is subject to qualification that artists won’t rock the boat or ask too many questions, then a living wage scheme is doomed to fail before it starts.

A lot depends upon how the Arts is viewed. The opinion that the Arts is an added extra pervades sections of society. Artists, musicians and actors are tolerated and while the products that they provide are accepted as part of a living culture, they themselves are not beyond celebrity status to fill column inches. A fundamental shift in thinking needs to take place. I once heard a parent challenge a teacher with ‘I pay your wages so you do as I say’ – hardly a productive attitude or one that would lead to meaningful discourse, but that notion of ownership is all pervasive.  Public and media opinion, as well as the opinion of sections of government, would have vetoed the purchase of Blue Poles as not passing the ‘pub test’ on either an artistic or a financial basis. Suspicion that any art produced after the 19^th century is fraudulent goes hand in hand with public opinion that artists that lived their suspect lives during the 20^th century were all alcoholics, drug addicts of depressives. The heroic, saint-like artist exists only in the pages of fiction and to compare them to squeaky-clean Olympic athletes, should that be the case for providing a living wage, is to confuse apples with oranges.

The national conversation towards A new National Cultural Policy building upon the initiatives of the Gillard Labour Government in 2011 is a good place to start. The five areas below are currently up for discussion and you could hardly argue with any of them.

• First Nations: recognising and respecting the crucial place of these stories at the centre of our arts and culture.
• A place for every story: reflecting the diversity of our stories and the contribution of all Australians as the creators of culture.
• The centrality of the artist: supporting the artist as worker and celebrating their role as the creators of culture.
• Strong institutions: providing support across the spectrum of institutions which sustain our arts and culture.
• Reaching the audience: ensuring our stories reach the right people at home and abroad.

Let’s hope that the current government isn’t going to be a one term affair saddled with debt from its predecessor and on the skids before its time is up or at least before discussion on a cultural policy can reach some sort of conclusion and pass into law. We can but hope, but don’t hold your breath.  No doubt the Gillard government said the same thing.