There’s been a bit of discussion about Arts Minister Peter Garrett’s defunding of the Australian National Academy of Music on another thread, so I think it probably warrants a post of its own.
Long time observers of arts and cultural policy in Australia won’t be surprised at various aspects of the debacle that constitutes the ANAM defunding. Several trends – all negative – are operating, and in effect what we have is bad policy by inertia, exacerbated by weak Ministerial decision making.
There’s the tension between excellence and equity, and Garrett arguably tried to defend his decision to close ANAM by a bit of dog whistling in his choice of words – “elite musical training”. Of course, given that little is known about what Melbourne University will actually offer through the Australian Institute of Music Performance, or what qualifications will be required of potential students, there’s not much to explicitly defend here, even if one were to accept the implicit premise. In his press conference, Garrett embarrassingly could give little or no information about the proposed replacement for ANAM, which is ironic given that ANAM’s supposed sin was one of ommission in reporting and planning. That takes us to the second default policy setting which has influenced this decision – the endless bureaucratic hurdles any institution has to jump in order to receive and retain federal funding. To put it in a nutshell, ANAM’s failure to meet the requirements set by the funding body appears to be more a matter of poor communication than anything else. What we have here is a case of bureaucrats mercilessly enforcing the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit – the decision actually acts to frustrate the aims of the policy.
Those of us whose hopes for a reinvigorated cultural policy from Labor have already proved to be in vain won’t be surprised by yet another disappointment. This bungled decision, which as I have been arguing demonstrates very neatly the weak nature of Garrett’s performance in being captive to bureaucrats on one hand and Rudd mates such as Glyn Davis on the other, fits a pattern. That pattern is of inaction, poorly thought out policy, and empty rhetoric as a substitute for vision. The pattern is of a Minister afraid to show real leadership. Perhaps the 2020 summit was supposed to provide the vision thing, but there’s been precious little sign of any real thinking or innovation in cultural policy from the Arts Minister. Fine words about the vital importance of creativity to Australia’s cultural and economic future are ringing rather hollow at the moment.
Elsewhere: To her credit, Greens Senator Christine Milne has been outspoken about the ANAM decision – see her post at GreensBlog and media releases linked from here. The post does a fine job of tracing the history of the issues with ANAM and the trajectory of the policy on the run stuff up that Garrett is responsible for. Via Alastair in comments, it’s interesting to note Melbourne Ports Labor MP Michael Danby speaking out in Parliament to oppose the decision.
You can sign an online petition opposing the ANAM defunding here.
Update: There’s been a partial about face from Garrett with ANAM now to keep its name and receive half a million dollars of transitional funding but still be transferred to Melbourne University.
Elite is right! Them high falutin harp an violin players has been stealin’ food from lagerphone players for far too long. Wheres the academy for bush bands and pub rockers??
“it’s interesting to note Melbourne Ports Labor MP Michael Danby speaking out in Parliament to oppose the decision.”
Only because the ANAM is in his electorate. It’s not as though Danby really cares about the issue. Why would he? It’s got nothing to do with the Middle East.
Says Christine Milne
“You wouldn’t dream of closing the Australian Institute of Sport and sending top young athletes to a university while a new, similar body under a different name was put in place. Why would you do that to musicians?”
I would close the AIS in the blink of an eye. The Americans train their elite sportspeople at universities. It’s an excellent idea.
Well, Spiros, perhaps you’d like to inform yourself about what the ANAM actually does. There are big differences with university music education, and you don’t get away from that by a reference to whatever Americans do with athletes.
It’s true that that probably the only reason Danby is defending it is because it’s in Melbourne Ports.
But Garrett is horribly weak. The word ‘elite’ is there for a reason. Stuck-up, out of touch, classical music, yuck. That’s the image he’s painting. I hate the use of the idea that ANAM wasn’t ‘efficient’ enough. How efficient were Midnight Oil, I wonder? Is creativity a very efficient endeavour? I’m sure the Minister has set up bureaucratic hoops so tiny that ANAM didn’t have a hope of jumping through them. Now all that money can go to the government’s great friend Glyn Davis at Melbourne Uni. It’s so transparent.
A bit more back story to this. When ANAM opened it was housed in the old South Melbourne Town Hall (probably still is) and the local community kicked up a fuss because they were only being charged a peppercorn rent. This was after Kennett’s council amalgamations in ‘94 when town halls were being closed down. Locals, quite rightly, were angry because it was their rates that had being paying for the upkeep of the 19th century building and now they weren’t able to have access to it and it wouldn’t be earning money. It’s always been a controversial institution which has been mishandled all its brief life.
And Garrett has no idea about what’s going to replace it either. Sheer stupidity.
Great post Mark. The Australian National Academy of Music is an important clasical music training insitution. It is a highly reputatable institution which has achieved excellent results. I believe the closing of ANAM is a disgrace and the way in which it has been handled has been simply appalling.
I wonder if Mr Garrett just thought he could make this change and hardly anyone would notice? Well clearly lots of people have noticed. Over 10,000 people have now signed the online petition (and that is continuing to rise). Many people have had published letters to the editor, and this issue has been reported in the MSM many times over the last month. I know that a lot of unhappy people have contacted the minister, Mr Garrett, expressing their immense disappointment and urging him to reverse his decision.
The following blog is very useful for information on this matter. It provides links to a range of different media articles, media releases, letters, and excerpts from discussions relating to ANAM in parliament.
http://alexmillier.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/anam-closure-news-items/
I believe Peter Garrett has made a big mistake. He should now admit that he was wrong and reverse his decision.
Fine, yep, it’s still in South Melbourne Town Hall – if you look at Milne’s post, she traces the history and highlights the fact that many of the past administrative deficiencies had already been addressed.
Alastair, thanks.
Just on Spiros’ point about the AIS and universities, I think Milne chose that analogy for its political force. It’s not actually that useful when you think about the differences between the sort of training ANAM provides and what university schools of music do. There was an interesting article in the Higher Ed yesterday by Peter Tregear which touches on some of the bigger issues raised:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24706109-12332,00.html
I understand the scepticism that some have about the motives for Michael Danby’s actions. However, it is still a big call for him to openly criticise one of his own party’s senior ministers on this policy. He stood up in parliament and spoke against Mr Garrett’s ANAM policy, and then displayed that on his website where everyone can see it. I think that takes some guts and I say good on him.
We can all agree that the ANAM trains very talented budding musicians, etc etc etc.
But from all reports the management and governance were poor. Which is a great pity, but any organisation that is both publicly funded and badly run paints a big target on its back. And if it doesn’t have a large political constituency to back it, even more so.
It’s not the first cultural or educational institution to be folded into a bigger one for efficiency gains, real or imagined, and it won’t be the last.
The whole thing has been so sloppily handled. If Garrett always had plans to replace ANAM, he should have had his new arrangement up and running to ensure continuity for students and teachers next year. It just smells of incompetance plain and simple.
Fine wrote: “It’s always been a controversial institution which has been mishandled all its brief life.”
Yes, I’ve heard they had some troubles with a former Director; but so do Operas, Orchestras, Conservatoria,….. even rock bands, apparently
It’s sad to see Philistinism allied with “financial rationalisation”. ANAM is unique, and it’s hard to see it replicated (or – dare we think it – improved) by Melbourne University.
Just as an example, MelbUni closed down McMillan and several other agriculture campuses, to howls of protest from farmers. This at a time when agriculural labourers are hard to find. MelbUni did a poor job with “Melb Uni Private”. Not an exemplary track record, imo.
No problem Mark. Happy if I can be helpful.
Joe2 @ 9. Couldn’t agree more.
Personally, I’m becoming less and less enamoured of the idea that the centralized administration of the university actually offers much to the groupings that make it up.
In other words, more organizations like ANAM might be the way to go, rather than less of them.
I’m inclined to agree, Rob.
I agree Robert.
An independent report into ANAM by Peter Grant is worth a read:
http://christine-milne.greensmps.org.au/files/Peter%20Grant%20Report.pdf
Some notable recommendations:
“Recommendation 1 : ANAM should be divested from the University of Melbourne,
wound up and reconstituted as a fully independent public company limited by guarantee”
That is the opposite of what Peter Garrett is doing.
Other recommendations include an increase in funding to ANAM, doubling of its student intake, a recommendation for ANAM to generate more revenue from commercial sponsorship and other non-government income, and many others.
These key recommendations seem to me to be very sensible. It’s a great shame that Peter Garrett is so blatantly ignoring these recommendations and pursuing another agenda, and in a way in which leaves students out in the lurch.
Peter Garret – every appearance a sellout.
“How efficient were Midnight Oil, I wonder?”
Actually, I’d say they were pretty damn efficient. They managed to produce a lot of good music (and make a heap of money) with a lead singer who, it is increasingly becoming clear, is an idiot.
If efficiency is output divided by resources then it looks like they did pretty well, since the resources they had to draw on were obviously thinner than anyone realised.
“MelbUni did a poor job with “Melb Uni Private”.”
That was under a previous regime.
Mark – Garrett embarrassingly could give little or no information about the proposed replacement for ANAM, which is ironic given that ANAM’s supposed sin was one of ommission in reporting and planning
.
.
And reporting and planning is what you want from musicians right? Hey it’s a crazy, zany world out there fulla whacky funsters. Check this guy out. He iz vary Eryan yah? Ze Eryan’z are veh poplar in ze Asian zities.
.
And you can see he’s being creative can’t ya? Being creative means not wearing a tie and having an over shoulder bag and carrying Wired magazine. And of course the one quality that’s essential in an accountant is creativity.
.
Peter Garrett is bloody useless. Fuck off slaphead!
Why is it assumed that classical music is a deserving recipient of public funding? Nobody is subsidising young Australian musicians who make heavy metal, hip hop, or electro-synth-jazz-salsa music. Let the oboe players work for a living, and pay for rehersal space etc. like any other garage band.
Mark, something that no-one to my knowledge has picked up on so far is that this decision is directly in conflict with one off Terry Cutler’s recommendations in his innovation review, Venturous Australia.
>
Cutler noted there was a significant imbalance in the funding levels of creative arts training institutions. Those funded through Environment, Heritage and the Arts (Garrett’s portfolio) – institutions like NIDA, AFTRS and the ANAM – receive significantly higher funding than the university arts courses like music, theatre and visual arts departments eg. Victorian College of Arts.
>
Cutler’s recommendation was to bring funding levels for tertiary creative arts courses up to ANAM and NIDA levels. Instead, the government has gone in the opposite direction, by moving ANAM back into the university system.
>
Mark – your post echoes my thoughts as they have developed over Garrett’s tenure so far. From a policy perspective, there appears to be almost no serious reform agenda, while in terms of media management, your description of “debacle” is apt.
>
Garrett is doing a good job of alienating what should be a reflexively supportive constituency, the arts and cultural industries, which is a far larger sector of the Australian economy than most people realise. The concern is not just that Garrett appears so completely unbriefed, but that he can’t even win a fight with his bureaucracy over a comparatively minor policy issue. Or maybe he didn’t even try to reverse it?
>
What’s going on in his office? The job of a competent policy officer and Chief of Staff is to identify and defuse ticking time-bombs like this before they become major issues.
I agree with all of that, Ben – and whether there’d be a synergy with the Cutler Review had occurred to me but I didn’t have time to check!
Garrett arguably tried to defend his decision to close ANAM by a bit of dog whistling in his choice of words – “elite musical training”.
.
Elite? Egad, it’s elite!!! Help! There’s someone here who’s really, really good at something.
.
I’m a firm believer in democracy. For me, one of the essential aspects of it is the ability of people in general to cultivate their talents no matter their socio-economic origins. Still working on that one I guess.
.
But I also believe in merit. Some people are just really really good at something. We shouldn’t artificially impose equity of gifts. It does no good. Public patronage if it’s to enjoy support, I think, has to fulfil obligations to an array of taste regimes. Part of this are those who’re into the traditional arts.
.
If you want to be a rock musician you can join a band and learn a few chords. If you can’t go from there you ain’t goin’ nowhere. Classical music requires years of dedication. Experimental stuff likewise has a certain justification because the market won;t support it.
.
I don’t think classical musicians (or anyone else) are entitled to funding and I’ve met many (baby-boomer) people who seem to think they are. However there’s a certain small but steady slice of the populace that enthuses on a violin. And Australia has a tradition of excellence in this field.
.
Garrett’s been campaigning for years to get Oz rock etc on radio playlists. To a certain I think the lack of support by the private sector for Oz Culture is due to conservativism and a lack of vision on the part of the Media Barons. But to another extent I think it’s part of the idea extant in this country that the government is the source of All Cash and All Power.
.
Classical music is elite and should be supported because it is elite.
Actually, they are, and have been for some years. Particularly at state level.
Stupid predictive text auto moniker generating thingy.
So, at what point and do we look at what AIMP are doing and start judging whether this was a good idea? When we put down the cudgels, what yardsticks do we pick up?
Steven Ciobo MP is Shadow Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors, Tourism and the Arts. Oh dear God! Good luck, ANAM fans.
“Why is it assumed that classical music is a deserving recipient of public funding?”
In short, because it is educational and it enriches society. I don’t suppose you’re in favour of no education funding altogether?
Ok that’s the second time my comment has vanished. Is there automatic aversion to links perhaps?
“Steven Ciobo MP is Shadow Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors, Tourism and the Arts. Oh dear God! Good luck, ANAM fans.”
He opposes ANAM’s closure. He also moved a motion in parliament to condem Peter Garrett’s handling of ANAM. I tried twice to provide links earlier but my post vanished.
Spiros @17: I don’t buy the idea of regime change at Melbourne Uni
The frontman may be different but the governing culture remains the same.
Glyn Davis may use nicer rhetoric, but the end results aren’t all that different from what happened under Alan Gilbert.
I don’t want to get into the “classical” vs “pop” funding debate again, but I think one of the things this decision exposes is the chronic incoherence of Australian cultural funding policies. Portraying the ANAM as the “AIS of classical music” is a good example of the silliness of the metaphors being bandied about … classical music is not sport, any way you want to look at it. Nor, I might add, are Australian orchestras or soloists necessarily “elite.” Some are, obviously, but some aren’t. How can we tell the difference? Reviews? Gold medals? The fact that soloists can get gigs in famous orchestras overseas? You can see why the argument to “excellence” so quickly runs into difficulties.
Nobody is subsidising young Australian musicians who make heavy metal, hip hop, or electro-synth-jazz-salsa music.
.
.
Why the bloody hell should we? If you can’t make a living in hip-hop or heavy metal you don’t deserve to. The capital outlay, the time in training don;t compare to classical music. Neither are they as complex or as important. There, I said it.
.
Electro-synth-jazz-salsa sounds diabolical.
Ben – I don’t want to get into the “classical” vs “pop” funding debate again
.
.
And so in that case I’ll get into again.
.
Portraying the ANAM as the “AIS of classical music” is a good example of the silliness of the metaphors being bandied about … classical music is not sport, any way you want to look at it.
.
No it’s not sport. But if ANAM, like the AIS, produces outstanding individuals in fields that are difficult to master and excel in, then they add to the prestige of the nation. They do this in a way that avant-gardists generally don’t; why is this?
.
Nor, I might add, are Australian orchestras or soloists necessarily “elite.” Some are, obviously, but some aren’t.
.
In most fields the players are generally mediocre. But riddle me this Batman, you get a kid, teach’m de music yeah? How long will it take that kid to play:
.
A Schubert trio, versus
A track from Let it Bleed?
.
How much time, money – what capital – is required?
.
You can see why the argument to “excellence” so quickly runs into difficulties.
.
That’s just it, I don’t think it does. I think there’s a campaign to call excellence into question, but generally, people don’t buy it.
I don’t know, I reckon it sounds alright. You’ll have to wait until about 1.20 for the salsa to kick in, and it’s only ‘jazzy’ rather than jazz, but I think we’re on the right track.
Ah but Adrien, how long will it take to teach someone how to shred like Jimmy Page or Eddy Van Halen? Or to scratch like DJ Craze or Rob Swift? I wager it takes about the same time – that mastering any artform of complex technical dexterity takes a lot of time, money and dedication.
>
There are excellent performers in all genres of music, but for cultural reasons we have convinced ourselves that classical music is somehow better/harder/more difficult than the others. Even if it is – so what? Who says that is what should matter? Why shouldn’t other forms of music be just as worthy of our attention, interest, even funding? This “problem of relative taste” is where the argument to excellence gets into trouble.
Musical values have changed.
Audiences value spontenaiety, originality, novel sounds etc more than ever before. Not much music is really about the rarified heights of virtuosity any more.
Ah but Adrien, how long will it take to teach someone how to shred like Jimmy Page or Eddy Van Halen?
. Noticed how our shores are being flooded with Guitar Legends? And the point is a really good one. Anyone who thinks that rock is crap should try and work thru Jimi Hendrix’s solo on “All Along The Watchtower”. As good as any first violinist I’d wager. But The Jimi Hendrix Experience had three players, three instruments, amps. Get a band together and you can make a reasonable cacophony if you work at it a couple months. A string quartet?
.
I knew you were gonna go there
.
At the end of the day the argument goes on into the night and well into the next day and doesn’t ever end really. It’s about taste. Which brings me to the politics of it. Public arts patronage requires a certain spectrum of support.
.
It seems to me that, yes, classical music, isn’t entitled to privilege. If heavy metal ever becomes as important and it may well do (I’m moving in that case) then it may go the way of the Dodo. But for as long as it hold its pedestal in the culture and its status of technical excellence and expressive breadth it’s gonna be here. In any event killing the school because its elitist is bogan bullshit.
.
Garrett is a twerp.
Alastair @ 27 – my apologies – the volume of spam we receive is now so great it’s too big for us to sort through them for false positives if no one has done so for an hour or so. If you have difficulty with a comment appearing (remembering that we don’t have full time moderators), the best thing to do is to email us.
I wonder if anyone else sees shades of East Sydney Tech art school being swallowed by UNSW or of the NSW Conservatorium of Music coming ‘under the wing’ of Macquarie University. In other words the eclipsing of iconic arts institutions into the management ‘efficiency’ of larger, more politically connected institutions. I’m not sure of any federal input to these two examples, or even of the outcome for both, but am asking if we have a national trend under way?
Latest story we are told is that Glyn Davies is realising that he can’t actually offer the Academy students the kind of tuition they are entitled to expect. It is possible- just possible – that he will join calls for a 12 month moratorium.
Watch this space.
In the absence of such a decision, next week we need some big noise to get the decision reversed. If it doesn’t happen next week, it’ll be too late – too many of the staff and students will have made other plans.
Thanks for the link and the props, Mark.
No worries, Tim. Hopefully the campaign to reverse this decision will be successful!
I’d like to raise an associated issue. The closure of ANAM was, at least allegedly, based on failures in administration compliance. No argument has been advanced on the quality of the training or in the outcomes achieved. (As some of have suggested, there may be other agendas such as amalgamation with university departments.)
I think it may raise some questions of the priorities the Commonwealth bureaucracy gives to administrative compliance vis-a-vis service delivery. We can’t argue that some compliance must occur to justify taxpayer funding. Otherwise there can be runaway and unaccountable spending. But I would ask if the process can be simplified, rather than just be run for the convenience of bureaucratic administrators.
I am thinking here of the controversies of retirement home care and funding, which at one time climaxed in the infamous ‘kerosene bath’ incident. The political and bureaucratic priorities focused entirely administrative requirements, with almost no reference to the quality of care.
Hence the worst abusers of health care attendance were not easily detected because they fully met the administrative compliance requirements, and were only exposed through media protests.
At the other end of the scale, in my neighbourhood an excellent caring facility was nearly closed (or lost federal funding, which amounted to the same) because of failure to meet all administrative requirements. It was only large-scale community protests and intense lobbying by federal, state and local government politicians that it was saved. And it was not that this institution was slack in administrative matters (albeit obviously needing some improvement). Some of the compliance issues referred to building and capital plant.
I just wonder whether administrative requirements need to be looked at in balance with the objectives of the organisation. Is there a better way of doing it? Would it be feasible to second a bureaucrat to ANAM to ensure these requirements were met, or even to simplify the requirements into plain English?
I don’t have the solution. But I think somehow we need to reconcile the two worlds. Anyone who has had to fill in a Centrelink questionnaire on earnings would know the type of issues and frustrations faced by a small service-focused institution. Maybe the administration needs to be shaped to aiding the delivery of good service.
I think Garrett had done a Ruddock – he has sold his soul to become a Minister.
His dogwhistling about “elites” now extends from the solar rebate to the arts, in this case music. Pathetic really. And inexcusable given his background.
Mark, I agree with your comments about the weak nature of Garrett’s performance and his pattern of inaction, poorly thought out policy, and empty rhetoric as a substitute for vision.
But I think the pattern is of a Minister incapable of showing real leadership. If he can’t do a plastic bags ban, he can do nothing.
Don, I think that’s absolutely central to all this.
But I would ask if the process can be simplified, rather than just be run for the convenience of bureaucratic administrators.
.
Don, that’s not only central to this issue it’s the question that, if ever solved, would automatically create Paradise on Earth.
“Without this, we’re just some savage shitheads in the wilderness. Huddled around some goddamned fucking campfire. GIMME THAT FUCKING PHONE!”
– D. Mamet, “American Buffalo”
Don’t make me tell you about the jar in Tennessee.
– Wallace Stevens
I should add that whilst I type this (using satellite technology) I’m also listening to Joshua Bell do Vivaldi and Lara St. John do Bach, via digital technology.
Let Monsieur Garrett go kill his own meat with a goddamn “non-elitist” fucking sharpened stick. And in a millennium or two, when the Garrett tribe has amassed enough surplus wealth to build orchestral instruments and a proper concert hall, he can report the fuck back to me. Fucking turdtard.
And p.s. sorry but Midnight Oil blows, always did.
Reports in the press garrett has been forced to back down because of public protest, or am I imagining it?
Update: There’s been a partial about face from Garrett with ANAM now to keep its name and receive half a million dollars of transitional funding but still be transferred to Melbourne University.
Elite music should stand or fail on its own terms, just as other forms of music do.
GOOD music endures through the centuries because enough people enjoy it for it to survive.
Opera, ballet, classical music have had to supported through the centuries (in previous times, supported by royal sponsors) because the average person doesn’t give a toss about them.
As to their influence/importance culturally, I’m also dubious. I don’t see that any of these genres have particularly shaped my cultural landscape (and I’m a relatively cultured person).
If art is genuinely important then it survives on its own merits.
If we can’t agree on the conflict of elite and popular art forms and the appropriate allocation of public patronage can we at least agree that Peter Garrett should be fed to something that lives in the deep sea?
Too good for him, Adrien.
Probably a bit hard to chew on two with all those jerky movements.
.
Reminds me of a Bond film, I forget which. The bad guy feeds Felix Leichter to a shark, a bit. He lives. There’s a sign next to him when Bond finds him, says: He disagreed with something that ate him?
Like the giant squid falsely alleged to have eaten the crew of the Marie Celeste?
Seems they like eating Xtans.
Mark @ 48, sorry to say, that’s no about face, it’s a slap in the face. I’m astounded at the fact that the Australian was successfully spun on something that, on the face of it and on their record, they should have slammed.
The announcement on Friday was an acknowledgement that the Academy has a spectacular reputation for good reason. But instead of reversing the decision, he appropriated the name for his new institution.
I’m sorry Mark, but that is no about face at all. He is still going ahead with the same plans. That he is not changing the name is just window dressing. The institution is going to undergo a radical transformation for the worse due to his actions. He is going to spend an uneccessary extra half a million dollars just to finance his stupidy.
Folks, I think I was going to substitute “apparent” for “partial” before waiting to hear from people closer to the action than the Australian. Let me just say I’m not surprised that it’s a bit of a floparama – I think that was always clear between the lines but I thought it was maybe judicious to take the thing at face value initially and in an interim way before investigating further!