[Cross-posted at GreensBlog]
So what just happened with the National Academy of Music?
Tim Hollo – Advisor to Australian Greens Senator Christine Milne
Yesterday, after a whirlwind six week campaign, Melbourne Uni and the National Academy of Music put out a statement the upshot of which is that the full 2009 program that the Academy had planned to run will now be run, with Brett Dean as Artistic Director, staying in its existing location, key staff remaining the same, and places to be offered to existing students. A new independent board will be appointed with a view to determining the Academy’s long-term programming.
Sounds an awful lot like a complete reversal of Peter Garrett’s decision to close the Academy on October 22. So how come the Minister’s spokesperson told AAP last night that
The Greens have got this entirely wrong… The government’s objectives have always been the continuation of elite classical music training into 2009 and beyond but with substantial changes to the way that is governed and administered, including new management and board. The intention was never that ANAM would close, but rather that the government would redirect its $2.5 million commitment to a new organisation from 2009. That will still happen.
It’s worth going through this story step by step to highlight the slow-motion backflip for what it is. Apologies for length, but I think it’s worth setting out the full story.
The National Academy of Music was established in 1994 by Paul Keating – one of the very few Australia political leaders of any stripe who really appreciated and understood classical music. It was originally part of Youth Music Australia, who run the National Music Camps and Australian Youth Orchestra. The Academy had a troubled childhood and adolescence, moving from running highly-reputed short courses (with incredibly stiff competition to get in, as I can attest to as a young musician and AYO member at the time!), to a globally-renowned full-time post-tertiary ‘finishing school’ for music performance. While the musical standard it offered has never really been in doubt, there certainly has been justified criticism of its administration in the past. The irony is that, in the last few years, most of those issues had been resolved, and the Academy had begun to flower and perform at or close to its full potential.
Unfortunately, tied up in all this has been an undercurrent of dissatisfaction in parts of the local community of South Melbourne due to the fact that the Academy was located in the South Melbourne Town Hall when the Kennett Government forcibly amalgamated councils, getting rid of the local council that was based there. The Academy was tarred with that brush, and sadly, by its own acknowledgement, has not necessarily always managed its community relations terribly well.
Because of the reasonable criticisms of the Academy as it operated in the early 00′s, two independent reports into its operations were commissioned – the Mills Report into its artistic merits, followed by the Grant Report, setting out a business case. Both of these reports were gently critical, saying the Academy should do more, but very clearly calling for a huge increase in funding to allow it to do so – an increase from $2.5 million to $6.5-7 million a year. Neither of these reports has ever been officially accepted by Government or published, but you can read the full Grant Report here.
There are many theories about what actually led to the specific events of recent months, including various suggestions about an unholy alliance between Prime Minister Rudd and his good friend and close adviser, Glyn Davis, VC of Melbourne Uni, a concerted campaign by unhappy locals, or cost shifting promoted by Lindsay Tanner. None of these really stack up, when you dig deep into them.
Our understanding is that certain Canberra bureaucrats had a bee in their bonnets about the Academy and, based on their understanding of the administrative problems of some years ago, had long been agitating for radical change – the closure of the Academy and its replacement by a new school. The previous two Coalition Arts Ministers – Rod Kemp and George Brandis – were both personally supportive of the Academy and would not let this happen. However, the Minister for Uncomfortable Contortions, Peter Garrett, provided the perfect opportunity to pounce.
On August 25, Mr Garrett wrote to John Haddad, Chair of the Board of the Academy. Here is what he had to say:
I write to advise you that the Australian Government’s 2008-09 budget allocation for the Australian National Academy of Music (ANAM) is $2.545 million to be administered through two six-month funding deeds.
I have considered the reviews of ANAM and ANAM’s response to those reviews. I seek ANAM’s commitment to implement the significant business reforms as recommended by the reviews.
The full allocation of funding in 2008-09 will be dependant on ANAM’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the first funding deed. Should the Australian Government be satisfied that ANAM has met the terms of the first deed, the second funding deed will be entered into. The period of the funding deeds will be July to December 2008, and January to June 2009.
Should ANAM accept the 2008-09 funding offer, it will be required to incorporate in its
Business Plan 2009 and Strategic Plan 2009-11 the following:
1. balanced budgets for 2009, 2010 and 2011;
2. an amended bursary policy;
3. a commitment and plan to diversify income;
4. a commitment and plan to be national leaders in classical music education and
Initiatives that support that role;
5. a framework for the review of ANAM’s constitution;
6. a succession plan of ANAM Board members to satisfy geographical diversity;
7. a plan for course certification;
8. continually engage a full-time artistic director; and
9. achieve a working alumni database.
ANAM will need to provide evidence of the above by 31 October 2008.
ANAM’s success in implementing the reform agenda in 2008-09 will be a key consideration in determining any future funding of ANAM.
The sharp-eyed amongst you will note a couple of direct contradictions in this, most notably the requirement to “continually engage a full-time artistic director” when funding is not guaranteed beyond 6 month blocks! The commitment to be a national leader in classical music education is an insult – the Academy always has been! Geographical diversity of the board is code for wanting to dissolve the existing board and replace it, and the board already has members from 4 states. Diversified income is code for requiring the Academy to fundraise off its own bat to supplement Commonwealth funding. Course certification, as anyone in the industry will tell you, is irrelevant in the extreme!
On October 3, Haddad replied to Garrett:
Dear Minister
I refer to your letter of 25 August and our recent meeting at your Electorate Office.
The Academy Board has met twice since receiving your letter and discussed its contents at length. The unanimous view of these meetings was that the Academy must apply its most strenuous efforts to meeting the concerns raised by you and your Department.
As a first step, and after speaking with your Department, we are recommending subject to your approval, that an Implementation Working Group be established to develop a Transformational Plan to enable the Academy to address the issues covered in your letter and ensure that they are actioned within your deadlines and with full joint support. The Working Group will be comprised of members of your Department along with key staff of the Academy and will be chaired by a member of the Academy Board. We believe the Working Group should also include a representative of the University of Melbourne who have already indicated their nominee would be Barry Sheehan. The Group will be assisted by the engagement of The Boston Consulting Group who have agreed to review the Academy’s structure and operations, on a pro bono basis.
As part of your consideration of our response, we also hope that we can work with your Department in making some adjustments to the proposed funding drawdowns, particularly in the next three weeks, so that the Academy can continue as a going concern. As set out in our session the variation as to the drawdown schedule that was not previously identified, creates very real difficulties for the Academy as it does not accord with the actual (and historically verified) expenditure profile of the Academy and its program.
He went on to address in turn each of the concerns raised by Garrett, setting out how it was already being addressed or could not be addressed without sufficient funds.
After several phone conversations which, according to the Academy, seemed positive in tone, Garrett wrote back to Haddad on October 22:
Dear Mr Haddad
I refer to your letter of 3 October 2008 and your response to the terms and conditions of the Australian Government’s 2008-09 funding for the Australian National Academy of Music (ANAM), as outlined in my letter of 25 August 2008.
Your letter indicates that the Board is unable to deliver on the reform agenda or meet the terms and conditions detailed in the first six-month funding agreement. In relation to your recommendation for a working group, I do not support such a proposal as ANAM has already had sufficient time to address these conditions.
Your response reflects my concern that ANAM may not be the most effective or efficient model for the delivery of national programs supporting elite level classical music training, and I have accordingly asked my Department to investigate alternative options for the delivery of this training. Consequently, and consistent with my letter of 25 August, the Australian Government will not provide funds to ANAM to conduct its training programs in 2009. I have instructed my Department to prepare a revised funding agreement to provide ANAM with sufficient funds to complete its 2008 training program. This agreement will be provided to you shortly.
I understand that cessation of Australian Government funding may result in ANAM not continuing operations in to 2009. Should this matter require clarification, you may direct your enquiries to my department.
Note in particular that final comment. Peter Garrett knew exactly what the impact of his decision was – no ANAM for 2009. Because of actual or perceived problems with the administration of the school, he was knowingly destroying a pedagogical and cultural institution that had developed a global reputation. He was tossing out 55 of Australia’s top young musicians only weeks before the end of the year, with no plans for 2009.
Impact of this decision: closure of the Academy with absolutely no plan in place for a replacement to take on the students and continue the momentum of their training. The only reference to future plans was “I have accordingly asked my Department to investigate alternative options for the delivery of this training.”
The outcry began. Shortly thereafter, the Greens were approached to offer what help we could. Starting with a joint motion with the Liberals, a question in Question Time and a series of Questions on Notice, we began to get involved. At the same time, musicians and artists from around the world joined the campaign.
Thanks to this outcry, Minister Garrett was pressed to outline what would happen to the students of the Academy. On November 18, Garrett released his proposal for a new body, to be called the Australian Institute of Music Performance. The AIMP would start in July 2009, with transitional arrangements sending students to the Uni of Melbourne – a totally inappropriate solution none of them were happy about. The AIMP looked strangely like ANAM, although it would take many months, if not years, to achieve the same level of performance. In addition, it had a name that uncomfortably mirrored the existing Australian Institute of Music in Sydney.
This was the first step in the backflip. There would be a new institution that would do effectively the same thing as the existing one, but under a different name and more directly controlled by Melbourne University.
The next Friday, November 28, Christine and I met with students and staff at the Academy, inviting them to bring their music to Canberra to lift the campaign several notches. We had the privilege of attending their spectacular concert that evening! But, in the meantime – at 3.30 pm on a Friday afternoon (a favourite time of Environment Ministers to release uncomfortable information) – Garrett proudly announced that he had decided to keep the name ANAM, instead of replacing it with AIMP! This was seen by students, staff and supporters as the nonsensical slap in the face that it was.
Step two in the backflip – let’s keep the same name, as well as the essentially the same activities! And, hey, into the bargain, we’ll let the students stay in the same place!
After a flurry of activity over the weekend, 12 students came to Canberra with Brett Dean, the Artistic Director, and staff members Bill Hennesey, Nick Bailey and Hillary Frost on the night of Monday December 1. The call was for a 12 month moratorium on the closure to allow for a proper discussion about the Academy’s future without disadvantaging the students and destroying the continuity of their training.
Bright and early on the Tuesday morning, musicians welcomed MPs and Senators at the traditional “doors” media scrums on both sides of Parliament, making quite an impact. During the day, music echoed in the corridors throughout the House, with students and staff holding a press conference and simply playing beautiful music. The President of the Senate denied them permission to play at Aussie’s Café, the haunt of all the lobbyists, MPs and staff. They also managed to get meetings with Labor backbenchers, Peter Garrett and, most importantly, Terry Moran, head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Finally, they secured agreement that, on Saturday December 6, there would be a meeting in Melbourne including Brett, Nick, Terry Moran, Glyn Davis and representatives of the Department.
This is where we get to the best part.
The meeting was a great success, and Brett Dean called us delighted with the outcome. The Academy would run its full program for 2009 as planned, a new, independent board would be appointed, and its first job would be to determine the next few years of programming for the Academy.
Now, there are two ways of seeing this. On one level, it is a very effective delivery of the transition strategy to a new institution, which happens to have the same name as the previous, many of the same staff, many of the same students, and be based in the same location. That’s certainly what Minister Garrett’s office is saying has happened – there is nothing to see, move along.
On another level, of course, it is a complete reversal. Instead of the closure of the Academy with no future plans in place, as we had on October 22, we have the Academy continuing exactly as it had planned, with the only difference being the dissolution of the board and appointment of a replacement. This is all that should have happened in the first place – Garrett should have dismissed the board and kept the Academy going while appointing a new one. Instead we had a terribly ham-fisted approach which put the students and staff through a month and a half of heartache.
All is well that ends well, I suppose.
On the bright side, they got a great introduction to the world of politics! And, as one obsessed with music and politics who used to admire Peter Garrett so greatly, I reckon this is a pretty good outcome.
Related post: Previous LP discussion of this issue here.
Peter Garrett, ex-rockstar, minister – every appearance a sell-out.
Well done Tim, Christine & the staff& students of the ANAM.
Garrett is without doubt the worst performing Minister, and in a senior portfolio to boot. Time for him to go.
ANAM rocks !!
Peter G, diminuendo.
Nice work, Tim. I’m certainly more pleased to share your surname (surprising that, eh?) than I am to share Garrett’s first name…
Blah blah blah blah fucking BLAH!!!!!
.
This country’s culture is run by a small clustre of middle-class welfare orientated petty-bourgeois twaddle that, for some reason, believe their mediocre crapola ‘profound’ all because they read Phil fuckin’ Adams juvenile scawls in The Weekend Oz magazine and feel the warm bask of self-congratulation because he knows who Lorca was and saw a Jean Cocteau film at the Metro when he was 21. He must be creative man. He can read subtitles!
.
It’s a little warm basket of protectionism and cliquey inter-congratulatory BOLLOCKS!!! All with that great article from Struggling Artist Magazine pinned on every wall: “3 out of 10 artists might possibly not be the geniuses they think they are: Could your friends be among them?”
.
Hell no! After a gallon full of publically gifted claret they’re all Salvador fuckin’ Dali.
.
This is Aussie Kulcha. That means you!
The Oz is loyal to its columnists and journos. It’s funny like that. And it’s gotta have a soft leftie, for balance, so it might as well be Phillip Adams. And they know Adams very well and he knows lots of people. He is their house leftie. And a lot of readers really, really like him. He can be quite funny. Expect to see him there till the biological curtain call.
But Posey, he’s shite! Really.
There seems to be 2 factions of the Greens – the Bob Brown faction and the perennially sour, stick-the-boot-into-Labor-at-every-opportunity Christine Milne faction.
The Greens go after Garrett at every opportunity. They’ve been worried about Garrett ever since he joined the ALP. And people have been calling him a sell-out from the moment he joined Labor.
He’s actually made some half-decent decisions on the enviroment, but that wouldn’t satisfy the Christine Milne faction (not when you’re trying to peel off ALP votes).
One of Garrett’s first acts was to come down to a Victorian State election and shit-sheet the Greens. It might’ve cost ‘em the seat of Melbourne. It was dirty and the guy’s on their shit list. He deserves to be.
.
.
But that’s the ALP. Hi. Wanna join? Well we have this initiation ritual. Here’s a knife. Stick it in someone you love.
.
Petey did it cause he thought he’d be PM one day. Oh Petey you fucked up real good. The ALP will boot ya and the Greenies won’t invite you to their parties no more. You’ll have to get a real job now Petey.
Why couldn’t the ANAM have complied the demands of the funding body by Oct 31? Why didn’t they have a planned balanced budget each year anyway without the Minister having to ask for it?
This spin of the Greens claiming credit for the Minister getting basically what he wanted is a beauty.
The greens don’t actually have a coherent policy platform, rather they are a political version of the RSPCA. Thankfully, they’re not in Government, and never will be, as they would never be able to deliver on all the disparate “green” things they stand for. They don’t have a real constituency and the vote they receive is really only a disaffected labor vote that has been temporarily parked in what is (mistakenly) regarded as a green safe harbor in protest against labor rather than a vote for whatever it is the greens stand for (or more importantly what they don’t stand for).
Adrien
you may not be enamoured of middle-aged, smug, bourgeois music lovers, but the ones in danger of suffering from the ANAM decision were very young and very talented musicians, who may well flee these shores to orchestra jobs and further education overseas. We need to nurture them.
Have you ever heard the beauty of classic music? I hope you have. It’s good.
What Ambi said. It’d be nice to have one single post on anything to do with cultural policy without oh so predictable comments about whether we should have one in the first place.
I’ve said before, FXH, that the demands were designed not to ensure continued funding and accountability but to up the ante on a decision bureaucrats wanted to make anyway. This is a classic instance of overkill, and it’s by no means an isolated instance in the cultural funding sphere in this country. And I can’t see why anyone would want to lift a finger to defend Garrett on this one. Inability to make a decision combined with a lack of imagination combined with communications and pr incompetence.
Props to The Greens on this one.
@ Michael – 10
No coherent policy position? Have you checked their website? The entire thing is spelt out there in simple, plain English for anyone to see and read. No other party has their policy platform so accessible.
They do indeed have a real constituency – those like myself (And, presumably many on this site) who are concerned about the Environment and the future in general. The ALP no longer cares about many things, such as Social Progressivism and a decent Climate Change strategy. The Greens do and as such they can appeal to voters that no other party can.
And I’d make the further point that musos trained in this sort of institution, some of whom I’m friends with (disclaimer), often end up working in very interesting crossover and contemporary music projects which are quite different from the image of the staid state orchestra, and which enjoy commercial success and contribute a lot to artistic and cultural innovation.
@ CountArach 13
Thanks for responding to my first ever blog.
Re your suggestion, I have checked the green website on a number of occasions. They are for a lot of nice “green” things aren’t they.
I agree with you, they do have a real constituency, but then so do the nationals. What I meant to say was that they while they put forward a populist view on “green” issues, they could never be able deliver on all their “policies”. I’d be confident that most people who voted “green” had never visited the green website, so they would not really know what the greens stood for, and many would be horrified if they did.
Luckily, the greens will never be able to determine climate change policy in this country. One can only hope that somewhere in the future the “greens” will find themselves in the same predicament as the Democrats.
As an adjunct, its worth noting that Melbourne’s Astra Chamber Music Society, a decades-long recipient of Australia Council and Arts Vic funding, has just lost operating funding from both institutions in the space of a week. Their weekend concert, which featured jaw-dropping performances of American legend Elliot Carter’s music, showed they’re still completely at the top of their game.
The decision just plain baffles me. I wonder if anyone has a sense of the way in which govt support is shifting under Garrett? (Of course, things seem also to be shifting at the state level also…) At the medium-sized organisation level, where Astra fits, there’s got to be some kind of change of emphasis to explain something like this. Astra is fairly bold and contemporary in its programming but in the past this seems to have fitted well with the funding bodies…..
@15 – I don’t think general discussion of the merits or otherwise of The Greens is on topic for this thread. Please stick to the issue.
Lets have a bob each way.
Firstly the Greens.
There are a lot of people ‘parking’ their vote….at elections no less. Last federal election over 1.170.000 of them. More than the Nationals. More than Family First.More than both of them combined. Polls since the election have the Greens doing better by about 2% than at the election and consistently polling better than Nats/FF combined.
Thats not trivial or to be trivialised.
Secondly a word in favour of Garrett, not my favourite polly but credit where credit is due. His actions and attitudes on the Traveston dam issue are to be applauded and probably contributed significantly to its justified demise, well hopefully, maybe it will be resurrected at a future date.
Or to put it another way, he hasn’t been a total dead loss.
Wow, that really brought the Labor left anti-Green commenters out of the woodwork quick smart, didn’t it!
I’m not going to address most of the points raised, but I would say that anyone who thinks that Bob Brown and Christine Milne are in some kind of different ‘factions’ of the Greens has absolutely no idea about the party. I’m not denying that there are parts of the party which disagree with other parts – there are in any party. But Bob and Christine on different sides? Um, no. It is interesting that those who run these arguments hate Christine so much – perhaps they find my boss particularly threatening coz she’s so damn good at what she does?
FXH, thank you for being pretty much the only one who raised a concrete point! But, in response – what Mark said. This wasn’t about any of what Garrett demanded – it was an excuse to close down the Academy.
hannah’s dad @ 18 -
Let’s not have a bob each way. This thread is not about The Greens and their appeal to voters. If you want to have that conversation, take it to the open thread, Saturday Salon, please. This thread is about the ANAM decision. Thanks.
Point taken, Kim, and thanks for making it!
No probs, Tim. Incidentally, thanks for the informative post. There’s been bugger all about this whole thing in the meejah.
Hey Tim, I think Christine is a pretty good politician too. And it would seem that Garrett isn’t. On the issue itself, though, you would have to speculate that there were some pretty strong governance issues at stake to motivate the Government to take the unpopular course it did. After-all the bureaucracy doesn’t just decide to advise the Minister to take such a course of action without good grounds and the government wouldn’t be blind to the sensitivities of the decision.
Agree entirely Mark. It can just be amazing to see what someone with a solid background in classical music training can do when they bring its disciplines and techniques to bear in another stream of music tradition. It can just be totally memorable pure joyous magic.
Aussie Oscar – that’s not good news at all re the Astra Choir.
I haven’t had the pleasure of hearing them in recent years, but (disclaimer) there was a time when one of my sisters was an Astra. They were hot shit back then – in the best of polyphonic ways – and I can’t imagine that changing greatly. John McCaughey losing the musical plot? Not likely!
Why is it that govt funding bodies so badly want to play bipolar love-you hate-you games with so many of their ‘clients’?
Tim, thankyou so much for your post.
>
And they say blogs merely piggy back on what the MSM report … well neither the spcialist arts media or the MSM have been able to analyse the issue with anything like this depth.
>
Moving on from that, Tim, are you aware of the Cutler Review of innovation, Venturous Australia, which recommended that training institutions like ANAM have teir funding increased to levels comparable to those of NIDA? It might be worth asking Ministers Garrett and Carr how this decision lines up in terms of Labor’s supposed innovation policy as it applies to the cultural industries …
>
As I have said a few times in various cultural policy blogs here at LP, the lack of a coherent framework for cultural policy makes these kind of bureaucratic score settlings all too easy.
>
Finally, I tend to agree with Mark thata it would be nice to have a cogent debate about cultural policy in this country without the usual insults being thrown around.
>
By the way, many LP’ers may be interested in the Jim Schembri vs the Australian film industry controversy going on over at Jim’s blog in The Age:
>
http://blogs.theage.com.au/schembri/
Hang on Kim, not so fast.
Our comments crossed so thats why the ‘bob each way’ bit [I type r e a l slow].
I was responding to whatsis name.
Garrett’s performance and policies is an integral part of this discussion.
Tim and the Greens are an integral part of this discussion.
Discussions do not occur in vaccuums.
kim @ 22:
Beg to differ on the level of coverage of this. There’s been plenty in The Age and on Melb radio. crikey, I’ve seen and heard more of Brett Dean than Britney Spears in the last fortnight.
Ben @ 26:
You’re right though, coverage don’t always equal analysis….
Feral Abacus @ 25:
Nope, there’s certainly no loss of the plot from John McCaughey. He’s very much still on his game. Presenting exciting, challenging new music in a context that’s stimulating for an audience, not alienating as so much new music is (and I say that as a one-time serialist composer myself).
Michael, I can only conclude that you haven’t seen too many bureaucrats and Ministers at close quarters! (I hasten to add that there are good instances of both…) Bureaucrats pursuing their own agendas and indecisive and incompetent Ministers are a dime a dozen – particularly in Arts ministries.
Absolutely, GregM!
Not in Victoria of Tasmania – Garrett has approved a number of major project and industry activities for a bruised, battered and pillaged environment. Channel deepening, north south pipeline, Gunns pulp mill … the list goes on. I am glad to hear that he has done at least one positive thing during his term as enviroment ministers (Traveston Dam?).
I thought it particularly bizare as an ex muso he would shut down AMAM. Not suprising he used his acrobat skills to do a slow mo backflip when the heat came on. Him saying “the Greens got is all wrong” indicates that they in fact got it right. Shamed him into a 180. Good stuff. Now just get him to do something to ban plastic bags and boost Australia’s renewable energy industry and production.
And terminate the bloody pulp mill. Maybe even protect Brown Mountain old growth forests from the ravages of the feral Brumby state Labor government.
Many thanks to Tim and LP for this post. As a music performance student at uni I am wrapped that the efforts of a few very committed individuals have got such a result. I enjoyed the classical music i heard on the radio news a few days back, as a bit of a political junkie on the side i wish i could have played ‘on the doors’ myself.
As for the policy discussion, i am no expert on the circumstances of ANAM but this seems right to me, certainly it is nice to know the current students aren’t going to be turfed out so quickly. I’m also glad we are able to have some institutions dedicated to this level of training. As Mark said, there is a wide range of music being made by ‘classical’ musicians.
Also so much for Rudd’s government being about sensible well considered policy. Garrett’s obviously on a short leash as well, his efforts on the 7:30 report the other night re climate change were not too inspiring. Then again it’s always a good laugh when a polly completely reverses a decision but refuses to admit it.
Imagine the outcry if that happened to the Institute of Sport. It’s all very well to spend taxpayer’s money on “elites” as long as they play sport or drive fast cars (Melbourne Grand Pricks), but not if they do some pointyheaded thing like playing music that doesn’t get on Australian Idol and doesn’t contribute to our Olympic medal tally.
Possibly, but the Age is not a national newspaper, though I know plenty of people who seem to think it is; we’ve not heard much about it in SA (or presumably in Qld either, where Kim is). The ANAM may be physically based in Melbourne but that ‘N’ stands for ‘National’ — and it’s a matter of federal funding; the ABC and the OO both ought to be all over it. And given the ABC’s traditional role in maintaining classical music and the OO’s eagerness to trash the Government at any available opportunity, it’s quite odd that they’ve both been so muted about it. Like Kim, I really appreciated this post.
Worth noting that ABC Classic FM has actually broadcast several concerts from ANAM, including some strong campaigning language from Richard Tognetti, among others. They’ve run hard. Radio National brekky ran briefs on it a couple of times. The Oz has run a couple of stories, and the SMH one or two. But otherwise, the Age has had a virtual exclusive on it…
What Mark said on bureaucracy pushing around weak Ministers! Michael, have you watched Yes Minister? It’s a docu-drama, not a comedy show
Ambigulous – you may not be enamoured of middle-aged, smug, bourgeois music lovers,
.
.
I thought I was one.
.
We need to nurture them.
.
Yes I know and I’ve consistently argued on past posts viz this issue that that is the case. Classical music demands a lot of input, training, time, cultivation dedication and resources to do properly. Because:
.
Have you ever heard the beauty of classic music? I hope you have. It’s good.
.
I have heard the beauty of classical music, it’s a reason to live.
.
Mark – It’d be nice to have one single post on anything to do with cultural policy without oh so predictable comments about whether we should have one in the first place.
.
Indeed instead we should have the predictable cultural policy riffs.
.
As I’ve said I’ve argued for public patronage of classical music. And I don’t subscribe to the laissez-faire doctrine of culture. The issues are complicated by various matters including the anti-competetive practices and prejudices of the private sector.
.
I was lambasting a cliquey mentality, dominated by mediocrities who in many cases actually inherit their positions in the milieu of claret-soaked snobbery. This is true both in the public and private sectors which are more intertwined than the ideological shitfights viz the arts would have us believe.
.
The closure of this academy, its demonization as an elitist institution – the whole fucking thing in fact – is the residue of a committee led process which is killing this country’s culture. The very fact that such a school would be closed, not because it fails to produce excellence but because of administrative concerns says it all.
.
Elsewhere the new film policy does even more to lock new talent’s prospects to the opinions of the bloated, beige coloured hacks that pass for respected culturati in this tinpot neo-colony and, of course, this has the added benefit of giving the suits in various offices – the only people to actually be steadily employed in the film business – yet another bunch of people to point the finger at when local projects struggle to make 10% of their budget back.
.
But yes. Tedious to talk about whether we should have a cultural policy. We have many fine talents in this country. Here’s one, her name is Amy. Now Amy…
.
Amy? Amy?
.
Oh I see. She just caught a flight to LA.
.
Well we’ve lost Amy but at least we still have a policy.
Greens are bad people and nobody likes them.
Stunning analysis, GB.
…Meanwhile, back in the news: Taxpayers will have to cough up 45.6 FRACKING MILLION for the 2018 (soccer) World cup.
The URL says franking-world-cup, but I’m sure they meant fracking.
Priorities, people.
Um, actually, Helen, as I read that all we get for our $45.6 fracking million is the beginning of the process to bid for the soccer world cup. If we win the right to host it, it’ll cost a damn sight more than that!
That said, I do enjoy watching a good football match. Not as much as that top-notch, exciting performance of Beethoven 5 at ANAM a couple of weeks ago, though…
On the broader issue of government support for the fine arts, I suspect it’s not a question of people having something against the fine arts per se – more about the majority getting pissed off about government funding for something which is undeniably a minority affair. Made worse by the fact that the audience for the minority tends to be higher than average socio-economic status. What most people don’t realise is that the artists themselves rarely are and they are the ones who get the funding.
Taxpayers will have to cough up 45.6 FRACKING MILLION for the 2018 (soccer) World cup.
.
What a waste of money. We’re not gonna get the World Cup. We only found out what soccer was ten minutes ago. From the link:
Oh yes it bloody will. You wanna encourage soccer in ‘Straya? Maybe spend $5 on a talk to the Socceroos called: Pass the ball you morons!
Thanks Mark, GregM and (ummm) Adrien. Yes, PC, ANAM is meant to be National.
Melb has a “National” art gallery too. Apparently Melb used to be the national capital; Victoria got that wrested away. But we pinched the Grand Pricks from youse in Adelaide!!
At the risk of derailing the classical music love-in, I’d like to ask a few questions about ANAM’s purpose. For one, are there really 44 jobs in orchestras a year in Australia? I’d say not. In which case we’re almost by definition asking many of these graduates to seek their careers overseas. Which is in fact the best thing for them anyway, as the centres of the global classical music industry are overseas. I’m undecided whether ANAM is a worthy institution. But I am convinced that classical music in Australia is relatively moribund, and that training musicians to work in that industry is a risky business given the future of many of our orchestras is somewhat less than certain (though a lot more solid than a future in pop)
I’d make two points, Ben.
The first is that argument presumes a narrowly vocational view of education. Are there really thousands of jobs for media/comms and journalism graduates every year? How about maybe 50 cadetships in each state if you’re lucky… and getting worse. That segues into the second argument – which is in part going back to what I was saying before – the many performance/composition/recording opportunities available outside orchestras (many of which aren’t classical music narrowly defined) as a benefit in terms of creativity, innovation, culture etc. and the benefit to the students themselves.
Your argument is a pretty common one, but I think its premises about the benefits of education are confused, and need to be separated out and thought through better.
I mean, strictly speaking, before I did any postgrad stuff, as an Arts graduate with majors in history and politics I was trained for nothing in a direct job sense. But I don’t see the same level of angst at universities for offering majors in history and politics, literature, etc. At least I hope I don’t!
WHat about the thousands of MBAs who get churned out every year? Is the world really better off?
Of course, Helen.
Even as we blog, those MBAs are rolling up their shirtsleeves, and getting down to the hard slog of extricating us all from the GFC, caused in part by other MBAs. It’s very much like a classical/pop “crossover thing”.
Heh!
Yep, all good arguments Mark. And I’m certainly not arguing that education should be narrowly conceived vocational training. Nor that the government shouldn’t support vocational training – of course it should. However, I do think that the creative arts suffer more than other professions from insitutions like NIDA, ANAM, AFTRS etc churning out plenty of highly skilled practitioners every year for whom the support, industry infrastructure and career opportunities simply won’t be there. Let’s be honest and point out that it is the constant stream of talented, ambitious new entrants into creative labour markets that is partly responsible for the very low wages and poor conditions of artists.
Scrap NIDA. What worthwhile actor ever came out of that shithole?
Hmm, Ben, I still think you’re sticking with the same logic!
Sure, but isn’t that a good argument for the decommodification of remuneration for creative activity? Supply and demand shouldn’t be the sine qua non of everything.
Mark said
>
Indeed it is Mark. I’d be the last to argue that creative activity should be all about how much you get paid for it. There’s a number of different rewards for creativity. Many of them are intrinsic, which is a big issue in the “what good are the arts” literature at the moment.
>
But the purpose of ANAM is in fact predicated on highly extrinsic and commodified goals. Its purpose is not to help musicians become better people or pursue music for its beauty and joy, but to be a “finishing school” for highly qualified orchestral musicians. As the Grant Report itself notes, the ANAM appears to be explicitly modelling itself on the AIS in terms of students who go on to “success at a world-class international competition” and sees it goal as preparing its students “for a lifetime career as professional musicians.”
Fair point, Ben, but that doesn’t of course exclude other pathways for the students themselves and other benefits.
Oh Helen! How can you possible doubt the benefit of 1,000′s of MBAs out there, saving the world!
I agree with Mark about the educational issue. Sure all the film school graduates (and there’s a helluva lot if you look at all the unis which have a BA in Film and Video Production, Media Studies, Applied Communications etc) aren’t going to work in the film industry. In my experience, many have decided that isn’t the way they want to go even before they graduate. But they’ll work in related media industries of many types.
As for the point that the number of graduates depress wages and working conditions, I think you’ll find that there’ll be the same amount of foolish people choosing to be penniless artists whether there are formal training institutes or not.
Yep, Fine. Agreed. Speaking as someone with an MFA!
No, it’s not Mark. If what you mean (and it seems that you can mean nothing else) is that we should pay artists/other indulgers in creative activity for doing so whether or not they produce anything at all.
A nice scam if you can get away with it. We’ll all be putting up our shingles as creative types so that we can watch the moolah roll in. I for one will be arguing that my transgressive conceptual work with tea cosies should give me regular license to raid your wallet and the fact that I have never produced a tea cosy, only the transgressive concept of one, will be the very proof of the decommodification of my art.
I know that the very thought of supply and demand will not cross your mind as you hand over the readies.
No, actually, GregM, that’s not what I mean.
I’ll go back to one of my comments from earlier – the positions in some of these debates are so stereotyped that people assume that others are taking up one even when they’re not.
Ben, just a point of clarification on your question re 55 new positions in orchestras every year – actually there’s 55 students across the institution at differing stages of training. Perhaps between a dozen and 20 of them concludes their training each year.
So… in ANAM we have a national training centre of excellence for the tiny, but hugely subsidised, music sector, devoted to the performance of European heritage music. Has anyone contemplated the startlingly obvious question… why isn’t this institution devoted to the betterment of original Australian contemporary music? It’s astounding how this hasn’t ever entered the debate….