A recent article by Chuck Brooks in Brisbane's Courier-Mail raised the ire of writers there and interstate.
It's not online so I can't link to it, but his rant was inspired by the One Book Many Brisbanes anthology, and the gist of it was that arts funding is a waste of public resources.
The most excellent Gary Kemble wrote a terrific rebuttal which appeared in the paper today (he posts it to his blog here) and I'm told that my less elegant response (below the cut) may have appeared too.
This is an issue I thought long-resolved in the public consciousness. Depressing to see it making a comeback.
It's not online so I can't link to it, but his rant was inspired by the One Book Many Brisbanes anthology, and the gist of it was that arts funding is a waste of public resources.
The most excellent Gary Kemble wrote a terrific rebuttal which appeared in the paper today (he posts it to his blog here) and I'm told that my less elegant response (below the cut) may have appeared too.
This is an issue I thought long-resolved in the public consciousness. Depressing to see it making a comeback.
Chuck Brooks' article lambasting the One Book, Many Brisbane winners (and artists in general) could win a prize for being the most ill-considered piece of writing I've read this year. A moment's research would have revealed the shocking income gap between most Australians and the average working artist. Sometimes this is due to the misapplication of talent; sometimes it is not. As a practising assessor in the arts industry, I can assure Mr Brooks that it is possible to tell the difference.
Many everyday people are capable of great works of art--indeed, there is nothing separating artists from the everyday; accusations of "genius" come solely from those misunderstanding the process--and there is nothing stopping anyone from creating one. All it takes is hard work and a great deal of determination. As has often been said, learning to become a great writer takes as long as learning to become a great surgeon. There are however, no guarantees of income at the end of that process. The same, of course, applies to those seeking a career in cricket, say, or athletics. Is Chuck Brooks intending next to decry the vast amounts of money spent on the Australian Institute of Sports?
The marketplace is one way to measure the worth of art. It is not the only way. Until Chuck Brooks can guarantee that our culture will be richer for keeping to itself the paltry amount of money it spends on grants rather than helping those aspiring to an artistic career that might benefit us all, I strongly advise him to keep his opinions to himself.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-01 05:39 am (UTC)We are back from Tasmania, and your books were in five of the seven bookshops we checked out/raided.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-02 01:45 am (UTC)Welcome home. :-)