Janice Florence
This begins by being an article about an article about an article. An article was recently published in the ëAge' newspaper in Melbourne written by an American Theatre Critic. In it he remarked what a large number of Arts Festivals are held in Australia - huge given the size of the population. He also commented that he was surprised that most of these festivals featured artists and companies from overseas. It seemed strange, he thought, that these festivals weren't more of a showcase for the local product.
Being an American, he probably doesn't know about our famous Antipodean tendency to cringe and kowtow before the high alter of overseas, and particularly, European art. Supposedly we have got over our ëcultural cringe' but if you look at, for example, the Melbourne and Adelaide Festivals, you may conclude that it is still flourishing.
Soon after this there was a reply from an Australian Critic patiently explaining to his American counterpart that we need to import these artists at huge expense, because our culture is not yet ëmature'. We need, he opined, to learn from these older (and by implication superior) cultures how to do art. And then one day - he didn't specify when- we will reach the requisite maturity. Then it will be okay to allow our local artists and companies to be part of these expensive, middle class festivals. Each event is generally so expensive that only the affluent can attend and probably in the Australian climate of cringe, there is more status to attending an overseas performance than a local one.
If some of the money devoted to the mass importation of artists from overseas were poured into the development of Australian practitioners, they may begin to advance to the required ëmaturity'. What is this maturity anyway? Could you not just as well say that our arts scene is vigorous, young and innovative and theirs is degenerate and clapped out? Might you not accuse these cultures of artistic Alzheimers?
Granted it is often stimulating and inspiring to see what other artists are doing elsewhere. Places with a larger population and a richer ferment may be more likely to produce something that appeals to a particular interest. It is beneficial to have a necessary and desirable cross fertilisation, but do we have to always downgrade what is our own and be dazzled by what comes from elsewhere? Sometimes the exotic is not so interesting but a manifestation of the ëEmperor's new clothes' syndrome. It would be useful if we could grade things by their worth and not their geographical origins.
I have been involved in an organising committee for a small festival and the first thoughts of the instigators leapt immediately to importing artists from overseas - even an exotic bloom from New Zealand seemed to be prized above the humble, home grown weed. I found that almost laughable - any stretch of sea between us and them lends attraction and status. We, myself included, are all guilty of this dewy eyed reverence for the artistic inhabitants of other places. Distance lends enchantment. It would be good, I think to look with clearer eyes at what is around us and to give support and appreciation where it is warranted, not to mention solving the unemployment problem for local artists.
For a small country, we have much happening that is adventurous and skilled. Let's stop stooping and scuttling round in Euro centric cringe mode and maybe the altered posture might eventually work its way by osmosis to our Arts entrepreneurs and organisers.
vol 6 ed 1 - ed 2 - ed 3&4 - 2003 vol 5 ed 1 - ed 2 - ed 3 - ed 4 - 2002 vol 4 ed 1 - ed 2 - ed 3 - ed 4 - 2001 vol 3 ed 1 - ed 2 - ed 3 - ed 4 - 2000 vol 2 ed 1 - ed 2 - ed 3 - ed 4 - 1999 vol 1 ed 1 - ed 2 - ed 3 - ed 4 - 1998 |
e m a i l - <Proximity> |