Australia vs. the Arts

I was browsing the Apple News app today when I came across this fantastic piece in The New York Times: ‘Is the Way Australia Funds the Arts a Recipe for Mediocrity?’.

Overall, the article explains how Australia lacks the funding and vision to encourage consumption of its own culture and artistic works. I couldn’t agree with this more and I’d love to go out on my own tangent here. (Make sure that you check out the full article though…)

Two major points stand out to me in the piece. The first is the matter of cultural cringe:

“Cultural cringe — in part, the tendency to overvalue the culture of Europe and North America and undervalue Australia’s own — lingers, many Australians in the arts argue. This, they say, plays into why the 28 majors, who mostly concentrate on traditional art forms and repertoire, are still so revered by those who manage government funding.

Professor Meyrick said that cultural cringe has lessened over the years, as Australia gained more confidence on the global stage. Yet this attitude is “still hard-wired into the administration of culture.”

I see evidence of this all the time. With friends and colleagues, discussions about television programmes and film always default to American productions. If mentioned shows are Australian, they’re almost always in the realm of reality TV. There is so much to be enjoyed on the government-funded free-to-air networks such as the ABC and SBS, with a multitude of home-grown drama, news, comedy and documentaries. Don’t even get me started on whether people go to theatres to see Australian plays. Such theatregoers do exist–I don’t wish to generalise–but it’s certainly not the norm.

Read on for the second point of note:

“Fundamental to the debate over funding is that Australia as a nation prioritizes sports over the arts. The last federal budget allocated nearly $75 million more to the Australian Sports Commission than to the Australia Council. According to a 2017 study by the broadband network N.B.N., Australians watch around 60 million hours of sports at home per week—about 2 and a half hours per person.

By contrast, some Australians regard the arts with suspicion, said Christopher Tooher, executive director of the annual Sydney Festival. Fifteen years ago, he said, the newly elected head of the government in the state of New South Wales felt the need to reassure the public that he was ‘a footy man’, referring to Australian Rules football, the national sport, ‘not an opera man’.”

The nation’s obsession with sport (particularly domestic sports such as rugby league, cricket and Australian rules football) is tiresome. Not only does it take too much time as a regular segment on daily news programmes, it swallows up other important spheres of daily life.

Perhaps my clearest memory of this fixation on sport is my time as a student in primary and high school assemblies. There were other extra-curricular activities for kids, such as debating, drama, photography, film cultural exchanges and vocational training, however, all assemblies contained at least 15 minutes of monotonous sport reports, as athletic school heroes were paraded in front of the bored school population. I never felt personally affected by this (other than lapsing in attention), but I am sure that others who were also not that athletic felt completley insufficient, as they were forced to watch the latest swimming champion was placed on a glorious pedestal.

Later, during my tertiary education (and even today), I frequently heard people say, “Oh, such-and-such is just doing an arts / creative arts degree because she/he didn’t know what else to do”. In general, the arts discipline and other creative fields are regarded as paths to zero employment. Areas such as sport, STEM and business are the ultimate symbols of success. The greatest leaps forward in society have in fact almost always come from the arts, whether from philosophers, sociologists, playwrights or musicians.

What’s particularly sad to me is that this attitude towards the arts has become so dismal, that it has even made it into an international American newspaper. I wish the Australian mainstream would turn its gaze to the wonderful pool of artistic talent in this country, spurring not only demand for Australian content but also increased funding.

The Legend of Seinfeld

Last night was a night that I thought would never happen: I had the chance to see Jerry Seinfeld perform live at the ICC in Sydney. The absolute sitcom and stand-up legend himself, who had not performed in Australia in 19 years, decided to visit this continent and gift us with his unmatched observational comedy.

Jerry!

I went with my fiancée, Natasha, who also worships the man. It was the show Seinfeld that in fact brought us together. During my time at university, Natasha and I did not know each other, but had a mutual friend by the name of Myf. She suffered constantly through our coincidentally simultaneous Seinfeld references. We both preached incessantly about how it is and always will be the greatest television show to ever be made. (Nothing has had the same cultural resonance or influence, except for perhaps The Simpsons, although Jerry quit while on top.) Noticing this shared passion, Myf put in a good word for the other on both sides. The rest is history!

I would say that Natasha and I are quite well-known amongst family and friends for being Seinfeld nuts. The beauty of the show is that is instantly relatable to anyone – the banal and the mundane are dissected masterfully in the show. Jerry and co-creator Larry David struck the perfect recipe for critiquing and painfully over-analysing the minutiae of human existence. I would go so far as to say that watching the show since I was a young child went on to influence the way that I talk and view the world. Little things annoy me, and boy do other people get to hear about them.

Last night was the culmination of a lifetime of quotation, references, laughter and watching and rewatching TV re-runs and DVDs. Natasha and I knew that we would have a great time, but we weren’t sure what to expect from a him so late in his career. He could easily have rested on his laurels and pumped out old stuff.

Well, I was blown away and I’m pretty sure that the rest of the audience was too. The theatre was packed, the laughter was loud and there was even a second show to follow.

IMG_5541
Effortless performance

Not only did Jerry’s performance run for 90 minutes, but he did not stop for breath. Laugh after laugh delivered and nothing felt forced. Jerry delivered a show that was not only true to his 90s style and fame, but one that was also relevant to a world that is obsessed with smartphones, the Web and personal image. He did it all without being offensive, crude or political. I walked away incredibly impressed. I would have paid double for the ticket.

IMG_5543
Crowds pour in for the *second* show.

This is a man who has mastered his craft and continues to do brilliant things like the popular Web series Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee. You can tell that he loves what he does.

So, I’d like to say a big ‘thank you’ to Mr Seinfeld for providing the absolute best, most timeless comedy on the planet, and for giving us all a night that we will not forget. Oh, and also, thank you for incidentally providing me with a future wife.

One happy Seinfeldian couple

Co-presence: Convenience or Curse?

As media forms and technology continue to converge, more and more people are participating in social media, e-mail, cloud computing, online gaming, SMS / MMS, push notifications, and instant messaging. These technologies create a certain ‘virtual reality’, or ‘pure information space’, immersing and connecting people across great distances in artificial environments for instant, interactive communication (Featherstone and Burrows, 1995).

Perhaps the most important consideration, however, is the creation of ‘co-presence’, or simultaneous presence in both physical and virtual worlds (Gregg, 2007). Technological co- presence has blurred the line between work and leisure, enabling people to collaborate on projects and play at any time. Most importantly, it raises interesting questions about technology’s capacity to improve or degrade human social interaction. Is it a distraction, or does it keep us connected with a broader range of friends impossible to maintain by normal, face-to- face interaction? Featherstone and Burrows (1995, p. 1) state that technological co-presence, for many, “…revives utopian impulses, coupled with the sense that we are on the edge of moving into a reconfigured world which bears little relation to our previous speculations”.

Google is currently developing a new device called ‘Project Glass’, which promises to take technological co-presence to a new level. The device is a set of wearable, augmented reality glasses, which connect to the Internet and GPS, providing users with up-to-date information, notifications and news, and allowing connectivity to Google’s vast range of Web services, including the social network ‘Google+’ (Anonymous, 2012). Google even claims that it will be released to the public this year (Claburn, 2012).

Claburn (2012) does, however, list a number of potential issues with the glasses, beyond the usual issues faced by connected smartphones, including: privacy, redundancy, cost, health (radiation), liability and control. As with all technology, we must exercise caution and moderation. Google’s Project Glass has the potential to revolutionise modern communication, work and leisure, but it could also introduce issues impacting privacy and socialisation. Does it really have a necessary place in our already media- and technology-saturated society?