Let us briefly summarise the case developed in this monograph.

Government ideas about how to support arts and culture were traditionally very limited in their success and effectiveness. Historically, governments spent little on culture and what was spent tended to be earmarked for the elite arts sector. Arguably this support was not motivated by ambitions to broaden awareness of culture more generally in the community, but by notions of ‘showcasing’ endorsed representations of elite culture. Support was given to major signature institutions which constituted an oasis of culture, often situated in major cities.

Gradually, a greater range of activities began to be classified as ‘culture’ and from the 1960s onwards, governments were persuaded to invest more widely in these various cultural activities. Two things happened in parallel: government financial support widened to include many new and different forms of culture (films, festivals, events, more institutions, local community developments), and the older forms of arts patronage became more and more expensive to operate and sustain (owing to escalating costs, increased investments, artistic purchases, artistic salaries, and bureaucratic administration). These parallel developments put considerable pressure on the system.

On the supply side, production expanded as more people were able to practice various artforms and the costs of participating became more manageable to intending contributors. Changing technologies, better equipment, new media and more variable inputs meant that the arts and cultural sector was now more accessible to potential contributors. The sector became wide open to new players, not due to the policies of the old elite guard but due to initiatives of the new participants themselves. Some of these developments were welcomed by the arts habitués. So, for example, there was a spectacular growth and interest in special interest arts — such as indigenous and multi-cultural ‘folk arts’. Much of this was not necessarily ‘traditional’ artistic expression but was reinvented through the use of new styles and techniques against the backdrop of traditional cultures (as with Aboriginal dot paintings done in acrylic).

On the demand side, the old arts sector did not highly value the size or diversity of its audiences. The sector operated as a self-referential ‘closed shop’ that, in practice, only expected to engage with itself. Artists and the cognoscenti were the intended audience and often were the sole revolving audience for elite arts presentations. The sector was organised and ruled by ideas of excellence and elite peer taste. But again, pressures from the 1960s onwards posed challenges to the insular status quo. Governments wanted to widen the reach of the arts and adopted the twin mantras of access and equity. They wanted to stimulate greater mass demand and engagement with forms of cultural expression.

However, attempts to widen access and improve equity have met with only limited success. The high arts sector has not necessarily approved of the government’s aim to make the arts more accessible. It is not unknown for arts bureaucrats to give ‘lip service’ to all forms of culture in their ‘impact’ reports to government (such as CD sales, attendance at popular music events, gardening, and folk festivals) only to subsequently ignore these sectors once the case has been made about ‘accessibility’ or the funding request has been submitted.

Meanwhile, ‘new’ or non-traditional entrants in the sector compete for the marginal funds remaining after the elite organisations and institutions have secured their ‘cut’. The result is often unsatisfactory for many players. In responding to claims of ‘crisis’ and ‘reduced funding’ (usually on an organisational basis rather than across the cultural field as a whole), governments face a dilemma. Should they pick cultural winners and reinstate forms of patronage or should they institute new funding models and force organisations to compete and meet new regimes of accountability and performance criteria?

Supporting elite arts that are demonstrably not self-sustaining attracts criticisms of elite nurturing while the application of competitive regimes is condemned as inappropriate economic rationalism. To avoid either charge, numerous governments have adopted a compromised or ‘instrumentalist’ approach that uses art and culture to leverage broader social outcomes in other more demonstrably ‘needy’ or ‘deserving’ portfolios (such as art programs in hospitals, prisons or for the mentally ill; cultural training schemes for unemployed or ‘at risk’ youth; art and cultural projects for marginalised or disadvantaged groups). Yet, this approach, too, has proved problematic.