Backgrounding The Visual Arts Board's Decision to Defund Craft Australia

CLICK HERE TO SEE CRAFT AUSTRALIA'S RESPONSE

The background for the Visual Arts Board (VAB) decision to defund CRAFT AUSTRALIA has apparently been made against a background of a secure future for contemporary visual arts funding. So it seems that the VAB’s grants and initiatives are not under any threat. But does this proposition stack up?

Therefore, it would seem, Australia's cultural producers can expect (or is it expected to expect?) that the VAB will continue to support the contemporary expression of art through the broadest range of visual media – apparently that will include craft, design, media arts and visual arts. The spin is that this support has included, and it is claimed that it will continue to include, grants to artists and funding for contemporary arts organisations along with the national/international events the VAB has traditionally funded. This has been claimed before albeit that the facts may not have always matched the rhetoric.

So the decision to "defund Craft Australia" requires some perspective and interrogation if these assertions are to be considered against the evidence and the outcomes.

The VAB claims to have assessed the business plans of a number of "Key Organisations"  and apparently this is the first such assessment since 2003. Consequently it seems that two new organisations were invited to submit their business plans.

Once the VAB approved their business plans it has been reported that a number of organisations were offered four year contracts in order that they be aligned with the Visual Arts and Craft Strategy funding – federal and state government initiative.

On the available evidence, all the applicants were required to address the "VAB key organisations selection criteria" along the following lines:

1. An organisation's significant contribution to the development of high quality contemporary art practice – service to the sector, touring initiatives, regional context etc.;
2. The 'appropriateness' of an organisation’s artistic and professional skills base;
3. The ways in which an organisation engages with the public demonstrated by audience development strategies and their outcomes;
4. Quality and Innovation in an organisation’s program; and
5.  Sustainable planning, governance and management that could be demonstrated by effective resource use, appropriate budgeting and the adequate remuneration of artists and staff.

The outcome appears to be that three organisations were unsuccessful – including Craft Australia. It also seems that two organisations will receive Key Organisations funding for the first time and apparently five organisations were put on notice – that is given one year funding and will be asked to resubmit their business plan.

Apparently the VAB "had concerns about the effectiveness of Craft Australia as a peak body". Reportedly there was also a perception that Craft Australia was overly reliant upon Federal Government funding. In some ways this is hardly surprising given that Craft Australia moved away from a membership base as a consequence of VAB requesting(?) that it do so – but that was some time ago.

Apparently this is seen as adversely impacting upon Craft Australia's capacity to be an effective advocate for the craft and design sector. So it can be extrapolated that the VAB wishes to, at the very least, cost shift 'craft funding' to the State agencies given the growth of State funding to the sector. However, it is unlikely to be quite as simple as that.

What seems to be missing in all this is any attempt to deliver an equitable outcome that took into account what was at risk given the unprecedented and unilateral decision making the VAB has engaged in in this case.

Indeed, the decision, once scrutinised, poses a great many questions in regard to the bureaucratic and cultural paradigm within which this defunding decision has been made.