Recently, I was at a big birthday party, and had a brief conversation with Adrian Collette, CEO of Creative Australia. Our history spans decades, from his days as a baritone in the Victoria State Opera chorus to his current position at the helm of Australia's principal arts funding body. Despite our long acquaintance, our interactions have been infrequent, with our last formal meeting in 2019 to discuss our decade-old company; our achievements and goals.
In the noisy atmosphere of the party, Adrian posed a question that has since haunted me: "Why do you keep going?" After an initial joke about not being in it for the money (a private dig at the 85% discrepancy between his salary and mine), I could see he was waiting for a ‘real answer’, and I provided a heartfelt response about my unshakable belief in the transformative power of operatic storytelling. His genuine response - a hand squeeze - belied the complexity of what this interaction represents, and I have been troubled by it since.
It struck me that this exchange highlights a real disconnect between arts administrators and the artists they're meant (paid) to support. There is no platform for artistic leaders to meaningfully engage beyond their own bubble - meetings and conversations are rare or non-existent, unless you’re part of a multi-year funded organisation. It points to the current submission-based, so-called ‘peer’ review - arms length process as inadequate for informing policy and strengthening advocacy.
That the CEO of Creative Australia needs to ask such a fundamental question of an artist with 30 years of significant experience in the sector is deeply troubling - not only for in the existential sense that my [hard, poorly paid] work in providing jobs for artists and unique experiences for audiences has been unseen and misunderstood by those that represent artists at the highest levels - and that those in leadership and making decisions on behalf of the arts sector actually lack a deep understanding of artistic motivations - and artists’ challenges.
Perhaps this goes some way to explain why Creative Australia funding criteria and processes often favour short-term, neatly-packaged projects over sustained artistic development; failing to recognise the long-term commitment and benefits brought by experienced artists and the small to medium organisations - especially to complex sectors such as opera. Perhaps if this question needs to be asked, then the current system doesn't adequately incorporate artists' voices in policy-making processes, leading to the gap between funding decisions and artistic realities. I have often thought the funding system prioritises easily measurable short-term impacts over the less tangible long-term cultural value of developing - and keeping pace with - the living art form.
This interaction highlights an urgent need for a more robust dialogue between artists and administrators, boards and advocates - and a long, overdue re-evaluation of how arts funding is approached and allocated. While the persistence of artists like myself is a testament to the enduring power of opera, it also underscores the need for a system that better understands, supports, and nurtures the sector, for the benefit of artists and society as a whole.
Without these conversations about artistic direction - and the artistic freedom funding provides - as well as the direction of the operatic art form more broadly, the funding system remains disconnected from the realities of artistic practice. Breaking this cycle requires a fundamental shift in how the opera sector approaches dialogue, funding, and support for artists at all stages of their careers - but particularly, urgently now, in mid-career.