Table of Contents
Here's what happens when governments start talking about art promoting "social cohesion": artists get uninvited from festivals. Exhibitions get quietly cancelled. Cultural organisations start second-guessing everything that might cause a ripple.
An ArtsHub opinion piece published last week argues that Australia's national cultural policy has wandered into dangerous territory. The 'Revive' policy, launched in 2023, sounds harmless enough until you dig into what "social cohesion" actually means in practice.
It means someone, somewhere, is deciding which art brings people together and which art might cause trouble. And that someone isn't the artist.
The piece cites specific instances where cultural organisations have managed artists' work and audience experiences in the name of keeping everyone happy. Translation: if your art makes people uncomfortable, if it challenges assumptions, if it asks difficult questions about power or identity or history, you might find yourself on the outer.
This isn't theoretical. Artists have been withdrawn from festivals. Invitations have been rescinded. All in the service of an ideal that sounds progressive but functions like old-fashioned censorship with better PR.
The timing matters. Submissions for the next iteration of Australia's national cultural policy closed on 24 May. Right now, bureaucrats and ministers are deciding what role art should play in Australian society. Whether it should comfort or confront. Whether it should reflect who we are or challenge who we might become.
For educators, this cuts to the bone of what we're teaching students about creative expression. Are we preparing them for a world where art serves the state's vision of harmony? Or one where artists have the freedom to create work that might make people think, argue, even disagree?
The best art has never been about making everyone comfortable. It's been about holding up mirrors we might not want to look into. About starting conversations we might prefer to avoid.
When governments start prioritising social cohesion over artistic freedom, they're not just limiting what artists can create. They're limiting what audiences can experience. What students can encounter. What teachers can use to spark genuine discussion about the world we live in.
The ArtsHub piece doesn't offer easy answers. But it asks the right question: do we want a cultural policy that produces art, or one that produces compliance?
Your classroom is where that question gets answered. Every time you choose a text that challenges students' assumptions. Every time you let them grapple with art that doesn't have neat conclusions. Every time you trust them to think for themselves rather than telling them what to think.
The government might be deciding what gets funded. But you're deciding what gets taught.
