Opinion & Commentary
Aboriginal artists in the remote 'homelands' downtrodden by too much aid
The answer is that most Aboriginal artists in the remote ''homelands'' have been denied even the most basic education for the past 30 years, so they are at the mercy of exploitative art buyers. Despite their pictures fetching thousands of dollars, they need the CDEP to live. Not all Aboriginal art dealers are exploitative. Some galleries and art dealers have nurtured Aboriginal art and individual artists, ably marketed their output and, as with non-indigenous artists, have paid them about 60 per cent of the prices of pictures and artefacts they have sold. Some have helped their artists to manage their incomes. But these galleries and dealers are not typical of the industry. Many artists still only receive a very small proportion of the sale price of their pictures. For years, dealers were purchasing fine pictures for a tankful of petrol, a couple of bags of groceries and worse, alcohol, cannabis or even Viagra. Some dealers organised the production of pictures in squalid sheds and garages, in some cases keeping artists in effect imprisoned by supplies of alcohol. Such practices produced poor-quality work and hence damaged the market for Aboriginal art.
Many of the communally owned ''homeland'' art centres, regarded by Altman and his Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research as the proper way of organising Aboriginal art, have often exacerbated artists' problems. Like most communal enterprises, particularly in semi or illiterate societies, these have had perennial management difficulties. Provenance and account records have usually been inadequate and they were often unable to market their artists' work properly. They have had to use CDEP payments to keep artists working. Inevitably, in the absence of clear private property rights, there are disputes about the division of proceeds.
Artists are often subject to so much ''humbugging'' begging that they do not find it worthwhile to paint. Communal art centres are thus easy prey for unscrupulous operators. The CDEP system of patronage pays artists while dealers reap very considerable profits from art sales. Taxpayers are subsiding galleries and dealers. Some artists have become more aware of the worth of their art, but their inability to communicate in English, to read and write, and above all, their lack of numeracy, have all encouraged exploitation. Artists may be rewarded by some cash payments, but also by plane tickets and hotel accommodation for a gallery opening and never know the proportion of the sales of their pictures they have actually received.
Media reports and inquiries, the most recent by the Senate, have exposed the extent of Aboriginal art racketeering and recommended many remedies. But it is clear that the only long-term solution lies in mainstream education in English that will enable artists to look after themselves by insisting on a decent share in the prices at which their pictures are sold. Some Aboriginal artists have reached this level of independence, but often only by moving away from the ''homelands'' so that they can work in peace. Abolishing ''sit-down money'' was essential to cleaning up the Aboriginal art industry so that artists are properly rewarded by a decent share in the price their work fetches, rather than by CDEP pittances.
Emeritus Professor Helen Hughes is a senior fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies, which has recently published her Lands of Shame: Aboriginal and Torres Straits 'Homelands' in Transition.
