The MCA, will it be a continuing story?

Modern cities, throughout the world, take a special pride in
providing its residents and visitors with public places to house
and exhibit works of art, especially those with national significance.
In addition to providing enormous pleasure to art lovers, this is an
important way to shape and preserve a distinct identity utilising
visual cultural and beloved heritage.

Australia is a very young and vibrant country that is rapidly maturing
through the many diverse cultural facets that it draws upon.
This is very evident in the successive states of cultural flux that is
gradually shaping our unique identity. The arts play a vital part in this,
and with the huge influx of many imported and indigenous influences,
it is crucial to such emerging identity that we not only preserve the
arts of the past but also cultivate and promote the arts of “NOW”.

The Museum of Contemporary Art, in Sydney, is doing exactly that!

The story of establishing it, its struggle to survive and grow and the
present threat to its very survival warrants a closer, hard and objective
look as this budding institution has the potential of becoming a unique
Australian cultural icon in its own right. 

The MCA came to being through the generous bequest of Dr. J W
Power, an expatriate artist and medical doctor (1881-1943) to the
University of Sydney. The Power Institute of Fine Arts was
established  in 1965, comprising the Department of Fine Arts, the
Power Research  Library and the Power Gallery of Contemporary
Art, the later has eventually evolved into the today MCA, which
has opened on 11 November 1991 at the present location at the
Circular Quay in Sydney.

At present, the New South Wales Government provides it with its
building,  which is situated on a fabulous piece of Sydney’s
foreshore real estate and continues to charge rent at a nominal rate,
it also provided a grant to supplement and help the museum’s
budget along. The museum has amassed a great collection of
artwork that has grown to some 6,000 works  acquired since the
1960s, with extensive aboriginal art collections also held in trust.

Given the relatively short time of its existence, it is a remarkable
feat that it can raise almost 90% of its running costs and attracts
some three hundred  thousand visitors annually. 

The MCA is at cross roads at the moment. Posed on its next most
critical developmental period since it’s inception, it needs objectivity
and realistic practicality if it is going to survive and achieve its
intended artistic role.

Let me explicate.
The key to the survival of any public art organization in today’s
“corporatised” world is financial viability and stability supported by
well-defined objectives. The public, also, needs a transparent
system of accountability and financial management in place, to
free the artistic directors  of such mundane chores and let them
concentrate on their artistic brief.

A courageous and practical plan has been conceived following
the appropriate  feasibility studies to redevelop the present site.
The Sydney City Council has, in conjunction with the MCA, the
University of Sydney and the State Government developed these
plans to build a modern public facility to accommodate the growing
needs of the MCA and adding further facilities for the moving image
and innovative new media, and in the same time, incorporate quality
retail outlets and premium office space to guarantee future funding
for the MCA.

Some uncertainty still remains, whether these plans will go ahead or
not, and a significant amount of debate still lingering out there
concerning the smouldering issue; if the MCA should remain at its
present site, or at all.

Some of the MCA critics “and institutions of art in general” don’t really
care where the MCA ends up and they bewail the fact that many of
the patronising visitors are utilising the convenient location of the
museum and their free lunchtime to view the exhibits. I have read
recently such an opinion advocating that such a status quo
compromises the integrity of the museum and the arts as a whole and,
surprisingly, suggesting that contemporary arts will be much better off,
if the target audience has been narrowed to cater for an “elite of select
intelligencia” that don’t worry about the convenient location and don’t
mind jumping through hoops to get to where art is.

In this day and age this is sheer nonsense, and only displays a
sadly misconstrued attitude towards art and artists’ role in modern
society. This idea of having a “cultural elite” is nothing short of stupid.
This kind of 19th century concept is patently outmoded and is,
definitely out of step with any present society, we should collectively
and strenuously reject it.

Bringing the arts to the masses, contemporary or otherwise, should
be of prime importance, the present directorship of the MCA has
taken this to heart, and very successfully too, I might add. However,
we must understand that this populist philosophy doesn’t automatically
imply that the art-standards were, or will be lowered to address a
larger and more diverse section of society and certainly the fact that
people visiting an art show in their lunchtime doesn’t mean that this is
done just to kill some time without any interest in the arts whatsoever,
at any rate, it beats feeding the pigeons in the park...any day!

Overseas experience has shown that attractive urban centres
that integrate the everyday needs of the people with leisurely
activities and the arts have been very successful in generating
fresh interest in the arts. This integration of function in the one
place also makes the artistic interaction commonplace and
removes the notion that art is isolated or insulated from real life.
It is a documented fact that this also increases the attendance of
art shows held at such locations and actually desensitises
experiencing new or controversial artworks by the common man/
woman and makes such firsthand experiences something more
memorable and less alienating. More often than not, this becomes
a prelude to seeking and appreciating more of the same, even if
this is not on an elitist level, does that matter?

Art for the people is always a worthwhile exercise…period!

Creating this new home for the MCA and incorporating novel
concepts within, should be applauded. We realize that overcoming
the hurdles to accomplish such a centre will not be a trivial matter,
but it should be tackled with convection and long-term vision from
planners, in consultation with the public.

Controversy and confusion will eventually give way to a clearer
picture of precisely what our needs are and what is the best way
to  fulfil those needs, there may be a lesson or two here in
remembering  the parallel controversies that raged around the
Darling Harbour project!

However deep the political divisions are, they must not be allowed
to deprive the MCA of this opportunity to continue to exist, be
self-sufficient and flourish well into the future as a readily accessible
museum for the people, albeit be a part of this newly developed
public entity.

The city of Sydney will be all the richer, by presenting this new
public landmark to us now and to the future generations, to enjoy.
The alternative, probably, will be another visually polluting privately
owned ugly office block.