Art is fundamentally good, but when is it s bad idea?

The proposed new multi-million dollar Shepparton Art Museum (SAM) will not be affected by our changing climate, or that can only be assumed if notice is to be taken of the “business case” that articulates the wonderful benefits a new SAM will bring to the city and area.

New South Wales firm of Simon McArthur and Associates produced a more than 30 page document affirming the practicality of the idea, but not once mentioned any environment or associated climate difficulties.

Eager to keep the conversation alive, I wrote the following and in submitting to The News, was politely told that is wouldn’t be given space, unless I choose to use as one of my regular fortnightly columns.

 

When is a good thing a bad idea?

The idea of building a new art museum in Shepparton ticks all bar one of the boxes and interestingly that last box is the biggest of all and the one that really matters.

Yes, a new art museum for the city is a wonderful idea for art is at the heart of everything we do and so to celebrate and recognise its importance through the creation of the beautiful lake-side proposed complex suggests a coming of age for the city.

Everything about the idea appears to be as it should, except for its timing.

A collision of world events suggest the city’s interest and emphasis should be about building resilience, entrenching what exists and underscoring the strengths of our culture to ensure we can arrive as unscathed as possible through the unfolding challenges.

Like many others, I endorse the importance of emphasizing art, but rather than committing our resources to create something new, we should be exploring every avenue to use what exists, even if that demands some changes to our behaviour.

Much of what presently happens at the city’s offices in Welsford St could be, thanks to modern technology, undertaken and completed almost anywhere in the city. It is not essential to have all administrative staff at Eastbank.

Yes, keep the customer/ratepayer contact people, the Mayor’s office, the council chambers, and any other pieces of the operation vital to the daily public operation of the city.

The Shepparton Art Museum (SAM) already has space in the building and so the area cleared of relocated administrative staff could easily be incorporated into a restructured art museum.

With costs far below that of what is proposed near Victoria Park Lake, SAM and the existing library building could connected to create a beautiful centre of the city-community facility that would answer our civic needs.

Yes, the new SAM is a good idea, but its timing is bad for rather than such wonderful physical city enhancements, the city should be acknowledging the changes that are settling upon because of global warming and along with that playing its part in cutting the world’s carbon dioxide emissions by at least 80 per cent with a decade or two.

Building a new, stand-alone art museum that oozes embedded energy is contrary to an efficient and sustainable city future.

Yes, let us use what we have, modifying what exists, provide the services we want and need and yet do it thoughtfully in terms of our carbon dioxide emissions.

Yes, despite the opinions of the doubters, skeptics and others, we have changed our climate system, subsequently the benign weather that once was is gone and we are quickly moving into an era in which we will need every resource we can gather.

Libertarian beliefs, bushfires and ideologies - what a conflagration!

A friend recently described himself as a 19^th century libertarian.

Such an observation demanded some research for this fellow is a sociable, likeable, community minded, not at all individualistic as success in the modern seems to demand and so does not equate at all with the popular conception of someone who has such beliefs.

Tasmania's fires.

As an incredibly reasonable, thoughtful and generous man, who always exhibits fairness and concern for the social equality of his fellows, my friend’s values appeared at odds with the popular understanding of a libertarian.

However, and interestingly, the traits he exhibits sit comfortably with those who align themselves with libertarianism, at least libertarianism of the classic variety.

Libertarians of all stripes are somewhat uncomfortable with government intervention and yet, strangely, they see something of a limited role for such an authority provided it does not impinge upon the liberty of individuals, either intentionally or through an unintended consequence.

Those who claim the title of “libertarian” are as different in content as they are in action, but broadly they are “classic libertarians” (such as my friend), “hard” and “neo-libertarians”.

They are suspicious of governments and yet they are equally wary of the behaviour or market, and yet they argue for a truly free market, one that is not influenced or favoured by governmental decisions.

Interestingly, some libertarians find a certain comfort in several anarchical ideals for while anarchy has a fearfully bad reputation it really means, historically, “without government” an idea that meshes with many endorsed by libertarians.

Critics of libertarians might argue that philosophies they pursue and endorse concern only the “big-end of town”, but for someone truly aligned to the libertarian cause would deny that and argue for equality and fairness, both in social and hierarchical terms, and in economic dealings.

However, the troubles of life are frequently beyond tightly held political and religious beliefs as exampled by the recent bushfires that engulfed parts of Tasmania.

As many eyeballed tragedy with homes, property, and their lives, in the path of the advancing blaze, it is unlikely anyone questioned their political or religious beliefs as they negotiated themselves around that difficulty.

Some may have found comfort in religious beliefs later, but it seems improbable they would have been would have been front of mind at the height of the fires, when the needs of sheer survival would have clearly supplanted those interests, just as political fancies would have been equally remote.

Unfolding dilemmas facing the earth; the collision of burgeoning population, energy scarcity and a worsening climate, demand we re-consider the status of personal ideologies.

The politics of tomorrow just simply has to be different from what exists for what we have is more about answering wants, rather than peoples’ true needs.