Support the campaign by emailing Jeremy Cooper: Superannuation Minister Chris Bowen; Arts Minister Peter Garrett; and Opposition Spokespeople Luke Hartsuyker and Steven Ciobo. Add a comment below, fill out your details, and send.
Archives
SEND A MESSAGE & SUPPORT THE CAMPAIGN
- Written by savesuperart.
- Posted on June 30 2010.
- Filed under Uncategorized.
- Bookmark the Permalink.
- Subscribe to Comments RSS feed.
- Post a Comment.
- Leave a Trackback URL.
21 Comments
1 Alistair Mitchell wrote:
The Liberals’ Shadow Minister for the Arts, Steven Ciobo, asks Peter Garrett to rule out the Cooper recommendation in the Parliament on 16 June 2010. Watch online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMyHKbx-tdY
2 Megan Williams wrote:
Few of the designers of this proposed legislation will ever experience the meager standard of living of most artists, few of whom make the basic wage from their work. If this change goes ahead it will further deprive one of the poorest groups in our community.
3 SARAH NOLAN wrote:
As someone who is trying to make a living out of being an artist I urge you not to follow through on the Cooper Review.
4 Grant Stevens wrote:
I am an emerging artist struggling to make a living from my art practice. Taking away the ability to include artworks as superannuation investments will greatly effect my potential to survive financially as an artist. We already endure a massive “brain drain” in the visual arts, with so many artists and artworkers seeking the greater rewards of Europe, America and now Asia. If implemented, the recommendations of the Cooper review will wipe out a huge part of the private market in Australia. This will, without a doubt, have dire implications not only for emerging artists like myself, but also for the broader development of the visual arts in Australia. I implore you not to implement the Cooper Review recommendations.
5 G A Thompson wrote:
1.There already exist in-house asset rules which effectively limit the percentage of artwork that can be held in privately managed superfund assets to 5% of the fund assets. The risk of that level of investment seriously impacting upon the available retirement funds of retirees who have chosen to invest in artworks is fanciful. Moreover, the Cooper proposals will significantly erode the value of the investments which presently exist within self managed superfunds, so it can hardly advance the interests of retirees.
2.The present rules also require regular valuation of fund assets for audit purposes – a more effective manner of policing the acquisition of art work by superannuation funds would be to establish criteria directed to ensuring that funds only acquire works of artistic merit.
3. Over history and essentially until the 20th century, artists have traditionally survived on patronage, including enormously from governments and the church. That notion of promoting the arts through
patronage has now all but disappeared – certainly the present government does not appear to be over generous in that direction and the church has ceased to become the significant patron it once was. The fact that superannuation funds have been permitted to acquire artworks has undoubtedly assisted the art market and that in turn assists in supporting living artists.
4.Any informed analysis of the suggested royalty regime demonstrates that the return to living artists will be derisory
6 Jessica Bridgfoot wrote:
We have countless examples of collectors who buy and sell Art as a financially viable and profitable investment. Superannuation purchases account for 30% of our annual revenue – the effects of this
recommendation will be financially and psychologically damning to the industry.Is the government then going to foot the bill when a whole industry seizes up? The government should be concentrating on building financial relationships between the private sector and the arts rather than sabotaging them.
7 Wendy Sharpe wrote:
I am shocked that legisation that will be so damaging to the art industry
is even considered .It is a major concern to all artists.
8 Denise Paterson wrote:
The present superannuation laws protect against the use of art works purchased within a superannuation fund being used for personal use, so I can’t see how Mr Cooper can differentiate between this type of investment and any other form of property purchased within a fund. Having worked in the creative arts area for all of my working life, I am aware of the value of this type of support for artists, so I view my purchase in artworks as not only being financially viable, but also as a worthwhile thing to do. I therefore urge the government not to follow through with this proposed change to the superannuation rules.
9 paul christensen wrote:
My involvement with the Visual Arts in Australia dates back to 1962 and I have experienced the good,bad and ugly of our vibrant,energitiic, but often struggling field of endeavours.
This last damaging attempt by Canberra to strangle and make life even more difficult for strugling artists most not go ahead.
10 Kevin Oxley wrote:
For Gods sake, leave the artists with the small chance they have to make a humble living from their work. Without a culture encouraging creative people, what do you have? A boring world of sameness without innovation and a backwater of ignorance regarding the true value of art as the soul of the community made vsible.
11 Steve Warburton wrote:
Save our Artists and save our unique Australian Culture.
12 Frank Liebeskind wrote:
Art is a safer investment than the share market, art values aren;t determined by “cowboys” and stockmarket gamblers. let’s make it a stable and valid investment option.
13 Dee Jackson wrote:
Please don’t follow through on the Cooper Review. Often Artists struggle to make a meagre income. What is the Australian government trying to do, kill off the creative arts? While public servants may retire at 55 with a more than liveable superannuation, visual artists can only dream of finding an enlightened collector, patron or corporation to buy their work. The Cooper Review has the potential to wipe out a huge part of the visual art market in Australia.
14 Sarrah Shapley wrote:
The final recommendations of the Cooper Report will have a sustained, significant and negative impact on the visual arts sector including empoyees, artists and those who have chosen to invest in the cultural diversity of visual arts practice in Australia.
It is most disappointing to see that a Labour government is supporting initiatives that will further diminish the stability of the industry and push the collecting of art objects further away from “working families”.
A sensible alternative would be the use of existing government guidlines, systems and processes to apply more stringent control on the acquisition and holding of SMSF investment objects. This would benefit and strengthen the integrity of the sector. Sadly, the government has chosen to destabilise and diminish the sector and further deplete the retirement funds of those who have chosen to invest, and support, the visual arts, by forcing abrupt and unforseen sale requirements.
Perhaps, in the light of other contemporary political events, any negative industry reaction is perceived as “crying wolf” but this ill formed report will have a lasting and serious impact. Shame.
15 Helen Warn wrote:
The Aboriginal Art movement will suffer most of all. Galleries on the margin will stop paying Aboriginal artists up-front. Many non-indigenous artists will hang up their brushes. Galleries in severe decline are already closing their doors.
Art divested from super SMSF will flood the market and further depress the artists and galleries.
As a collector of modest means, I ask the this ill considered change and STOP MOVING THE GOAL POSTS and STOP THIS REVERSE SNOBBERY!
16 Lucy Sussex wrote:
This is no way to support the arts.
17 Karen Gray wrote:
If the Australian Government doesn’t have any confidence in Australian Art as investment how can we expect International buyers to keep investing!
Don’t jeopardise the Australian Art Industry – we already live off the smell of an oily rag!
18 Jillian Holst wrote:
I have been an art advisor and registered art valuer for over thirty years.
During this time I have personally witnessed, with thoughtful and judicial purchases, how my clients have financially benefited in their investment in art.
One salient fact seems to have been totally ignored in the rather questionable arguments against art as an investment in SMSF’s.
The people who own their own funds are also the custodians of the assets within their SMSF. They are responsible to ensure growth..why? Because it guarantees comfort in their retirement/old age.
WHY would anybody jeopardise that?
19 Ian Hodgson wrote:
I suggest that anyone who has a work of art on loan to an Australian art institution (perhaps it’s part of an SMSF) withdraw it from loan as a protest against this outrageous Cooper recommendation.
20 Donna Williams wrote:
I fully support the protest against the Cooper recommendation on SMSF holdings of artworks.
21 Greg Weight wrote:
I am a fine art photographer, exhibiting artist and portrait photographer of Australian Artists. 90% of my annual income is generated by the Australian art market, which in itself has been steadily growing stronger since Australias settlement, more so since the 1960’s. As a nation we can be proud of our current reputation in the international art world. My carreer as well as that of every practising visual artist in Australia will suffer if the Cooper report is supported by the Government. It is a knife in the back of Australia’s cultural life and must be stopped.