The development of Indigenous art practices has been influenced and facilitated since the 1970s by policy initiatives by government, cultural institutions and by the private sector—by what I refer to as the domain of public culture.^[16] Resources provided by the government to the Australia Council and to support Indigenous arts initiatives, including local art centres, have provided opportunities that would otherwise not have existed. The development of national and regional awards for Indigenous artists helped to promote Indigenous art and enhanced the prestige of artists within local communities. And gradually, over time, commercial galleries have developed specialisations in Aboriginal art. The interventions have aroused considerable controversy, with art centres and government marketing agencies coming under attack at different times from different directions. And some initiatives that were once strongly supported have perhaps gone out of favour forever—a centralised government marketing organisation could be one example. Adopting a historical perspective on the past 30 years, however, we can see the interventions as being largely positive and can identify a trajectory in which Indigenous agency has had a considerable impact.

The past 35 years of Aboriginal art have been a time of experimentation and change in the form of the art produced and in the art market. While the durability of institutions is not always a positive sign, I would argue that in times of change, organisations and structures that last or continually re-emerge are signs that something is working. Art centres are one type of institution that has survived—albeit a varied type. Indigenous arts awards have thrived. There are good reasons why peak organisations such as the Association of Northern, Kimberley and Arnhem Aboriginal Artists (ANKAAA) and the Association of Central Australian Aboriginal Art and Craft Centres (desArt) keep rising like a Phoenix out of the ashes. At a higher level of structure, the Australia Council has played a very significant role. None of these is without controversy and nothing lasts forever. The reason why these organisations have a degree of durability, however, is that they have been built from the community up or have responded to community needs and they have played a role in creating social cohesion and community identity in a changing world. It is important to see them as agents of change, but in harmony in many respects with community values. They work with the community rather than against it.

Art centres in general are examples of grassroots local organisations and the success and durability of centres are an index of social cohesion and a factor contributing to that cohesion. Clearly, in individual cases, art centres fail and in some places there seems to be a pattern of failure, which needs to be diagnosed. And clearly, ‘art centres’ are not going to work on the same basis across Australia.^[17] They could, however, have affinities with institutions that exist elsewhere—with community centres, print workshops, adult education centres, schools of art, and so on—institutions that bear a family resemblance with Indigenous art centres. And, as I will go on to argue, I see an institution such as Boomalli belonging firmly within that diverse set.

One of the reasons why art centres work in many communities is that they pre-existed the government initiative that funded them. Indeed, the funding of art centres came out of local action. In the Yirrkala case, the art centre came out of a history of some 50 years of embryonic existence.^[18] The history and origins of Papunya Tula, a very different kind of operation, provide another example.^[19] But why an art centre? The reasons are multiple, but two stand out. First, the remote location of many communities means that a coordinated marketing strategy is required—there needs to be someone to manage the sale and distribution of art on a community basis. Second, the art itself is in many cases embedded in a system of rights and restrictions that extends across the community; the production of paintings for sale involves the exercise of rights in communal property.^[20] As a consequence, there are very sound reasons to set up regional art centres on a community basis. Working in harmony together in new contexts is likely to increase social cohesion rather than result in community dissolution. And cohesive action in one domain of activity is likely to provide a model or impetus for cohesive efforts in other areas.^[21]

A productive way of looking at Indigenous art centres and community art production in general is that they provide a potential point of articulation between Indigenous bodies of knowledge and systems of governance, and the broader Australian society. For art to be a successful Indigenous business, issues of local governance have to be taken into account, yet at the same time what is produced must enter into global markets. It is remarkable how well Indigenous communities have managed these issues. Art centres have rarely been held back by disputes about what can or cannot be produced. There are, of course, some notable occasions when major disputes have occurred, but they have generally been quickly resolved, and anyone working in an art centre will know that problems that require solutions crop up on a daily basis. My experience, however, over 35 years working with artists from Yirrkala, is that they have managed complex problems of cultural adjustment to a new context of art production incredibly well. Art centres can be seen as models of the ways in which new organisations based on Indigenous foundations and systems of governance can develop in the space between local communities and national institutions.

The process is two-way since art centres require both national resources and a place in the national agenda, but in turn provide government with local institutions that can manage national investments in an accountable way. There is a need to create strong networks that link the local communities with the actors and institutions in the national domain, networks that connect people at the local level but also provide linkages with the public and private sectors. It is in that context that institutions such as desArt and ANKAAA play a potentially important role. It is also important not to draw too hard and fast a distinction between these different levels of organisation.

Government funding, if mediated through institutions that have strong connections with local trajectories, is likely to be more effective than if it is allocated according to a top-down model. Modelled locally, it can also enable or facilitate developments that encourage social cohesion while allowing for diversity.