Written By Park Younghee

I did not expect that I would one day be writing to defend the very institution that shaped my artistic journey. As a graduate of QUT’s performing arts program, I chose this university not merely for its reputation but because of its deeply rooted history in artistic collaboration and cultural exchange, particularly with Korea. Over the past two decades, QUT alumni have played a pivotal role in bridging the performing arts industries of Korea and Australia, fostering meaningful partnerships and innovative works that have shaped the creative landscape of both countries. This legacy is now under threat. The current review of the performing arts programs (which many fear might result in the closing of disciplines such as drama, acting, dance, and music) is not just an issue of financial pragmatism—it is a shortsighted move that disregards the cultural and social value of artistic education.

The Value of the Arts in Education and Society

The recent announcement of QUT’s review to determine the closure of its performing arts programs—including drama, acting, dance, and music—is deeply concerning. While the university cites declining enrolments and financial sustainability as primary reasons, such arguments fail to consider the broader cultural, social, and economic consequences of eliminating these programs.

For instance, in South Korea, investment in arts education has proven to yield significant long-term benefits, particularly in fostering innovation, economic growth, and cultural diplomacy (Korea Arts & Culture Education Service, 2013). The international success of South Korea’s performing arts industries, including K-pop, K-drama, K-musical, K-movie, and K- dance, is directly tied to sustained investment in higher education and government-supported cultural policies (Kwon, 2013; Azmee, 2024). In stark contrast, any proposed cuts to these programs at QUT would reflect a shortsighted economic pragmatism that risks undermining Queensland’s cultural future.

The Impact of Government Investment on Cultural and Creative Industries

South Korea’s rise as a cultural powerhouse did not happen overnight. It was the result of strategic, long-term investment in the creative industries. Since the 1988 Seoul Olympics, the South Korean government has actively promoted culture as a form of soft power, leading to an explosion of global interest in Korean music, film, TV shows, performing arts, and other creative sectors (Kwon & Kim, 2013). Universities played a crucial role in this expansion, offering specialised training programs that nurtured generations of artists, performers, technical staff, and cultural producers.

Amongst the factors cited in the terms of reference of the review of QUT’s performing arts programs include a questioning of the financial viability, content relevance, and graduate outcomes. While these are certainly relevant, there seems to be a reluctance to acknowledge QUT’s diminishing investment and lack of strategic insight from executive management. Instead, QUT blames external factors, disregarding universities’ essential role in shaping creative industries.

Neoliberalism, Colonial Legacies, and the Arts

QUT’s decision-making processes reflect a broader neoliberal trend in higher education that prioritises market-driven logic over cultural and artistic value. Neoliberal policies have historically led to the erosion of arts and humanities programs, positioning them as expendable in pursuing financial efficiency (Lee, 2018; Harvie, 2013; Giroux, 2014). This approach devalues artistic education and reinforces economic barriers that privilege commercial success over cultural expression.

Furthermore, the potential closure of QUT’s performing arts programs can be understood through the lens of neocolonial cultural suppression. Much like historical colonial efforts to erase Indigenous and non-Western artistic traditions, the framing of arts education as a ‘luxury’ echo past justifications for marginalising cultural production (Smith, 2006). In Australia, Indigenous artistic traditions were actively suppressed through policies such as the Stolen Generations, which sought to erase cultural identity (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies [AIATSIS], n.d.). Similarly, Japan’s colonial policies in Korea sought to erase Korean cultural expressions, favouring Western and Japanese artistic traditions (Caprio, 2009). The proposed closure of QUT’s performing arts programs follows a similar logic, in which economic justifications mask deeper ideological biases against the intrinsic value of artistic education.

The Role of QUT Graduates in Korean-Australian Performing Arts Exchange

Over the past two decades, QUT graduates have played a crucial role in fostering artistic exchange between Korea and Australia. Through collaborations in theatre, dance, and interdisciplinary performance, they have acted as cultural bridges, facilitating dialogue and innovation.

Moreover, organisations such as the Seoul Foundation for Arts & Culture, REM Theatre Company (Australia), LATT Children’s Theatre Company (South Korea),  Brisbane Powerhouse, Motherboard Productions, and my own Australia-Korea Artists Collective Company Bad have provided platforms for QUT-trained artists to collaborate with Korean performers, further strengthening bilateral artistic ties. Other notable QUT alumni, including Dave Sleswick (Creative Director and co-owner of Tivoli and Princess Theatre), Thom Browning (Artistic Director of Imaginary Theatre), Fiona Macdonald (Associate Artistic Director of Queensland Theatre), Courtney Stewart (Artistic Director of La Boite Theatre), Jeremy Neideck (Course Coordinator of WAAPA’s Performance Making program), David Morton and Nicholas Paine (Founders of Dead Puppet’s Society) and many more, have continued to foster cross-cultural connections through leadership roles in Australia’s performing arts sector. Their contributions underscore the importance of maintaining strong educational pathways for future generations of artists who will continue this legacy of cultural diplomacy.

The 2032 Brisbane Olympics: A Missed Opportunity for Cultural Leadership

The upcoming 2032 Brisbane Olympics presents a prime opportunity for Queensland to showcase its cultural identity on the global stage. Historically, the Olympics have been a platform for host nations to demonstrate their artistic excellence, with opening and closing ceremonies shaping global perceptions of a country’s creative landscape (Arning, 2013). If Queensland aims to establish itself as a cultural hub, investing in the performing arts should be a priority, not an afterthought.

The threat of the closure of QUT’s performing arts programs risks leaving Queensland unprepared for one of its most significant cultural events. Rather than shutting down artistic training, the university should expand its investment to ensure local artists, performers, technical staff, and creators have the skills and opportunities to contribute to the Olympics and beyond.

The Responsibility of Higher Education Institutions

QUT’s rationale reviewing its performing arts program seems to ultimately be based on the belief that it does not generate enough revenue. However, this is a hasty conclusion. As QUT frequently emphasises, it remains a relatively young university compared to other institutions in Australia. Considering this, the achievements of its performing arts program are significant, and QUT is just about to witness its fruits. Now, after decades of producing graduates who are emerging as leaders in the industry, the university is considering cutting off its own cultural and artistic legacy at a critical juncture. These graduates, who are now shaping the future of the performing arts, rely on the presence of new generations of trained artists to sustain and grow the industry. QUT is, in effect, severing its own contribution to the Queensland performing arts ecosystem just as it begins to mature.

If a university only prioritises financial gain over academic integrity and cultural responsibility, then it should cease calling itself a university and rebrand as a private vocational institution. History has shown that devaluing the arts for short-term financial considerations weakens cultural diversity, dismantles artistic communities, and stifles creative innovation (Harvie, 2013). Higher education institutions must recognise their responsibility in fostering long-term cultural and artistic development. Rather than shutting down programs, the university should engage with its alumni and the industry to explore ways to strengthen and innovate the performing arts curriculum.

The review panel and university administration must ask themselves: What is unique about QUT performing arts program’s identity? In other words, how does QUT’s performing arts program differ from others such as UQ, Griffith University, NIDA, WAAPA, and VCA? What can be done to enhance and adapt the program to meet the evolving needs of the arts sector? Engaging with the industry’s young leaders—many of whom are QUT alumni—would provide valuable insights into this program’s role and its potential for the future. Those advocating against the closure of the performing arts faculty are not clinging to past glory; instead, they are looking ahead and anticipating the detrimental impact this decision will have. Ironically, it is QUT that appears to be trapped in outdated thinking, failing to recognise what has made the faculty’s past success possible in the first place.

If the decision-makers lack the imagination or foresight to find alternatives, they should ask the 30-40-year-old leaders currently shaping the industry—many of whom are QUT alumni. Instead of taking the easy route of closure, they should seek their advice and collaborate on creative solutions to sustain and evolve the program to benefit both the university and the broader performing arts community.

In conclusion

Kim Gu, the leader of the Korean Provisional Government and the Korean independence movement, articulated his vision for cultural sovereignty in Baekbeom Ilji (Kim, 1947), stating, “The one thing I truly wish for is the strength of a rich and advanced culture. A strong culture brings happiness to us and, in turn, allows us to share that happiness with others.” His words reflected his insight that for a small country like South Korea, lacking abundant natural resources, the key to preserving national identity against powerful nations and achieving social progress would ultimately lie in culture and the arts. Today, Koreans are witnessing Kim Gu’s vision come to life through the global phenomenon of Hallyu, the Korean Wave, demonstrating that strategic investment in the arts is not an indulgence but a necessity (Azmee, 2024; Korea Culture Information Service, 2019).

Queensland’s performing arts industry and QUT must ask themselves: Does it wish to foster a rich cultural legacy or risk cultural stagnation through neglect? The review of QUT’s performing arts programs is more than an administrative restructuring—it is a statement about the value placed on artistic and cultural expression. If QUT follows through with what seems like the inevitable conclusions of the review – the wholesale closure of the performing arts disciplines, it will not only diminish its own legacy but also weaken Australia’s future as a nation capable of contributing meaningfully to the global creative landscape.

References

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS). (n.d.). The Stolen Generations. AIATSIS. Retrieved February 20, 2025, from https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/stolen-generations

Arning, C. (2013). Soft power, ideology and symbolic manipulation in Summer Olympic Games opening ceremonies: A semiotic analysis. Social Semiotics, 23(4), 523–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2013.799008

Azmee, F. (2024). Lights, camera, Hallyu: The intricacies of diplomacy and economics of South Korean popular culture (Master’s thesis, University of Nevada, Reno).

Caprio, M. E. (2009). Japanese assimilation policies in colonial Korea, 1910-1945. University of Washington Press.

Giroux, H. A. (2014). Neoliberalism’s war on higher education. Haymarket Books.

Harvie, J. (2013). Fair play: Art, performance and neoliberalism. Palgrave Macmillan.

Kim, G. (2019). Baekbeom ilji [Baekbeom’s diary] (D. R. McCann, Trans.). Jisik Sanup Publications. (Original work published 1947)

Korea Arts & Culture Education Service. (2013). Annual report on arts and culture education policies. Korea Arts & Culture Education Service.

Korea Culture Information Service. (2019, January 31). The first step toward becoming a cultural powerhouse: Achieving 2.0% of the budget for arts and culture [Press release]. Korea Culture Information Service. Retrieved February 20, 2025, from https://kcisa.kr/kr/board/report/boardView.do?bbsIdx=4698&pageIndex=38&searchCondition=&searchKeyword=

Kwon, S. H., & Kim, J. (2013). The cultural industry policies of the Korean government and the Korean Wave. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 20(4), 422–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2013.829052

Lee, M. A. (2018). A study on the autonomy of arts support policies: Focusing on budget analysis of the Korea Arts Council (Doctoral dissertation, Seoul National University).

Smith, L. T. (2006). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). Zed Books.