Charles Dickens, George Eliot, Emily Dickinson, Herman Melville, Leo Tostoy, Feodor Dostoyevskii, James Joyce and many other great writers did not get a cent in public funding for their writing. I did. I don't have a smidgin of the talent they had. However, I live in a different era.

I wrote some fiction. After it was published I noted that it had been "assisted by grants from the Victorian Ministry for the Arts and the Literature Board of the Australia Council, the Federal Government arts funding and advisory body."

I took the money, but my writing is my own ego trip. I see no reason for taxpayers to support it.

One of the prime functions of the public intellectual or the artist is to point out the foibles and flaws of our society - to throw a light on what those in power want hidden. There should be nothing inhibiting that criticism. Public funding has the power to do that. When one gets money to do something one will want to appeal to those who lay out the money.

Once upon a time, those who had income to spare, & leisure time to spend supported the arts, that they found worthy of that support.

The better artists flourished, others got a job.

Today, those who don't have income to spare, or leisure time to enjoy, are forced to support the arts, through their taxes, regardless of whether those arts are worthy of any support.

The better artists flourish, & the others lobby for more tax payer money. They should get a job, if they can not support themselves with their "art".

I don't know if the author's definition of 'the arts' includes writing, but phrases like:

"The arts are where cutting-edge conversations about the nature of humanity are likely to occur.."

"A comparatively minimal level of support is needed to significantly broaden the career options available to artists, to ensure that their potential is realised."

suggest that she has already mastered the art of bureaucratic double-speak.

What does 'comparatively minimal' mean, I wonder? And what exactly is a 'cutting-edge conversation'? It sounds extremely painful. But the gist of the message is clear: give us more of your money, please, so we can go on doing the things we enjoy at your expense.

Will we soon reach the point, I wonder, when we realise that we already have enough good films, play scripts, music, literature, paintings and sculpture to keep us all entertained for the rest of our lives, if we were only allowed access to them? I would happily barter all the forthcoming books from Australian novelists for access to material written here and overseas in the 1930s and 1940s.

Hasbeen, that same logic surely applies to sport! I resent paying for the Olympics, for instance, as the whole saturnalia is nothing but economic elitism and nationalistic grandstanding.
Yet I don't see the institutionalisation of "the arts" as much different, especially considering that "the ideology of aestheticism has been roundly discredited for decades.
Even if we choose to defend art for art's sake, government patronage and concomitant career development strategies is hardly conducive to "inspiration"--a discredited illusion. Indeed I don't see how commodified art can have artistic or aesthetic integrity.
We live, intellectually, in an anti-aesthetic era (a fact modern philistines are oblivious of) whereby cultural reform is ostensibly the raison d'etra of the arts; but that's just theory, observed mainly in the breach. The so-called "High" arts surely don't, and have never, even made a pretence of fomenting for social reform.
The following quote says it all:
<In addition to the intrinsic cultural value [which is what?], the arts play an important institutional role [bloody oath!]. They define life in a civilised society [bullsh!t], help build intellectual capacity [lol], aid social cohesion [and exclusion], and are the bedrock of increasingly significant creative industries [Adorno's "culture industry"].>

An utterly hegemonic (indeed offensive) definition of the arts that would have Tolstoy or Shaw or Brecht furiously railing from the stalls.
Indeed, I don't even believe in the ideology of cultural reform, as it only makes our rotten system stronger, by introducing comforting illusions of an ethically progressive state. The arts, as davidf says, should "point out the foibles and flaws of our society", but this unfortunately tends to act like polly-filler. Our culture is beyond redemption and the arts should be exposing its fundamental iniquity, and the need for transformation rather than reform. I would rather see all funding of the arts cancelled, even funding of Arts degrees; only then might art arise to the political/ethical 'and' aesthetic stature it's attained in the past.
Paradoxically, Wilde's "aestheticism" was infinitely more political than today's culturalism. The "High" arts are as spontaneous as a North Korean military parade.

Without funding for the arts and sport our society would become a very functional and dull place indeed. Stimulating the creative urge is essential to prevent us all becoming automatons who do nothing except work, sleep and watch mass-produced crap TV programs.

I see those who complain at this funding to be short-sighted and quite insular in their views. I am no soccer fan, but I see how many people are enjoying the world cup and I think it's great that they get so much joy out of it. Similarly I am no painter, but I know so many people who get a lot of joy out of painting, or writing, or dancing, either through watching it or participating in that activity. There are huge numbers of these people, and I see no value in reducing their access to this recreation. It would simply be churlish and mean.

I would rather that my taxes were used for funding arts and sport than to fund MP's expenses, private schools and many other unworthy causes.

Phil Matimein wrote: I would rather that my taxes were used for funding arts and sport than to fund MP's expenses, private schools and many other unworthy causes.

Dear Phil,

So would I. That's why I oppose the present funding for the arts and sport.

Increasing funds for public education including facilities for the visual arts and music and improving the quality of public education in the humanities including literature, philosophy and history would do more for the arts than funding those who are good at writing grant applications. Adequately funding university departments of the humanities is better than subsidising individuals who can get grants.

The Dutch government freely gives grants to visual artists. They also have to spend large amounts of money to warehouse the crap produced.

Creating better facilities so the the average Australian can actually learn to participate and have the venues to do so is better than to have Institutes of Sports for elite athletes, funding the orgy of nationalism called the Olympics and financing venues for professional teams so couch potatoes can watch a few highly paid performers.

David f,

I can see where you are coming from, but I disagree with how you want to get there. To get people to particpate they need to be inspired, and to inspire them they need to know what can be achieved. Putting money into arts and sport helps to inspire people by making the various activities visible.

And also, millions of people in Australia get a lot of pleasure watching arts or sports and I think this has many societal benefits, albeit sometimes they are hard to measure. A functional approach often denies the existence of these benefits, but exist they do in that they make people feel better. I think that alone is worth the money.

Dear Phil,

At least you know where I am coming from.

We disagree. I feel that watching the Olympics or the other pro teams does not encourage participation but an unheathy chauvinistic identification with the performers.

The Olympic torch and other glitzy aspects of the Olympics originated in the 1936 Nazi Olympics.

We do by doing rather than by watching whether it is in the arts or sport.

Howevr, we do agree about funding for private primary and secondary education. At this time there is a lawsuit based on article 116 of the Australian Constitution to stop it.

Squeers,
I agree completely. I am sick of seeing money wasted on stadiums, institutes, & sports people. Who cares how medals we win, & dressing them up in fancy outfits is the end.

The most disgusting waste is on these ridiculously expensive opening ceremonies.

I indulged in motor sport, at the highest level in Oz. I, & my competitors, did not recieve, nor did we look for, any tax payer funding. Despite this we have had more world champions in motor sport than any where else, in recent years.

Phil Matimein, speak for yourself. You may be bored, if your entertainment is not publicly funded, but real people aren't. A bat/stick & ball, will do, & is much less expensive than transport to some "event" for many of us. There are more kids riding horses at pony clubs every weekend than there watching "arts" productions.

David, your idea is even worse. The last thing we need is to fund another bureaucracy, to waste money, tring to teach, [brainwash] us peasants to like what you like. No doubt this would generate lots of well paid jobs for public servants, & academics, & leave us all completely cold, & much poorer.

If it requires public funding, it is out of date, & should do the decent thing. That is quietly curl up in a corner & die. That would leave the rest of us to spend our money on what interests us, not subsidise some opening night which would bore us to tears.

I have an arts degree in the anachronistically titled "English Literature". I also majored in the history of Drama and Theatre and am currently doing a PhD on our modern, ostensibly politicised 'inclusive culture'. I also have the dubious privilege of teaching literature from time to time, and marking assignments, which, 80% of the time, are semi-literate at best. The standard is truly appalling, and what's worse, I rarely meet students with any genuine interest in literature, let alone passion for it.
In my opinion this comes of the democratisation of the arts. Born of honourable intentions, rather than the old elitism, we now have the professionalisation of the arts, wherein it's too often practiced for the money and a cushy job rather than vocation. I did my degree thanks to the opportunity created by circumstances, but love of literature is what precipitated me.
I think the arts should be open to everyone, but it shouldn't be subsidised one cent, or patronised by government. The arts might then resume their noble career of avant-garde, driven once again by passionate disenchantment. So strongly did Blake feel about the integrity of his art, he alone was responsible for every facet of its production; Shelley too saw a clear separation between art and state, designating poets "the unacknowledged legislators of the world".
I'm very disillusioned with Humanities departments (in my limited experience); modern academe seems largely productive of mediocre talent and exceptional egos. I'm in favour of funding and improving literacy in primary and secondary schools (though are you suggesting, davidf, that this be channelled disproportionately into wealthy private schools?), but let genuine passion drive the students to university, rather than the enticement of a soft option.
Sorry Hasbeen, I HATE motor sports! Though the like seems to qualify today as culture.

Dear Squeers,

No government funding for private schools. Please look at my posts.

I was an engineer in my working life. Since I retired I have written and published fiction and enjoy literature especially nineteenth century English and Russian.

Public funding for libraries but not for other entertainment. Huxley got it right in his dystopian "Brave New World." The alphas who controlled knew enough to get their amusements by creating, reading or other fairly cheap entertainments. The expensive spectacles and elaborate amusements were for the deltas and gammas.

The early presidents of the United States were erudite, cultured men. With Andrew Jackson the bars were let down when politics were democratised, and with some exceptions the succeeding presidents were of lower quality with a primitive religiosity. Bush II was possibly the nadir. As the franchise was extended to all adults political discourse became more and more primitive. Obama seems a cut above what the US has been getting in recent years, but Palin was actually a vice-presidential candidate of a major party. I don't believe it has to be that way. I think it is partially a function of not funding the public school systems adequately and having fundamentalist boobs on school boards.

I don't believe the arts should be subsidised or patronised by government either. I am for the public schools doing an adequate job in teaching what the arts are. People don't have to like what I like, but they should have enough exposure to be able to make intelligent choices. I think one reason much of the mindless drivel on TV gets watched is the people don't know there can be something better.

I edited Social Alternatives. We paid authors nothing. Some universities gave staff we published thousands of dollars. Some submissions from Aborigines were quite good. Their oral culture when combined with an adequate grounding in English makes for good writing. However, I remember one contribution from an Aborigine who had managed to get a graduate degree from an English department. The result - turgid, academic prose - elaborate phrases - addiction to the passive etc.

Who said I was bored Hasbeen? I am rarely bored becasue I have initiative and get on with many things outside my working life which, conversely, can be boring. I think your ideas about public funding are antiquated. Even with subsidies, I don't think you realise what it currently costs, for example, simply to hire an oval or another sort of facility, and what this means for people who may not may not have a great deal of money.

What you are actually saying is that becasue they are poor they can't have access to a cricket club, football club etc. It is not cheap and I can tell you from personal experience that I struggled to find enough money to pay my fees, even with a discount, in the 90's when I was much less well-off than I am now.

The pay your own way idea only works if the money evenly distributed - it is not.

David f - I am heartened by the legal challenge you pointed out. I feel that if people want to opt out of the state system, then they should pay the full cost and not be subsidised by the state. There should be no need to go private if the state schools are properly funded including using the money currently going to private school.

I am aware that this may sound contrary to my other opinions...but hey - that's life. I believe that the state should play a role in improving people's lives, particularly those who have not the money to afford to attend sports, arts, private schools etc.

That's all right Squeers, I'm not all that taken with it myself, when one of the neighbour's kid rides his trail around a nearby paddock all day. I don't mind you hating motor racing, that's why I don't believe you should have to subsidise it. I am also a sailor, & a show jumper, & I can't see any reason why anyone should subsidise them either.

However motor racing is much closer to popular culture today, than is Shakespeare, is why I object to being expected to subsidise the "theatre".

Rock, & rap, both of which I hate, are the modern culture. I wonder if they will be revered in 100 years. Whatever, as the kids say, why should opera be subsidised by the kids who like this modern stuff, which is not only self supporting, but government revenue positive as well.

Dear Phil,

The pay your own way works quite well. You don't have the money. You do without. It's that simple. You are not entitled to circuses.

I think every child is entitled to a good education. A good education takes into account the capacity of the child.

We make choices in life, and we have to live with those choices. We just got a call from a friend whose daughter has run up $25,000 in debt and wants mommy to bail her out. Mommy has bailed her out in the past, but I hope she won't this time.

Just in passing Phil, I have some idea of costs, & effort. I am secretary of our Horse & pony club, & treasure of our sports association.

The sports association maintain the soccer fields, the cricket pitch, & the little athletics tracks as well. All of these facilities operate on the same fields donated to the council 80 years ago by a local farmer. The horse club use an adjacent field, which they maintain themselves. We share storage, & meeting sheds. We also have a netball, & a basketball court on the grounds.

Funny, the other sports don't like the free fertiliser the horses provide if they use the sports fields.

We operate these with our own funds, with no subsidy other than a gambling fund grant to buy one of our 2 large mowers. All the work is done by us, & fees for the socker or athletics are less than half the cost of equivalent child minding.

A number of our committee members spend 10 to 15 hours a month, in season, on a mower, or pushing a line marking machine.

The largest cost for our socker mums is fuel, to get to other grounds for games.

All of us object strongly to paying subsidies support drones in their leisure activities. Most of which seem to be centralised in the larger cities for elite activities.

Apologies, davidf, for my short attention-span; I read this: "we do agree about funding for private primary and secondary education", and forgot about the context. My excuse is that I'm currently wading through nearly a hundred undergraduate exam papers. I knew too that I must have misinterpreted.
I too have a particular fondness for 19th century literature and the Russians; a taste I acquired long before university. I prefer Chekhov to Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy to both. Apart from the short stories, the most memorable passage for me (apart from the Emersonian death of Andre) was Levin naturalistically mowing hay with his Surfs in Anna Karenin. Your countrymen Melville and Twain are particular favourite of mine, in that order.
Hasbeen, you make a great deal of sense, but I wonder if you're seeing the big picture. Is it safe to leave culture to its own devices, to popular appeal. Mathew Arnold thought that would lead to anarchy.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my very first question is where in the constitution is it provided for the Commonwealth to legislate for art? And for that matter for Sport? If it ain’t in the constitution then there is no constitutional powers to fund it! The Commonwealth of Australia is based upon a two tier government system (internally) and that is that the States can legislate unless or until the Commonwealth has legislative powers and once it commences to legislate then the States no longer can do so. As such only one level can legislate being it to any subject matter. Hence, if the States have retained their legislative powers as to art, sports, etc, then the Commonwealth has absolutely no business getting involved in it as indeed it would be unconstitutional. And if there is no legislative power then neither can there be any funding powers! So often I come across articles where people are complaining that both levels of government are not providing sufficient funding and it underlines that they do not understand that you can only legitimately have funding of either the States (Territories) or the Commonwealth but not both! This also means that any purported committee at Commonwealth level would by unconstitutional as long as the States retain their legislative powers