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.