I have to come up with the goods to get paid. I fail to see why we should support those who chose an art from which they can't make a living. When Governments "give" funding to those who aren't capable of selling their expertise, they hand over money that was taken from those of us who work. If we could stipulate as to how our tax money is spent we'd have wall to wall quality art, not the nonsense we see around us.

pelican- its not the art that gets the money, virtually all of the money dissipates into a swamp of management.

Just three examples -
The Australian Business Art Foundation, (ABAF) was created to 'encourage' private philanthropy support for the arts. ABAF annually receives 1.5 million in direct government funding of its operations. (ABAF's CEO alone gets- $250K+). ABAF annually generates about $500K in private donations to arts projects that ABAF has 'verified'. At a 40 cents in the dollar rate of tax deductions, these donations cost the government about $200K in forgone tax collections.

Second example. A few years ago the Australia Council management blew the entire Venice budget on travel and expensive hotels for themselves , they then got private philanthropy to pay for the artists.
In short ABAFs generation of $500K in payments to arts projects came at cost to the public of 1.7 million Dollars- Nice, no?

Third example. A regional gallery offered an funded 'artist in residence' position, on closer reading the 'residency' was in the galleys office helping the administration do administration.
"Phantom employees" were a big problem in the Australia councils management from the very moment it got going . The first public scandal and auditor general investigation was in 1974 and a year later it was still going on. The problem has never really stopped.

These are not aberrations, they are typical of the massive costs and mismanagement that is "the funded sector".

The idea of the arts as "welfare" is quite typical. Welfare is distributed according to need, not according to a self description as an 'deserving artist'. There is something deeply moraly wrong and offensive about the funded sectors deep belief that it is entitled to recognition and has a right to control anything at all, most of them could not run a chook raffle.

Pelican -If you were to blow up the funded visual arts sector you would kill a lot of managers ...... you would kill very few artists.

pedestrian
Yes much of the funding for arts (and other areas including even disability) is siphoned into the administrative realm never to be seen again.

There was an article in today's Canberra Times declaring the Territory arts budget to be nearly dry having spent $8M on public art structures over the last five years, including the latest one for which the taxpayer forked out $66,000 approx.

The arts are an important part of cultural life and I don't want to appear to diminish its value, but it is an arena that is easily supported by individuals and private enterprise with only minimal input by governments (certainly not to the disadvantage of more essential infrastructure).

If we are going to push for taxation reform we should also be looking at what governments should and should not be involved, you can't do one properly without reviewing the whole system, because taxation and expenditure go hand in hand.

pelican

largely agree.

The funded sector was set up in 1972 in great haste. It was strongly based in a top down view (mostly from Coombs and his circle) of what constituted 'advanced' art/culture. It was a very poorly thought out design - very vulnerable to abuse, circularity and cronyism.
Ever since it has very successfully resisted change.
By now it is largely a hall of mirrors; signifying stuff all.

So how can whatever funding is available be used more effectively.
I've alway's favored minimal government sponsorship especially as they tend to sponsor different sports/ different activities to the one's I'm interested in.

Support for non-vocational training eg adult short term tafe classes is one possible way of making different forms of art more accessible for people to be doing it rather than watching it. I've done a few over the year's, never been particularly good but had a lot of fun along the way.

If they really want to get direct and cut out the middle man I'd really like a good quality macro lens for my camera. I could buy one myself but given how much government funding is about funding what people won't prioritize for themselves I'll stick my hand up and nominate that as a worthwhile use of public money to help access to art.

R0bert

Robert
I think that a lot less regulation and management would be a start ; Things like making it easier for small venues to have live musicians. Making it easier for individuals to open small art galleries without all the excessive (and often catch 22 ish) DA/ OHAS , insurance costs that have been loaded on in the last twenty years. And we really need to look at the amount of money spent on Tertiary Qualification art training as apposed to Skills orientated training. It Is absurd but also simply true- most graduates of the tertiary art-school system need remedial help on how to Be a professional artist.