Donald the problem with subsidising education as a way of subsidising the production of uneconomic art, is that by doing this what we really subsidise is the 'mass' production of more and more uneconomic artists whose main (sole really) hope of earning a passing living in the 'arts' is by becoming teachers producing more and more 'artists' and so on I.e a theoretically infinite, positive feed back chain reaction over supply, bad public policy .

The total 'budget' demand for visual art is much smaller than the budget demand for music yet we have significantly more publicly funded tertiary art schools than we have publicly funded tertiary Music schools.

I was not thinking much about art theory -- paying audiences don't buy theory , the fans come to see the act, not a theoretical representation of the act.

Pedestrian - you can't ignore theory. Every action we take, every opinion we hold subsumes a theoretical position. If you think artists are a bunch of slaggards your policy will reflect that. If you think Asians, or gays, or women..... There is a theoretical position lurking under all of our positions, opinions and actions.
Sure, audiences don't buy theory, but they buy performances and each and every one subsumes a theoretical position on heaps of things. Shakespeare, Shostakovich, Picasso - the lot.
Yes, our systems produce more of everything than we really can consume - including food. But this allows great wines, buildings, plays, operas and pictures to emerge from the mass. Unfortunately there is a lot of wastage. But, hopefully, these people will become intelligent consumers rather than producers. Many find great jobs in services or hospitality. Nothing is wasted.

The problem of artists' incomes is a very important one and one hopes that it will be dealt with by the inquiry. Sure, there is a lot of pressure on artists to get a real job or to market their wares. But artists don't have the time to market their stuff. It's a full-time job and best left to those who are good at it - the marketers. Arts marketing is just as specialised as arts education. Just as producing art is. If the government and ABAF want artists to earn their livings they should realise that they are not qualified to do that. It's not a matter of laziness - just of horses for courses.
True artists (of all media) are happy to live on subsistence finance for a time so long as they can do their thing and survive. And they need a non-exploitative regime for this. It can work and only takes a little thought - of the right kind.

The intertwining of action and the set of instructions that is a representation of the 'action' is an Gödelian eternal golden braid and thus I can equally say that no 'action' equals no 'theory'.

Young artists need money to buy the gear and time to make the art. People who do not get paid have to do something else ; somebody asked Henry More 'how did you become the UKs greatest sculptor ' he answered "all the rest gave up".

Which is fine there is no moral right to be an artist.

Enticing people into expensive and de-skilled, academic training for a area were they haven't a snow flakes chance ( when you are up there its all about performance, not theory) simply so as to maintain the lifestyle of the people running the school, is a cruel trick.

DonkeyGod You stated ", painting & sculpture will remain beyond the reach of all but doctors, lawyers, CEO’s and ......arts administrators."

'Arts administrators' do not pay for art, most have no interest in art and rarely turn up, even if its free.

Quite so, pedestrian; I stand corrected in re the financial proclivities of 'arts administrators'. Though they might argue that a BMW and a $2000 golf putter are both objets d'art.

donaldart, I think we agree for the most part. The notion of government getting all proactive about raising artists' income, though, is ... scary. Most 'art' is either hobby or avocation. Lots of people write fiction, a very small number actually publish some commercially, and maybe the top 0.01% make a modest living out of it. One muso in a million will do an album. The regime which 'exploits' this does a pretty good job of sifting what's worthwhile from what's worthless: think iTunes, think Amazon. If we had similar mechanisms for flogging painting, sculpture, photography ... who knows where it might lead? It might be worthwhile attempting to create a modern version of Verrocchio's workshop, but only if the enabling legislation proscribed any sort of public financial support, required that it be built and operated at least 75 km from the nearest University, and ensured no one with a degree in 'Art' be allowed within cooee of the place.