Dostoyevsky also dwelt on the theme.

"I am not sure current practices in education and cultural activity encourage much that could be called thinking through that relationship.
Agree .

But 'Great art' can also be morally very bad , Triumph of the Will comes to mind.

If we read the article by Matthew Westwood in The Australian of 17 January, we find that Crean's aim is to use the arts solely to create more computer games. This will surely be a national culture policy to rival that of Periclean Athens!

Mr Crean is a careful and thoughtful man.
The deep problems with cultural policy goes right back to its creation in great haste in 1973/74. Mr Keating tried to reform the mess but the institutional pier frame work (and some individuals) that had been created was by 1990 deeply entrenched, it had become the 'arts'. And it was able to subvert virtually all of Keating's reforming intentions .

If Mr Crean can see the difference between the 'arts' and the arts he might do a better job.

To those who have observed that my piece ends abruptly, I can explain that I finished with just a list of some submissions. Not very tidy!

And, to Cardigan, thanks for comparing me with Dali - but I would have preferred Duchamp!

Donald

Yes, it's an arts policy we're talking about: but should there even be one? is it for government bodies to decide what is art and which art should be funded, or is it for ordinary Australians? The first option leads to the present elitism, the second would lead to an arts 'policy" created by, and subscribed to by, vast numbers of ordinary Australians.D on't hold your breath: the bureaucrats have got our arts by the ...