Back to the beginning. Yes, there should be musical education and appreciation of universally accepted great works, and art education and appreciation of universally aggreed on great and significant works, and the reading, discussion and appreciation of great literature in schools. But who would teach it? Our educators only know pop artists, as that is all they have been exposed to.
If the 'arts' received the same funding as sport, then we would have music, art and literature academies in every large town and a public that supported them. [to digress: If the money spent on training a few elite athletes were given to local authorities for facilities for all young people, then the health and fitness of the nation would rise]
Perhaps it is too late. The Pandora's box of USA TV pap has been opened and there's no shoving the crap back in.

The question of "arts education" is an interesting one.

Is it really necessary to "educate" people to appreciate art?

Is it the responsibility of the artist to reach me, or is it my responsibility to "learn" about art in order to appreciate it?

Surely, having someone explain what is "good" in music, art, literature etc. to you, in order that you can "appreciate" it, takes away the whole purpose?

Did Beethoven call for "more music appreciation" when he confounded the listening world with the Eroica? No, he simply created a work of art that set new standards, and forced the world to either come to terms with it or reject it.

The acceptance of the Impressionists wasn't the result of increased funding, or more education, but a growing realization amongst the public that here was a new, and valid, way of looking at the world. Picasso didn't evolve his style by satisfying government inspectors that he was creating something that the public would somehow benefit from.

To me this is the nub of the issue. If art cannot come to terms with simply being happy that it is art, then we shouldn't waste our time chasing after it.

Pericles,

The bigger question is simply where are the limits of funding to be drawn? Public parks, for example, require a great deal of expertise and expense to set up well, but there are plenty of people who never set foot in a park. Should all public parks be user-pays? I dunno. Maybe. What do you think? National parks? The flag pole on top of Parliament House that cost $6 million?

One person says parks are good. Another dislikes parks but enjoys art galleries. Another likes flag-poles but not art galleries. Another likes opera but not skateboard ramps.

So where should the line between user-pays and publicly-funded be? Don't governments and councils already try to keep everyone happy? Isn't that one of their main tasks? Isn't funding of music and arts, museums and galleries, libraries, etc. what most people want, along with sports ovals, horse-riding tracks and clean beaches and harbours?

Col, not that there is much point trying to convince someone of your political persuasion that there is anything at all worth spending taxpayer dollars on, but I challenge you to spend a few days getting to know works such as Ross Edward's Maninyas concerto, Richard Mills' trumpet concerto, or Nigel Westlakes' Antartica Suite and tell me with a straight face that such art is massive waste of government funding (and note that probably less than 0.5% of your paycheque goes towards commissioning new orchestral music, vs at least ten times that much that is wasted on ill-informed Defence purchases).

Pericles, these composers do not spent their time "satisfying government inspectors" that their art is worthwhile. They gain a reputation through their ability to compose works that music lovers recognise the value of, and are consequently commissioned by orchestras and other arts groups that have a very limited amount of funds to spread around.

Interestingly, a composer who did have to spend a lot of his time "satisfying government inspectors" is Shostakovich. Some might argue his art suffered from it, but he was able to be enormously imaginative and creative even within the restrictions placed upon him by a totalitarian regime. OTOH, the world where there are virtually no restrictions on what can be created - that of pure electronic music - has produced very little of lasting value.

I actually had Shostakovich in mind when referring to State funding of the arts, wizofaus. To be in fear of your life because your boss a) happens to be Stalin and b) is offended by your opera is not a particularly encouraging place to be.

Would Shostakovich have been a "better" composer without political pressure? No idea. It is impossible to argue. Don't forget though, that his livelihood and his standard of living was dependent upon his status as a Soviet Composer.

>>...these composers do not spent their time "satisfying government inspectors" that their art is worthwhile<<

But surely this is exactly what Shostakovich did with the Fifth Symphony, and why he did not allow the Fourth to be played until 1960?

Australia is not communist Russia, and in no immediate danger of becoming so. I don't see the relevance.

BTW I suspect my 0.5% was a gross overestimate. The total tax revenue collected in 2006-2007 was $231 billion, of which perhaps 33% of your income contributed to. 0.005 / 0.33 * 231 billion is 3.5 billion dollars. I would doubt more than 70 million is spent in a single year on commissioning new orchestral music, which would equate to about 0.0001% of your paycheque, or $10 a year - less than 3c a day - if you earn $100000 annually. Is this really what everybody is whinging about?

Even if I'm out by an order of magnitude (entirely possible), my thinks those here objecting to government funding to support the continuation of our classical music tradition doth protest too much.