wizofaus says:

"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."

But the same argument applies to protesting against any waste of public money -- military spending, pork-barelling for marginal electorates, the incredibly expensive offshore 'solution' to refugee immigration, NSW government contractual dodges, etc. The only way our elected representatives can be brought to know what they should spend our taxes on is by all of us making as much noise as possible when they -- in our view -- waste it. Surely this is the only way to achieve an acceptable consensus on ANYTHING.

Pericles asks whether it is necessary to educate in order to appreciate art. Of course it is! Is it necessary to teach people how to read? Is it necessary to teach people how to compute? Great art, music and literature are complex intellectual creations that do not open themselves easily to observers. As a lecturer in the history of Renaissance Art, I was confronted each year by a room full of students whose sole visual experience had been film, TV, comics, magazine photography and advertising hoardings. When confronted with a masterpiece they saw nothing they were used to and became almost angry when asked to talk about what they saw. By the end of the year they could ‘read’ a painting as well as they could read a novel. They had learned to appreciate techniques, the subtle psychology of placement, composition, colour and balance, the use of symbols and other iconographical tricks, the historical context and the relative importance of that work to the development of art and human consciousness.
G M Hopkins’ poems seem like nonsense to the uninformed reader; however after a good teacher has discussed his works, they become haunting, beautiful expositions of English. The same is true of music. The audiences for Beethoven, the impressionists, Jane Austen et al were educated, informed and had been brought up in families where music, art and literature were discussed. They were not ignorant consumers of pop pap. There is nothing intellectually demanding in pop music, so listeners learn nothing about how to unravel the intricacies of ‘great’ art.
Many students returned sometimes years later to tell me that learning about art was the most important experience of their senior school years, because like all art, it deals with the great human questions.

Wizofaus “to convince someone of your political persuasion that there is anything at all worth spending taxpayer dollars on,”

Certainly no point at all, when the dollar could be left in the pocket of the consumer/taxpayer to decide for themselves.

I would note, “discretionary income”, which the taxpayer has if he is not taxed, versus the tax he might otherwise pay, represents the removal of “choice” between the consumer/taxpayer and the service supplier (the “artist”).

From your statement I presume you are arguing some “merit” is derived by politicians and public servants determining which artists should be favoured with public subsidy and which should not.

I await your detailed argument but only so I can destroy it.

So bring it all on wiz. but expect a good shredding, as you can probably guess, I have done this before.

Re “reputation through their ability to compose works that music lovers recognise the value of,”

Then let them rest on their “reputation” and enjoy their earnings from paying “music lovers” noting,

they would be entitled to copyright fees and possibly royalties

(however , that will not even pay for a meal if you can only find say 10 “music lovers” to part with their discretionary income) and expect no subsidy from scarce public funds.

As for “"satisfying government inspectors" is Shostakovich.”

From my reading and understanding, Shostakovich was more concerned about a visit from Stalins KGB than “government inspectors” (suffering two official denunciations of his music, in 1936 and 1948)

Although I do commend you for mentioning him, the “romance” from the movie score “the gadfly” is among my personal favourites.

“Stalin” prescribed one of the most oppressive forms of “cultural control” by any state at an time in history. As bad as Hitlers “degenerate art” exhibition.

So, since you so opportunely brought the topic up (“satisfying government inspectors”)

“Stalin's government inspectors” and Hitlers “degenerate Art” are the best reasons why “culture” should never, ever be a function of state funding and why it is always better left to the “philanthropic choice” of the individual consumer.

Accepted Jon J - and I'm trying my best to convince people that a few cents a day is a fairly small price to pay for something that is likely to last for centuries.

In fact - I just got off the phone with Symphony Australia, and they estimated the actual funding that goes directly towards commissioning new works is more in the order of 50 thousand a year, rather than 70 million. That's less than 1c a year! In contrast, total military spending is in the order of $2000 dollars a year out of your paycheque.

No doubt, money is wasted on propping up various artistic endeavours of questionable value, but to decry all funding for new compositions simply because you personally find it difficult to appreciate them is a bit precious.

The poster ybgirp has dealt with the matter of arts education pretty well. It's not just some 'cultivation of a particular taste'! While educators will always tend to have certain tastes which they will consciously or unconsciously pass on to their students, the studies go far beyond that. Studying music, art and literature develops parts of the brain that would otherwise be left to turn to mush.

Public funding outside of the school system is a different (although related) topic -
Col Rouge said:
"I would note, “discretionary income”, which the taxpayer has if he is not taxed, versus the tax he might otherwise pay, represents the removal of “choice” between the consumer/taxpayer and the service supplier (the “artist”)."

Doesn't the same apply, then, to parks, beaches, public concerts, town festivals, elaborate public buildings and so on? You want choice, Col. Fine. So where is the line to be drawn when it comes to public spaces , for example? Is every fountain and sculpture in the public spaces of every town and city across Australia a waste of money?

You might be happy to pay to go into a park full of old, manicured trees and fountains. Such a park might be more pleasant without alcoholics and junkies hanging around. Take the Chinese Garden in Darling Harbour as an example. Very pleasant. But about 10 bucks to get in.

Col, you are very proud and confident of your consumer/supplier 'model', but does your model work when it comes to the details?

Dr Livingstone ”Col, you are very proud and confident of your consumer/supplier 'model', but does your model work when it comes to the details?’

The Guggenheim example of “private patronage” (http://www.gf.org/broch.html#top) or the New York Metropolitan Opera (which enjoys private patrons and audiences without a tax subsidy), works better than the Hitler and Stalin models.

Please explain why you support the “fund it through the state” perspective (of Hitler and Stalin), Doc?

As for “Doesn't the same apply, then, to parks, beaches, public concerts, town festivals, elaborate public buildings and so on?”

If we consider the camouflage mausoleum on Flinders Street, Melbourne I would say bring back the gas and fuel towers.

Simply scaling up a dried out dog turd would look better.

An “artist” is no different to a plumber, electrician, auto assembly worker or me. The plumber, electrician, auto worker and me all have to justify our existence to our client / employers.

Paying for “art” through taxes removes the free choice of the purchaser / tax payer and replaces it with a “political” decision, no different to the dictates of Stalin and Hitler.

I would note, Mozart existed on private patronage. Handel too. Leonardo Da Vinci and Canaletto (my favourite painter) were both supported by private patronage. I do not recall Picasso ever receiving a “sub” from the rates.

When I commissioned a metal sculptor, I did not negotiate with the local council to “chip in” for what now decorates my home.

Public concerts, charge for their performances, the MSO at the Victorian Market concert cost my partner quite a few bucks when we went.

As for parks and gardens, there is a hell of a difference between maintaining public spaces and shaping cultural values.

I can and have been prepared to pay for my “cultural interests” I can spot a Hepworth at 50 meters and a Moore at a hundred but still prefer Cellini.

Some politician will never achieve a better job at satisfying my "cultural taste" through taxes.

And I pay for the police to jail the alcoholics and junkies.