Col, so basically your position is that you aren't prepared to forgo a few cents a year of your paycheque because you believe that the James Packers and Joe Sixpacks of this world are better judges of our national composers' artistic merits than professional conductors and artistic directors like Edo de Vaart or Richard Tognetti.

Glad to have cleared that up.

(BTW, Fed. square cost orders of magnitude more than what is spent on supporting new orchestral music in Australia, can only be appreciated by those who live or happen to travel to Melbourne, and can't realistically be avoided by those who do live here but don't care for it. On that basis, I would be willing to agree it wasn't perhaps the best use of taxpayer funds, although again, there's hundreds of other questionable uses of such funds that I would rather see addressed before I was worried about whether governments should be subsidising modern architecture).

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

You are very wrong. Public spaces play a very large role in shaping cultural values. That's why we pay professional architects, town planners, landscape architects, engineers and sculptors, etc. to work together to create successful public spaces which enliven our towns and cities. However, many people are not interested is using them, so why should they have to pay for them? Every day in Martin Place in Sydney there are free performances. Isn't that unfair for people who prefer to work through their lunch-breaks?

Col>: "And I pay for the police to jail the alcoholics and junkies."

No you don't. You pay the police to arrest those who are breaking the law. The courts decide who goes to jail or not.

Col>: "I would note, Mozart existed on private patronage."
People like Mozart and da Vinci were largely supported by patrons who WERE the government (noblemen, churchmen, courtesans). Your comparison is a dud because they had totally different power systems back then. Our society is based on negotiating compromises between various lobby groups in order to benefit the largest possible number of people.

I beg to disagree, ybgirp.

>>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<<

You are saying that music, art, literature etc. are such "complex intellectual creations, that they are by definition inaccessible to us morons who haven't attended lectures?

You know of course, being an academic, that Shakespeare only allowed PhDs into the Globe, in case the hoi polloi got the wrong end of the stick about Hamlet.

And that before writing Die Entführing, Mozart insisted Emperor Joseph attend a course in the intricacies of German Singspiel.

What a load of utter nonsense.

I am sure that understanding better the building blocks of art, the "subtle psychology of placement, composition, colour and balance, the use of symbols and other iconographical tricks", or the architecture of a symphony or a concerto, or the structure of a novel, enables someone to make a better fist of being an artist themselves.

But I genuinely fail to see how it is a prerequisite for the audience.

In a less generous moment I would suggest that such an attitude is elitist, condescending, arrogant and - ultimately - self-defeating.

Of course it is necessary to read, in order to get value from literature, in the same way that it helps not to be blind when confronted with a painting or deaf when attending a concert.

Interestingly though, and significantly for the analogy with art, there should be no requirement to "teach people to compute", since it is the job of the programmer is to make the necessary computation accessible, not the user's task to learn the programmer's craft.

There should be no onus on the general public to "learn" what artists use to create their works, any more than it is necessary to understand the mechanics behind a conjuring trick, or sawing the lady in half.

Pericles - who said anything about lectures? The best musical education starts at home: early exposure to great classical music is almost essential to the ability to enjoy it fully as an adult.
I owe my love of classical music almost entirely to my parents, their record collection, and especially the extensive "The Great Composers" series of cassettes and accompanying booklets that was bought for me. They certainly didn't teach me music theory or history directly, but that was my 'education', and it happened well before we even had music classes at school.

Until a significant percentage of the population receives such an education, there will never be enough interest from the general public to sustain the classical music tradition on ticket sales alone.

Despite that, I'm also supremely confident that the vast majority of Australians, if asked "Do you mind that a few cents a day out of your paycheque goes towards supporting classical music in Australia, ensuring that we all have the opportunity attend such performances or listen to them on the radio?" would agree that this wasn't an issue to them.

Wizofaus “forgo a few cents a year of your paycheque”

That is you twisting words.

Individuals are better at making choices with their own resources than government is. government manipulation ranges from political influence peddling to paying back favours with taxpayers money.

Re Fed Square, that “non-building” has no discernable lines, no form and thus is basically camouflaged from view, making it instantly “avoidable”.

My opinion is not singular. Every architect I have spoken with feels similar.

Dr Livingstone
“Public spaces play a very large role in shaping cultural values. That's why we pay professional …. to work together to create successful public spaces which enliven our towns and cities.”

That is your excuse for Mary Delahuntys “blue trees”, the congestion on the Westgate and tunnels (poor town planning), the “yella terror” (had to be hidden from public abuse), and the non-building in Fed Square.

Somehow the promises of “expert” townplanners and their associates, with noses in the public trough, has failed to generate the utopian aspirations which you presume.

“Every day in Martin Place in Sydney there are free performances. Isn't that unfair for people who prefer to work through their lunch-breaks”

I agree, you are supporting my view. User pays, not tax payers.

“You pay the police to arrest those who are breaking the law.”
The pedantic nit-picking of someone who has lost a debate.

“People like Mozart and da Vinci were largely supported by patrons who WERE the government (noblemen, churchmen, courtesans).”

None the less, a private patron decision and I would say paying for the privilege.

Nowadays “government” is a more “democratic” process where the electorate decides.

I am suggesting you extend the choice to fund “art” is no different to the right to select a government representative but you are arguing against that.

Strange idea of “democracy” you have.

I note in my last post, I made a direct challenge for you

I repeat it now

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

I await response.

Culturally, "Private Choice" always betters "Political Patronage".

Why must the arts be singled out? Sports recieve massive public subsidies , the charity that football , Rugby league and Cricket rely on to have a venue to pay is never recouped by clubs and yet are allowed to profit from private sponsorship. Small local clubs and sports fields are totally dependent on local council subsidisation. A tiny minority of people use these places and yet they cost Australians many millions. Church organisations also recieve public subsidies for the benifit of almost nobody. Employers reciever subsisies for workers they can easily afford ,private schools also recieve subsidies at the same time making profits, companies recieve subsidised water and power. The money music in Australia recieves is insignificant compared to any other sector. Lets either get rid of all subsidies or stop complaining.