The arts are produced by individuals, alone or in groups, for the public who pay and consume. Well, 2% of them do. Would it not be be fairer, therefore, for the public to decide which artists receive limited funds? There is no reason for the arts to be corralled by a Government funded Cultural Policy, which should be created, if at all, by all Australian arts consumers, rather than by artists as at present. The online technology exists for this to be done.

I would hope, and believe, our current system in the end sees funds distributed by those way down the feeding chain .
More the artistic than public servants.
How would the public understand who to give it to?

I have always said that if you're a good artist you'll make a good living, but if you're not than go & pursue another career. Don't expect others to support your lack of talent.
The quality of art would improve tremendously.

Arts should not be funded from the public purse. Period.

I'll agree with that.

Let the public fund the arts they want to, by stopping all government funding, & letting the public fund that they want by purchasing the product direct.

Any government interference/involvement merely promotes corruption.

Instantaneous voting on everything should be set up, and then we can all have a voice.

All it needs is NBN and an APP. for your phone. Up comes the latest policy proposal, we get 24 hrs to vote, the numbers come up on your phone and hey presto, decision made.

Can I do mine now?

Public Arts funding? Not until debts are paid off and we are back in surplus.

Next.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Australians were becoming more and more aware of the fact that Australia was considered a cultural backwater. For the best in the arts one had to go overseas. However, during the following years many plans were made to put an end to this state of affairs.

The Australian Opera House (the first in Australia) was built in Sydney. The architectural design made world headlines, and despite its cost and complications in building, it has become one of the foremost cultural attractions of Australia.

In Melbourne, the Victorian Arts Centre was planned as the "art gallery wonder" of Australia. The centre was to become a spectacular architectural attraction, and its watershielded glass front, its stained glass ceiling, its fountains and concert rooms. The art purchases of the gallery have become matters of public debate, and with the increased inteest, more and more people have been getting experience of art than perhaps ever before.

The overseas fame of Australian masterpieces, like the play, "The Summer of the Seventeeth Doll, and the fame of individual performers like, Peter Finch, Joan Sutherland, Sir Robert Helpmann, Rolf Harris, The Seekers, June Bronhill, Barry Humphries, Nicole Kidman, Cate Blanchett, and many, many, more ... writers, musicians, and performers in all the arts, earned Australia a place amongst the world's best.

Without funding - none of this would have been possible. Part of the purpose of funding is to create new art/art forms by creating a demand - and an audience that otherwise would not exist.

Lexi,
I don't think anyone including myself is against art or even some funding by way of providing places for exhibitions. what many, including myself are against is the literally millions of Dollars wasted on some idiotic & meaningless pieces or performances of absolute crap. You can not seriously include this crap in our cultural values. If they weren't crap they'd be able to go without funding.

Dear Individual,

I think you need to do a bit of research into
the purpose of public arts funding - then perhaps
we can continue this conversation in more depth.

Welcome back Barry/spin doc, one of the big man Whitlams greatest achievements was funding the arts.
I up the top thought the thread was about who distributes it.
Australian Conservatives could buy art with the tax cuts such governments give the rich.
Barry your honesty in calling your self merry go round, sorry spin doc is worth saying well done.
Vale Margaret a great and good lady and patron of the arts

Dear Individual,

"I don't think anyone including myself is against art or even some funding by way of providing places for exhibitions."

Please count me in - I have nothing against art, but I don't believe that government should provide venues for exhibitions. A non-voluntary body has no mandate to engage in voluntary activities.

Ah you bunch of penny pinching sods. We should be damn proud that our country is a strong supporter of the arts. I mean the US art scene gets less than our does in real terms from government funding and it shows.

And the arts are flourishing here and the output is prodigious, Alice Springs actually has the highest number of art galleries per capita in the world.

It wrestles for that distinction with Newcastle which Lonely Planet rated in the top 10 cities to visit in the world for 2011. “from ‘steel city’ to creative hub"...“an explosion of artists” ... “from acclaimed regional centres to independent, artist run spaces and dozens of disused city-centre buildings occupied by photographers, fashion designers, digital artists and more as part of the inner-city regeneration scheme”.

This was all due to substantial government support post BHP.

If the attitude of some of the posters had prevailed then we would be seeing a decrepit post industrial town with all the associated social problems we see in forsaken towns in the US. 

Thank god we had some faceless government funding body making those decisions.  

Dear Csteele,

If you are after welfare and occupational therapy, then why not call a spade a spade?

Photographers - who only replicate what already exists,
Fashion designers - to corrupt the youth with materialism,
digital artists - to increase our dependence on junk technology and annoy our vision with distracting moving patterns whenever we simply look for information.

With exploding population, too many people are left with nothing productive to do. Inventing fake and useless jobs (at the expense of others) instead of accepting this reality, does not improve anything. As much as you try to trick those poor people into believing that they are useful, down below they know the truth that they are not really needed. Some do need occupational therapy following traumatic events, but therapy is designed to improve and heal, not to last as a lifetime crutch.

Much better being penny pinching sods than outright thieves and robbers. However, it's not about the penny - but about the principle:
Helping others in need is a privilege and honour. One who is being robbed (which is just what the government does when it takes away money from its rightful owners for non-essential purposes) is robbed not only of their money but is also being denied the opportunity to help, is being denied the opportunity to express the goodness of their heart, thus blocking it forever and converting generous loving and caring people into penny-pinching-sods. Now those who receive stolen money are being denied the opportunity to show gratitude. Those who are being helped should at least say "thank you", not "you filthy dad - how much more are you hiding in your pocket?"!

"We should be damn proud that our country is a strong supporter of the arts. I mean the US art scene..."

I may be proud of helping others in need, but the above is sickening primitive competitive pride, of "our" art-team beating the corresponding American team. Moreover, this "victory" is achieved by immoral means, by striking under the belt - even a true sports-person would feel ashamed of his team in such circumstances.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You may need to clarify your post because to me it reads as if you would have preferred Newcastle didn’t have government money spent on securing its rejuvenation because you and people like you are "being denied the opportunity to help, is being denied the opportunity to express the goodness of their heart, thus blocking it forever and converting generous loving and caring people into penny-pinching-sods."

I'm not sure we should be in the business of providing destitute and down and out people for others to feel good about themselves. That in my book would be 'immoral' and 'sickening'. I am much happier about my taxes going to projects like the Newcastle rejuvenation effort, making sure those people are not created in the first place.

Besides the substantial intangible benefits of a thriving arts scene within a community like Newcastle the tangible benefits are plain to see, less people on the scrap heap requiring government assistance, less social upheaval, less crime, less blighted lives, property values retained and even strengthened.

I'm not saying that these are the only reasons to promote a thriving art community but they do answer some of your points. Nor am I saying the US isn't attempting to follow the same path;

http://cityofphiladelphia.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/city-of-philadelphia-unveils-plan-to-rejuvenate-commercial-corridors-through-art/

But they are trying to do it on less than 10% of the funding per capita we make available for our Arts.

Dear csteele,

Beautifully stated!

Taste in The Arts, as we know is subjective.
And you can't please everyone. However, this doesn't mean
that we should stop supporting public funding. Some of us
obviously feel that that we cannot find much to enjoy in
one art or another. But most of us can find aesthetic
satisfaction in some of the arts - if we know how to go
about it. And many of us find that music, painting,
theatre, et cetera -
provides an inexhaustible source of joy for a
lifetime.

At the same time, we may discover whether we ourselves
have the ability to create art. If we do, we have a
source of satisfaction we do not want to miss.
Children take music lessons, learn to sing together, and
study drawing. Many persons try amateur acting, or write
stories and poems. Some have great talent and become
professional artists. Others, remain amateurs. And even
those who conclude that they don't have much creative
ability find that trying to paint or write sharpens
their perceptions and adds to their enjoyment of the
arts. Without public funding - the arts would not be
encouraged and maintained in society - and life would
surely be the lesser for it.

It does not have to be a choice between extremes. In my experience arts funding can become a bit of a black hole to some extent and like many funded areas of society, can foster many self-fulfilling and self-sustaining empire builders.

While art and culture are important aspects of a society, much of it can come from individuals, voluntary groups and sponsors. Indeed it used to be very much on that basis especially in my own experience with amateur theatre groups.

I would think most people would not exclude Arts from funding altogether such as State and National Galleries or as Lexi offerred, the Opera House.

However, much of the other discretionary spending on Arts is less scrutinsed and the waste is mind boggling. Distribution of funding is often through other Arts bodies and as such up to their discretion including generous payments to the management structure.

Arts is primarily an individual activity and as such the funding for the Arts is too high IMO. This is especially considering the lack of funding in other areas which are sadly under-funded such as some areas of health care and disability care. It behoves that governments will put essential services such as energy and communications in the hands of the private sector (usually foreign owned) yet overspend on activities that are ostensibly in the realm of private activities.

Funding for Sport and Religion is equally overdone, governments often forking out big sums for stadium redevelopment when sporting codes who rake in the big dollars and salaries then stick a hand out when it comes to facilities. Or repairs and restorations to Church buildings which could easily come from the huge stores of wealth in some of the bigger religious organisations.

Not everything worthwhile or good for society has to come from government. In the past music, poetry, literature, religion, art and storytelling were a rich part of many cultures yet not a government farthing to be seen.

Would Da Vinci have managed to be such a genius
if he'd been spending his days working retail or
waiting tables?

When the funding goes away - the quantity and the
quality of the art being created will suffer.
It's hard being creative and expressive when
you're working a crappy day job (or two) to pay the
bills.

The stereotype of the "starving artist" is so
ingrained in our collective psyche that some of
us can't envisage a well-funded artistic
lifestyle.

The lack of arts funding out there becomes especially
painful when held up against the other spending and
splurging that the government does. Money is being
shelled out for corporate bailouts in some countries.
Then there's government and industry
conferences and retreats, sports events (like the disastrous
Grand Prix in Victoria - to name just one), and so on. Not counting
the TV and other commercials reminding us how deeply
the government cares about us and so on.

Without funding - how many paintings would go unapinted,
plays unproduced, and masterpieces of literature go unwritten -
simply because the artists simply don't have the time?

Something to think about. Just because art will not go
away, doesn't mean there's any reason not to fund it.

Art forever is a measure of humanity's success.
I doubt more than a few have concerns about government support and spending on art.
Books are art as too are movies statues even old buildings.
Songs and poems, I suspect some link art with the left.
Let them do so, I see it as part of every thing that matters.
What a blank boring world without it.
Patrons of the arts for hundreds of years have helped preserve it.
And do today.
Governments such as Whitlams Blue Polls purchase, cop rubbish yet that painting is worth many times its purchase price.

individual,

I'm sure Vincent van Gogh would agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly.

Dear Csteele,

"it reads as if you would have preferred Newcastle didn’t have government money spent on securing its rejuvenation"

Indeed, I tend to mean what I write.

I'm happy for government to assist the destitute PEOPLE of Newcastle individually, but not the CITY of Newcastle as such or its arts (if indeed it's true-art).

"I'm not sure we should be in the business of providing destitute and down and out people for others to feel good about themselves. That in my book would be 'immoral' and 'sickening'."

I understand, but neither should we be in the business of ruining the existing goodwill of others. If you forcibly take what is A's and give it to B, is it a wonder that A will subsequently clam down and no longer have generous good-will towards B?

"I am much happier about my taxes going to projects like the Newcastle rejuvenation effort, making sure those people are not created in the first place."

This is nice indeed, since you referred to YOUR taxes, not mine.

If I consider the Newcastle project worthwhile, then I may still, even more likely so had the state not stolen my money, contribute as well towards Newcastle, or otherwise perhaps towards other good causes which I consider even more important, not from my tax-money, but from my OWN money.

"Besides the substantial intangible benefits of a thriving arts scene within a community like Newcastle"

Indeed so intangible that I cannot see them, but then as in The Emperor's New Clothes (by Hans Christian Andersen), I suppose that only the *wise* can see those benefits.

"the tangible benefits are plain to see, less people on the scrap heap requiring government assistance, less social upheaval, less crime, less blighted lives, property values retained and even strengthened."

If these results are so beneficial then surely donors would flock to help, but what you just described is a mixed bag: is it right to steal someone's property in order that someone else will have the value of their property retained and even strengthened? the best name for that is CORRUPTION.

Dear Lexi,

"this doesn't mean that we should stop supporting public funding."

I am not opposed to public funding at all, only to government funding, the difference being that the state and its government are involuntary bodies.
So certainly, public voluntary bodies that help the arts are more than welcome.

"The lack of arts funding out there becomes especially painful when held up against the other spending and splurging that the government does. Money is being shelled out for corporate bailouts in some countries. Then there's government and industry conferences and retreats, sports events (like the disastrous Grand Prix in Victoria - to name just one), and so on. Not counting the TV and other commercials reminding us how deeply the government cares about us and so on."

Certainly! All the above is corrupt, it angers me just the same and has to go as well!

"Without funding - how many paintings would go unapinted, plays unproduced, and masterpieces of literature go unwritten - simply because the artists simply don't have the time?"

- Why without funding? Only without government funding, stolen immorally from ordinary citizens!

I agree with Pelican, except that I believe that even the State and National Galleries or the Opera House should not have been funded by the state from tax-payer's money. If people truly want these projects, then they can fund-raise the necessary sums.

Let's not get too emotive about stealing from the public and giving to a bunch of wastrels, and instead look more closely at the relationship between the public and the arts. Which was the question posed in the opening post:

>>Would it not be be fairer, therefore, for the public to decide which artists receive limited funds?<<

An interesting concept. But I suspect that "the public" would lean towards subsidies for the artist who painted the green lady...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5298060.stm

And composers who write songs that call Australia home, writers like Bryce Courtenay, playwrights who write about ordinary blokes at booze-laden barbecues, poets who... actually, you can forget the poets. No member of "the public" would give them tuppence.

Would this actually achieve anything, in terms of "the arts"? Probably not.

So we allow the governments, Federal and State, to allocate money on our behalf, to causes they deem to be "worthy".

Normally, this is through "Boards" of other worthy people, who have also made their name with the assistance of government grants, and are predisposed to look for people that they imagine to be similar to themselves - "groundbreaking", or "daring", or "iconoclastic" etc.

Does this actually achieve anything in terms of "the arts"?

Clearly not, or we would not be having this discussion.

In my view, there should be no public funding of the arts, and all those "Boards" should be disbanded. In their place, we will find that a bunch of rich folk will come forward to promote whatever art form gives them most satisfaction.

Some will put money into Opera. It's already happening - next year's Ring Cycle in Melbourne is only possible thanks to a ton of money from Lonely Planet's Maureen and Tony Wheeler (thanks guys; but Susan Bullock as Brünnhilde? Please...!) Some will become Australia's Charles Saatchi, and support our very own versions of Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin. Yum. And yet another lot will name theatres or art galleries after themselves, and life will go on.

Except for those poets, I'm afraid. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

There's not much difference between funding the Arts and funding professional sports.

Both have specific audiences, neither pay back the costs incurred by the public and both are exercises in self-indulgence.

Maybe the question should be "what value does society place on both and what sort of society would it be if either one ceased to exist".

Maybe there is a social need for both and that need outweighs money.

Just think if the funding which presently goes to Art & stays there, would go to training for trades & infrastructure operation ?
I know it's too good to be true that's why it's not done but at least it wouldn't be as wasteful & frivolous as the present arrangement.
Art is an important ingredient in culture development & needs to be encouraged but buying it only results in one, a gimme, gimme culture.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I think I may have accused you in the past of having a rather American sensibility or outlook. Nothing wrong with that, each to their own. Perhaps it stands out because Australia has gone about things differently.

But I look at the success achieved in Newcastle and know if we had ever attempted to do this through philanthropy it plainly wouldn't have happened.

To throw some tangibles on the table besides the Lonely Planet endorsement.

In a declining tourism market hit hard by the world recession, aviation fuel prices, and the high Australian dollar Newcastle and the Hunter have stood out.

International visitors to regional NSW have dropped over the last four years but not in Newcastle and the Hunter.

From the latest figures I have Sept 2011 YTD international visitors have climbed over the last four years from 107,000 to 127,000. And the international visitor nights from 1,416,000 to a whopping 2,240,000.

More people coming and in turn staying longer. This pumps 100s of millions of dollars into the region, one that many thought would suffer the decrepitude of many towns that lose their main industry.

You may be dismissive of the tools used but the results are plain to see.

I see it as a good news story that all Australian's should rightly be proud of and and excellent use of taxes that will pay for itself quite smartly with less people requiring government assistance and more paying personal and business taxes.

Further I have little problem with you being forced to contribute. If that makes me a thief in your eyes so be it. 

Dear Csteele,

Any connection with America is completely incidental. I have no sympathy for that place and never intend to set my foot there.

There may be a localized economic success here and there, but what is the ratio of successes vs. failures? Also, how much of the funds tagged for the arts end up in the pockets of government employees/contractors and other middlemen?

Talking about tangibles, do the balance sheets take into account the fact that when my money is taken away without my consent towards goals that I don't approve of (or perhaps even disdain - I may believe for example that a certain form of art is immoral, like the fashion industry that you mentioned earlier), then I draw the conclusions and the net result is less taxes, not more? I learned the ropes and discovered that in Australia, given the combination of explicit+hidden tax-margins, the less you earn the better off you are!

If taxes were fairer, supported the needy more directly and not directed at controversial projects, then I would have been more likely to work harder, export more, earn more, and pay more tax, but that's alright, I understand the system and I adapt - now I'm no longer keen on working, I do the minimum just to get by, I have more spare time and overall I am happier. That's my personal case - others who don't share my principles may simply be more inclined to fail to report their income.

But tangibles are not the issue. The issue is that the state is not a voluntary body, that one gets no choice whether or not to be subject to its rules, that it hogs a whole continent with no way to escape (except for those who are able to flee to even worse regimes). In other words, the state is a predator and predators should be kept on a leash. The state has some essential roles which may justify its coerciveness, such as defending its citizens against violence, fraud and hunger; but culture and economics are way outside its legitimate mandate.

Dear Wobbles,

"There's not much difference between funding the Arts and funding professional sports.

Both have specific audiences, neither pay back the costs incurred by the public and both are exercises in self-indulgence."

- So far, excellent observations!

"Maybe the question should be "what value does society place on both and what sort of society would it be if either one ceased to exist"."

Society cannot place a value on anything since it is not a sentient living being. Individuals place values on things, but then different individuals are likely to place different values on both the above activities.

If either ceased to exist, then the question is "why did it?".
Assuming that nobody shot the artists and sportsmen, threatened them to cease or threw them in jail, then the remaining options are that either nobody was interested in becoming a professional artist/sportsperson, or that nobody was interested in funding their self-indulgent habit.

"Maybe there is a social need for both and that need outweighs money."

I will not argue whether that need outweighs money, but does it outweigh moral values, such as non-theft and non-violence (because that's what the government does when it taxes people)? Csteele for example seems to believe that it does.

Maybe the question should be "what value does society place on individual freedoms and what sort of society would it be if those ceased to exist".