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.