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.