I think that it would be a great idea for arts organisations only fund smaller organisations or individuals that create art independently of funding as well… thus proving they are interested in arts practice and not just creating stuff because they’re being handed the money on a platter. The art should come first. The arts funding should come second.

I agree, to some extent….

What the government are investing this ridiculous amount of money in is not the opera house or the commercial arts world. They are investing in Australia’s image.

After all when you ask foreigners about Australian landmarks we really only get a handful of answers. Obviously the Opera House is one of the most well known landmarks. We as a country should want one of our most popular landmarks to be kept nice and pretty for the tourists.

So perhaps instead of another shocking aus tourism board advertisement they could put a bit of their cash towards the Landmarks they are selling the world.

I think maybe the Opera House, being such an icon, may be in a better position than most of the self-subsidised artists I meet to “self-fund” its renovations. I truly hope they rethink the enormity of this pledge.

@ Diddley. I simply no longer accept the argument that the answer is “more money for the arts generally”. Here we have a classic example where a government is contemplating putting an EXTRA billion dollars into an institution which has already had a billion dollars (in today’s terms) of capital put into and already receives a subsidy in the tens of millions of dollars a year. On top of that both Opera Australia and the Sydney Symphony Orchestra — two of the main beneficaries of such a decision — are the two most subsidised companies in the country.

So here we have an example of “more money for the arts” and this is an example of where it goes. What we are lacking is a debate about priorities, about the relative importance of different things we could or should be supporting, and about equity across the cultural landscape.

Ultimately, the role of government is to make decisions about prioritising scarce resources. I do agree that there should be a greater emphasis on cultural production — you could get a lot for the cost of a single joint strike fighter. However government can’t invent resources or make them appear out of the thin air and when they do scurry some away they tend to go to further support those who are already receiving them.

As a matter of every day policy, Australia has decided that the nations’ opera companies and orchestras are worth far more than everyone else combined. I disagree.

Yes Marcus u are, but, for a whole lot of reasons, the rest of yr sentence is just not true.

only the money to fund your work needn’t have to come from un-funding architecture… more for the arts generally i say

Yeah, It is not that it is impossible for me to make money. i have saleable skills and i can use them when i need to make money. I am not complaining that i’m broke just simply that if you live in the funded bubble you have no idea how it works out in the real world.

I am capable of subsidising what i do but you could say the same thing to varying degrees about virtually anyone working in the arts and cultural realm. Why aren’t the endless armies of cultural beuracrats or salaried employees of major arts organisations doing the same or having the smae asked of them?

It may be a reasonable question, it may be unreasonable one. But surely the same question should be asked equally of everyone or at least not be prioritised by whether you are reproducing 300 year old European works or not.

Part of the problem here is the stupidly simplistic distinctions between high art and pop culture. A lot of policy tends to assume that creative people are trying to be commercial. In many/most cases they aren’t and in most cases they are far more likely to be successful by getting what they do right than by trying to adapt it to the highest bidder in the shortest possible time.

We need to encourage, not deter experimentation. We need to value new stuff and not just dead Europeans. I think the dilemma you are in is the classic example of it.

This would be my way of suggesting that there may be people in power who see these two poles (Entertainment and High Art) and not much in between. So as long as we’re being provided with some highfalutin ballets to watch, us art-types should be satisfied.

Too simplistic?

As someone trying to commercialise their “art practice” I can see why we often don’t bother with it. The more I hammer away at the business side, the less of my own work I produce. My goal is to be paid for doing my own crap, so I can only try to balance things out, do that crap for free as much as possible and hope things work out in my favour eventually.

Your problem is that care about things other than money (giving artists a forum, fixing up your hometown), so you can be convinced (or you set out, off your own bat) to do large amounts of work on behalf of those interests without being paid.

If your main goal was to get paid, you would be, and very well, no doubt. But you might hate yourself.