Value doesn't always mean money. Nurses make a shitload less money than I do but their job more valuable to society (probably more) than mine.

Drawing a long bow by using nurses as an example...yes they are underpaid...but painters ? :lol:
Nurses, Doctors value = saving lives , improving health

Whereas artists, painters value = ?

:)

Edited by Socawho: 9/6/2016 03:37:45 PM

Yeh sorry I read it wrong.

However that's still wrong from Brandt. The arts is a hobby, not a career choice. If you're lucky enough to make a successful career out of it, praise to you.

While I do agree with you in some regard, do you believe that culture plays a part in making a society great?

As in do you see any benefits to having a strong arts community?
Do you believe we are losing some of our cultural identity by only importing american television and music?
Do you think we should have productions on at theatre houses and orchestras to see etc or is American television enough of an opiate and that is just unnecessary luxuries in a modern "on the go" world?

Honest questions that I find interesting nothing to do with having a go at you!!

I do think there is money to be made with music, for example, if you are willing to put the yards in but it's an insanely competitive field for a tiny number of places for the comparative benefit

[size=3]Yes. I am a failed musician aha but I am all grown up now. I own ties and everything.[/size]

THIS!

Jurisdiction over criminal law lies almost entirely with the states, not the commonwealth.

Edited by AzzaMarch: 9/6/2016 03:50:33 PM

I see value in art of course. I'm an amateur nature photographer. Love a good scenery shot :p

I think your last sentence is the key issue. It's a narrow field meaning you have to be good at what you do. If you're good enough you'll make money. If not, it's not up to everyone else to pay you to follow your hobby.

No one pays me a minimum wage because I'm not smart enough to be a physicist.

CBF arguing too much over this one :lol: I disagree and I think the arts have a role to play in our society. The policy says that it'd be for artists that provide community benefit, not sure what the criteria is. Provided the criteria was appropriate, then I don't really see the issue.

I'm happy to spend money on art providing the money is there to spend on art. Melbourne has a lot of cultural stuff and I think it's cool compared to the cold concrete jungle of Brisbane.

The mrs has a degree in fashion and that's got her nowhere. Another narrow field. Does her industry get a cash injection because as Australian's we're not fashionable enough? :lol:

If the arts were no subsidised and allowed to happen we would have not developed as a species.

It's through philosophers, painters, musicians and writers we've be able to advance to a intelligent level and are not still fucking primitive morons. And not just with basic human skills but the development of science and architecture etc. Of course it needs to be nurtured, FFS, even the Renaissance artists got hand outs. Imagine a world without any of that?

It's through creative thinking and vision that other industries advance too. They need the arts as much as anyone.

Edited by tsf: 9/6/2016 04:01:42 PM

Edited by tsf: 9/6/2016 04:03:48 PM

And if all everyone does is follow the dollar then the arts WILL cease to exist and we will only have more Kardashians shoved down our dead eyes.

This is the problem. You say you value it in a cultural identity sense but do you? If all Australian music, film, television, painting was gone would it really bother you?

The fact is in a globalised world it is far far cheaper to consume art than produce it. If it's all about $$$ why would a commercial station produce a tv show as opposed to import one? They wouldn't.

What then happens when all art (and i hate that word coz some of you are thinking of space cadet street performers) is imported? Wjhat happens to our cultural identity then?

Maybe that's not important to you and it doesn't bother you if we all soon idolise plastic american freaks on our radios and televisions and that's fine but some people do care and realise as a culture and a society we will be far better off with our own well supported arts community. Basic funding for theatre houses and orchestral societies etc is going to pale in $$ terms to some of the other policies being pissed into the wind.


Edited by davide82: 9/6/2016 04:05:03 PM

if I may just add, ironically it's through two major opposites that we often advance as humans:

War & Art

Exactly. It IS what makes society great. It links us and gives a sense of community

Some people would have our society stripped of all colour until we are just worker drones consuming shitting and dying.

A lot of people are scared of "art" to be honest.

I really don't think this is what's being argued but sure, the way we dress does have cultural value and interest and I'd much rather see our shops full of Australian designers than cheap american tat

A few grants here and there would hurt none of us

Yep and there are grants given out for this stuff already. Maybe not enough and not in a way that might ensure it's viable for an artist to survive though. The devil is in the details, I shouldn't be able to walk into centrelink and say "I paint things" and get more money than the dole but for actual artists that have some community benefit I see no issue in supporting them this way.

Yeh fair call and your above post isn't too bad either. The way I see it though is that if you want to make it in this world, you have to be self sufficient. I have no issues with grants, similar to what scientists get. Why not match science and art federal contributions? Is that reasonable?

I'm an engineer who plays with dirt, I probably do undervalue art. We were continually told to ignore architects through uni :lol:

Out of curiosity, what is the Brandt argument? I seem to be missing the point.

Just realised I left the (probably more) in my post. It originally said "as much value to society (probably more)" and I thought to myself "get your head out of your arse, your jobs not that important" and corrected it. Now it looks like the opposite message to what I wanted :lol:

Aha to be honest man I haven't got a clue what the Greens policy is on this one I was just on my high horse and I do get defensive about these sorts of things coz I feel it's undervalued and people sdon't know why it's important till it's too late (it pretty much almost is in my eyes)

Like jules said though I'm sure it's not a case of taking a painting to centrelink and getting a bonus aha

My last serious partner was a civil engineer so I do have some insight but she was also a painter and designer so a rare breed indeed ahaa

I do know a couple of people who have tried to get arts grants - the process is incredibly detail heavy and onerous in all the forms you have to fill in etc.

Of course, its deliberate - in terms of discouraging people from applying when they aren't serious.

The other thing is that arts funding is so small when measured against what gets spent elsewhere. When you just get figures thrown out there (eg govt pays $300,000 for crappy art installation) its easy to forget about the bigger picture - total arts funding as a % of govt spending. In those terms, it is tiny.

Not really, IMO. Scientific research delivers greater economic returns. A new Australian movie will make you laugh, but a new cancer drug....
I would rather see the next Gardasil-like vaccine developed than a new fashion label. Arts should be funded, but its more of a luxury.

But that relies on supply/demand and people wanting to pay a certain price for a certain product or service.

And in tighter times, generally speaking people won't part ways with money for things like a night at the opera.

Well, maybe they do in the higher salary scaled households/bigger cities?

-PB

Is value only measurable in economic terms? Is it not legitimate to say something has value outside of a solely economic measure?

Artists and painters still have value, both monetarily and to society.

However that value is based on society.

I agree yes let's invest in the arts and what not, but like anything that gets investment, make sure there is benefits to it and not just pissing tax payer money down the drain.

Especially when there are things to invest in like health, education and defense.

-PB

Which makes me wonder where conservatives and their line of thinking comes from. Usually its not wanting to challenge the status quo and to leave things they way they are (back in the good old days) however they clearly don't get that from things that are responsible for our moral fibre like The Bible.

Because that's a very un-Christian, uncaring, lack of empathy way of thinking.

-PB

Yeh, not trying to say its only about money, but the societal impact of scientific research (eg Gardasil) is much greater than a new line of dresses, Australian movie etc..
A better comparison would be Arts versus Sport . Is it better to teach a gymnast to aerial ski so they can compete at the winter olympics, or spend that money on a public art installation?

I agree but not so much with Abbott & Hockey, the way they behaved in opposition in regards to the budget was ridiculous and on that basis they should be judged more harshly on not being able to deliver.

Geezuz, rewatching QandA, Barnaby was dodging shit like the Matrix.

"It's not a federal issue it's a state issue".

The federal minister for the Environment is the one who approved the licenses?

Dafuq.

-PB

As long as you're white:roll:

lol so much Woolies/Coles stabs floating around now.

-PB

You know a hell of a lot less about American political history than you want people to think you know.

You mean Hilary's party?...