Australians typify this pattern, consuming, in rank order of preference: cinema, botanic gardens and libraries, followed by animal and marine parks.^[1] Way below come museums, popular music concerts, and opera or musicals. At the bottom end of consumption come other performing arts, theatre, dance and classical music concerts (Craik, Davis & Sunderland 2000: 194).

Moreover, as the Nugent Report (DCITA 1999: 199-200) found, the development of new forms of performing arts — musical spectaculars, festivals, opera and dance spectaculars — as well as film forms, DVDs and CDs — has provided ‘intense competition’ for traditional performing arts, especially opera and dance. However, a review of the major performing arts companies in 2003 (MPAB 2004) found that — despite an extensive rescue package with guaranteed ongoing funding, management support, more touring, more paid audience revenue, more new works and greater sponsorship — aggregate losses have increased by 74% over the period of review, suggesting a dramatic decline in their financial position and likely viability.

Yet, when we focus on ‘who should pay’ for cultural activities and organisations, familiar arguments are still used to justify continued government underwriting of the high end of the arts and cultural sector. The classic ‘special pleading’ position to justify supporting the least sustainable forms of culture is a mixture of arguments about the need to support forms of cultural excellence, maintain international competitiveness and enrich national culture. As the above analysis indicates, such arguments depend on a hierarchy of art and cultural forms where the least viable are located at the top of the pecking order despite being the most marginal in terms of popularity. This should prompt a radical rethink of the philosophy of arts and cultural policy. So, what realistic alternatives are available?