Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014
Arts funding by the state, abolition of
Section F. Culture, education and sport
Many countries subsidise the arts to some degree. The French, for example, subsidise their film industry; the Indian government gives money to dance, music and drama; and the British government, through the Arts Council, has supported arts projects, some of which have invited controversy. In contrast, the USA gives very little support to artists, but does fund free access to national art galleries. The arguments vary slightly in the debate, depending on whether you are talking about giving the money towards the creation or the consumption of the arts, but most definitions will cover both.
Pros
[1] The role of the state in the modern world is not to prescribe the means of expression of its citizens. Funding of the arts by the state amounts to such prescription — money will always go to one favoured art form (often traditional figurative painting and sculpture) rather than others (e.g. more conceptual art forms). To avoid having a pernicious influence over artistic expression and development, state funding of the arts should be abolished. The ideal of art is individual expression — this is incompatible with state (or arguably, any) patronage.
[2] We have learned from the past (especially in communist regimes) that funding of artistic projects (including the composition of music) all too easily slides into the realm of propaganda. Art should be free to criticise the government.
[3] There are many more important things for which public money is needed — obvious examples include books and equipment for schools, new drugs and technologies for hospitals, social security payments for single parents and the unemployed. Every spare penny should be channelled into these areas. Public spending should be on necessities, not luxuries. Art is of no material use to the nation and so is not a proper object of public expenditure. It would be better to lower taxes and let people choose to spend the extra money in their pockets on whatever art form they wish, be it visual art or anything else.
[4] If there is no demand for works of art, then why are they being produced? It is simply a form of pointless self-indulgence by artists. The state has no business subsidising plays, paintings or concertos for which there is no demand. Artists should compete in the free market like everyone else trying to sell a product. If there are too many artists for the limited demand, then some artists (actors, painters, musicians) should simply retrain, as did, for example, coal miners in the 1980s when their usefulness was exhausted.
[5] In some countries, the arts are indirectly funded by unemployment payments to young musicians and artists who claim dole payments and do not seek work, but simply want to develop their artistic talents. But there is no reason why such people should not organise their time to include part-time work as well as time for their artistic development. It is illogical to assume that artistic talent must go hand in hand with a chaotic, self- indulgent and undisciplined lifestyle.
Cons
[1] If the state does not provide carefully administered funding for the arts, then only the independently wealthy or those given patronage by the rich will be able to practise as artists — this is unacceptably elitist and haphazard. Art has been associated with patronage of various forms from classical times onwards. Just as religion has always found a compromise with secular authorities, so the ’pure’ artist will always find a compromise between the ideal of individual expression and the economic realities of life as an artist. Only the state can fund the arts in a responsible way, appointing committees of artistic experts to make responsible, relatively impartial and up-to-date decisions about which art forms and artists are funded.
[2] We can, indeed, learn from history. What we learn is that arts funding must be given without any strings attached — that artistic freedom must always be guaranteed rather than the state dictating to the artist. Mistakes of past regimes do not mean that state funding of the arts must be scrapped, any more than the fact that democratic processes have been abused by autocratic regimes means that democracy should be scrapped.
[3] It is very simplistic to see benefit only in material goods such as textbooks and medicines. Civilised societies need moral and mental education and healing as much as they require educational and medical equipment. Artists (poets, painters, actors, comedians, sculptors, musicians, filmmakers) provide unique moral insights and function as irreplaceable critics of society and politics (a cross between academics and jesters). A society without arts would be soulless and blind. Investing in a thriving arts scene can ultimately repay dividends as tourists visit cultural attractions and the economy benefits.
[4] There are some areas where we should not let the market dictate policy and spending. Public transport and health services, for example, should be kept in state ownership to ensure that they are run not according to supply-and-demand alone, but on a moral basis, so that nonprofit-making activities — e.g. train services to remote areas, or expensive treatments for rare medical conditions — are not scrapped. Arts funding is a similar case. The state should fund the arts to ensure that they are not sacrificed on the altar of heartless free market capitalism. Capitalists may be philistines, but that does not mean that the whole of society should be made culturally illiterate by abolishing state funding of the arts. The market will follow ’safe’ artistic options, whereas art needs the freedom to take risks and to be ahead of the curve rather than follow public opinion. Many artists we celebrate today would not have flourished if they had relied on the market of their day rather than patronage.
[5] Young artists need the time to develop their talents which would be restrained by a typical 9-to-5 job. The artistic temperament is not compatible with such a routine. It is perfectly acceptable for such gifted young people to live on state benefits while developing their unique talents.
Possible motions
This House would abolish state funding of the arts.
This House believes that the arts are of no material benefit to society.
Related topics
Capitalism v. socialism
BBC, privatisation of
Cultural treasures, returning of
Indigenous languages, protection of
Music lyrics, censorship of