The state should not subsidise the arts
Dame Helen Mirren, David Tennant and others recently wrote to the Observer demanding that no cuts should be made to arts spending. My view is that state subsidisation of the arts is one of the most unnecessary, illiberal and regressive things that government does, and should in fact be cut by considerably more than has been proposed in the Spending Review.
Given the subjective nature of artistic creation, it is unacceptable that the state should decide that we are valuing the “wrong things”, or not valuing certain things enough, and therefore need to pay extra tax so that the “right things” can be subsidised by a government which corrects our supposed ignorance. If an artistic venture fails to make a financial return, it simply means that not enough people think it’s worth paying for. A fundamental principle of liberalism is that the state should not promote any particular conception of “the good life”. If the state is to fund the arts, then it cannot decide which artistic creations are worthy of funding without violating that principle.
Another thing which I have found odd is that many of those in favour of state funding for the arts describe themselves as progressive and left of centre. Not everyone is interested in theatres, art galleries and museums – these remain primarily middle class activities even when they are entirely subsidised by the state and entry is free of charge. Why should those who do not particularly enjoy such things be forced to subsidise people with more expensive tastes, especially given the fact that those with more expensive tastes tend to be higher earners?
The cultural welfare state should be dismantled. What artistic productions flourish should be determined by the voluntary interactions of individuals; we should not allow a committee of bureaucrats to tell us all what’s good for us, especially when it comes to art and culture.
March 14th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
I’m sorry, I simply don’t agree. In an equitable society, art needs to be accessible, and its availability should not be based on mere popularity. Indeed, one could argue that it’s unpopular art that needs the most help – popular stuff probably *will* be commercially viable.
Art shouldn’t be the purview of a small elite of rich collectors who can afford it, it should be universally accessible, irrespective of mere popularity. I am entirely happy that my taxes go to support making art available to the population at large, even if I personally find that some of it does not move me. I’m happy for my taxes to go on making a museum free even if I never go to it. I certainly don’t feel that museum-going is solely a middle-class activity – do you have evidence for this? – though I am sure that it can be made more likely to become one, the more you charge for admission.
Then take examples like the film industry, where it’s evident that the UK can make world-class films given the resources to do so. In a lot of cases, you wouldn’t know whether something would be popular until you’ve done it.
I would certainly not be averse to a scheme in which the arts are funded on a semi-loan basis, where we invest in high-quality art but only expect repayment if the project is commercially successful. But the principle of state funding for the arts is conceptually very important in my view and I support it wholeheartedly and am prepared to pay for it along with the rest of the population – thanks to which, as a result, my contribution does not have to be large because we’re all doing it, and, hopefully, the rich are taxed more than the poor, though it often no longer seems to work that way.
March 14th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Then take examples like the film industry, where it’s evident that the UK can make world-class films given the resources to do so.
So can hollywood, and it does not need a subsidy.
Shakespeare, Dickens and Van Gogh also managed without public subsidy.
March 14th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
“So can hollywood, and it does not need a subsidy.”
It may not need a subsidy but its commercial clout is a hazard in its ability to dominate the culture of other countries. Like large supermarkets dominating and eventually forcing small shops out of business.
So I don’t have a problem with a certain amount of subsidy to the arts. I do hope though, having now read the letter, that the great and the good who all signed it are themselves supporting the arts in the UK financially.
March 14th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
The letter to the Observer ought really to have been signed by the Labour Party given the large numbers of number of those listed who are members, or have at least supported, Labour at previous elections.
March 14th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
“In an equitable society, art needs to be accessible”
There may be a case for ensuring, through welfare if necessary, that everyone has a basic income such that they could afford to go to an art gallery, theatre or whatever if they wanted to.
There is definitely not, however, a case for forcing people to pay for something that they don’t want.
I get more enjoyment out of watching a football match than going to see a Shakespeare play. Yet, the state is prepared to subsidise the latter and not the former. This strikes me as being unfair.
Subsidisation of the arts is clearly just an attempt to force middle class culture onto working class people.
March 14th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
The arguments proffered in the article are simplistic. The arts have always relied on patronage whether that has been wealthy individuals in the past or collective patronage we see now.
The film Industry is a classic case in point. If we don’t have some public investment in the arts we end up with the same tat and drivel seen in multiplexes throughout the land. Non commercial cinema which actually addresses issues or has a deeper artistic merit wouldn’t happen.
The arts are one of the things that make life worth living. We all tap into them one way or another. They can bring us together, challenge our preconceptions and change society (see Cathy Come Home). They can build bridges. Here in Edinburgh my predecessors on the Council decided that an arts festival was a good way of helping rebuild after the war to help promote understanding between Nations. I think they were very successful.
March 14th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
@Richard Elen
“I’m sorry, I simply don’t agree. In an equitable society, art needs to be accessible, and its availability should not be based on mere popularity. Indeed, one could argue that it’s unpopular art that needs the most help – popular stuff probably *will* be commercially viable.”
Don’t be sorry for disagreeing, that is what makes a good blog, the exchange of polite people of differing idea is so much more interesting than a load of toadies.
That said you are wrong.
Some may say I have no talent in the visual arts, if I were to paint a picture or make a sculpture it would not be popular. There is no reason for anyone else to pay me to produce that art. If I could rally a group of my lovey friends to say that my work was “important” or “ground breaking” in it’s poor quality, that would not be a reason to force others to pay for it.
Patronage by rich individuals such as Charles Sarchi have funded artists (and much of it, according to critics was poor) but he did this with private money (even though there were questions over personal/business funds).
Patrons of the arts will appear and support it, there is not a reason to take money from schools / infrastructure projects / caring for the poor to fund producing ventures that choose to cost so much they can’t cover their expences.
March 15th, 2011 at 1:47 am
The reason the left supports funding for the Arts is because the dominant left philosophy is statist, fabian, middle-class, paternalism. It dominates the Labour Party and is alive and well in the Lib Dems.
They don’t actually care what’s best for the working classes or most intellectually coherent. Why do you think that the only regressive tax ‘progressives’ are in favour of is one funding the BBC?
March 15th, 2011 at 3:27 am
“The arts have always relied on patronage whether that has been wealthy individuals in the past or collective patronage we see now.”
I don’t object to private patronage, obviously. I don’t even object to the idea of government tax breaks for private patronage, as works very well in America.
“Non commercial cinema which actually addresses issues or has a deeper artistic merit wouldn’t happen.”
This is the crux of the matter. What gives governments the right to decide which issues need to be addressed, or how “deep artistic merit” should be defined?
Why shouldn’t individuals be permitted to make their own choices, by spending their money on the artistic productions of their choice?
And if people don’t give a damn about art, but would rather spend their money on a new dishwasher instead, what’s wrong with that?
“Here in Edinburgh my predecessors on the Council decided that an arts festival was a good way of helping rebuild after the war to help promote understanding between Nations. I think they were very successful.”
I disagree that state involvement is necessary for things like the Edinburgh Festival. If it makes a lot of money, there’s a profit motive for private investment in such things.
March 15th, 2011 at 4:38 am
What this whole issue comes down to is whether we should have “rule by experts” in deciding what artistic productions are good for us, or rule by individual choice.
Rule by experts has clearly failed when it comes to consumer goods, so instead, statists cling onto some notion that government is better capable of judging “deep artistic merit,” even if it’s not able to judge how many washing machines need to be produced this year.
Of course, disproving that the government is a better judge of artistic merit is impossible, because such conceptions are inherently subjective. Hence, the appeal of such ideas to Labour and the socialist wing of the Lib Dems: they’ve found an argument for government intervention which cannot be theoretically disproven.
March 15th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
As a working artist for some decades and an art teacher too, before I retired from the chalkface, I have mixed feelings about this topic, probably because I have never attracted a wealthy patron who is willing to support me in the manner I’d like to get accustomed to. I do get cross when I see absolutely talentless tosh praised to the skies by luvvies who seem to have more available income than taste, but promotion rather than talent seems to be the game and I guess it’s all in the eye of the beholder.
When some forms of art become an industry, such as film-making, I suspect that some form of subsidy is inevitable if that keeps large numbers of people in work and rather more sensible than paying subsidies to the wealthy to build and install windmills connected to the National Grid on their estates.
March 15th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
The Edinburgh Festival doesn’t make money. The Hotels etc do. They pay business rates and other taxes so some form of subsidy to ensure that we have vibrant arts scene to keep business rolling is sensible. When you take into accout how much the arts generate in terms of tax take and employment the public purse ends up as a net winner. I am sure this was evidenced in the Thundering Hooves report out about three years ago.
March 16th, 2011 at 8:46 am
If all the hotels, shops and restaurants make increased profits during the Edinburgh festival, then why can they not all group together and pay for the festival? They are the ones directly benefiting from the festival after all. It would be in their interests to keep the festival going. Why should people who live nowhere near the festival and do not attend the festival have to pay taxes in the form of the Scottish Arts Council Grants?
The people who should pay for the festival are;
1) The people who attend, and hence buy tickets.
2) The business in the surrounding area who directly benefit.
3) Through VOLUNTARY donations.
4) People who advertise at the festival