The Artless Dodger
---
I think one of the best ways to tell whether you've won someone over to libertarianism is whether they'll admit that government funding of the arts is unjustifiable:
The silly meme that, somehow, "the arts are different" persists generation after generation with no basis in economics or aesthetics to justify it. "Art," at least traditional art (painting, sculpture, etc.), is not a public good any more than any other long-lived product. There is simply no reason to subsidize it, even when it's "good" art.
In the U.S., public funding of the arts is perhaps the purest expression of the politics of pull: a politically-appointed elite, whether the National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Public Radio or the countless state and local equivalents, are given taxpayer money, with few or no strings attached, which they in turn dole out to favored artists based on subjective (i.e., random) judgments about "worthiness" or "importance" or "insert unquantifiable haughty-sounding word here." Subjective favoritism goes into overdrive when it comes to art funding, precisely because no other criterion is even possible. Even truly benevolent, socially-motivated arts bureaucrats cannot help but reduce arts funding to an essentially random lottery of grants.
Still, at least in the U.S. we get bad art for our tax dollars. But how much worse is it when "public funding of the arts" doesn't even fund art, but instead goes to underutilized "art centers" (oops...art "centres") that are the cognoscenti equivalent of the local mall, complete with "artiste" versions of Starbucks or TGI Friday's?
The simple truth is that the reason there are so many "starving artists" is because most artists suck. Now, in the U.K., they have a half a billion pounds worth of empty structures in which to suck. Brilliant.
UPDATE #1: Marginal Revolution reminds us that it isn't just the visual arts that often are better off privatized, as a German orchestra tries playing a different tune.
UPDATE #2: Tim Blair has more from the U.K.
Related Posts:
A Whisper to a "Scream"
Osama Isn't the Only Monster
(Cross-linked at Outside the Beltway.)
The tenth anniversary of the UK National Lottery is a good point to ask where all those billions allocated to "good causes" ended up. ...One result has been the rise of a new breed of arts centre. We have identified 53 new arts centres (or major extensions of existing centres) funded with lottery money, to a total cost of £471,451,587, nearly half a billion pounds...
...
Many of these centres' functions bear no relation to arts at all, instead taking on the role of restaurants, hotels or social welfare offices. There are bars that clearly aren't meant for just popping into after the exhibition or play.
...
New arts centres often aren't about the arts in particular, dramatic, visual or cinematic; they are about the arts in general, a sense of buzz and energy.
...
Talk about energy and creativity sells in PR circles; whether it sells to the punters is another matter. Lottery-funded arts centres that crashed included the Dovecot Arts Centre, comprising a theatre, mixed exhibition spaces, cinema, café and bars (£6,631,750 grant), which couldn't generate sufficient income. The National Centre for Popular Music in Sheffield (£11,100,000 grant) included four exhibition areas in stainless steel drum-shaped constructions, a café, shop and public square for outdoor gigs - but attracted only 80,000 annual visitors, a fraction of the expected 400,000. Similarly, the Cardiff Centre for Visual Arts (£4,744,084 grant) closed after it attracted only 47,500 visitors in its first year, instead of the 220,000 hoped for.
The silly meme that, somehow, "the arts are different" persists generation after generation with no basis in economics or aesthetics to justify it. "Art," at least traditional art (painting, sculpture, etc.), is not a public good any more than any other long-lived product. There is simply no reason to subsidize it, even when it's "good" art.
In the U.S., public funding of the arts is perhaps the purest expression of the politics of pull: a politically-appointed elite, whether the National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Public Radio or the countless state and local equivalents, are given taxpayer money, with few or no strings attached, which they in turn dole out to favored artists based on subjective (i.e., random) judgments about "worthiness" or "importance" or "insert unquantifiable haughty-sounding word here." Subjective favoritism goes into overdrive when it comes to art funding, precisely because no other criterion is even possible. Even truly benevolent, socially-motivated arts bureaucrats cannot help but reduce arts funding to an essentially random lottery of grants.
Still, at least in the U.S. we get bad art for our tax dollars. But how much worse is it when "public funding of the arts" doesn't even fund art, but instead goes to underutilized "art centers" (oops...art "centres") that are the cognoscenti equivalent of the local mall, complete with "artiste" versions of Starbucks or TGI Friday's?
The simple truth is that the reason there are so many "starving artists" is because most artists suck. Now, in the U.K., they have a half a billion pounds worth of empty structures in which to suck. Brilliant.
UPDATE #1: Marginal Revolution reminds us that it isn't just the visual arts that often are better off privatized, as a German orchestra tries playing a different tune.
UPDATE #2: Tim Blair has more from the U.K.
Related Posts:
A Whisper to a "Scream"
Osama Isn't the Only Monster
(Cross-linked at Outside the Beltway.)
Posted by KipEsquire on
8 December 2004
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.