Subsidizing Arts

I went to a ballet this week, and enjoyed it very much. The whole show was refreshing and performed with passion and joy.

At the end of the show, the production leader came forward from his curtain call and made a little speech about lobbying politicians to defend cultural subsidies. In most of Europe, especially the UK and the Netherlands, there are serious threats to these budgets as part of the general drive to get deficits under control.

I must admit I felt a bit insulted. I know the man who made the speech a little bit, and greatly admire him and the work he does. He is talented, very hard working, and also generous and inclusive. Yet on Tuesday I had paid my entrance ticket to see a show, not hear a political lecture. And I also missed any valid argumentation – he seemed to want money because he wanted it, or needed it, or had always had it.

Most of the audience seemed to sympathise with the appeal, though I believe I was not alone in questioning the choice of occasion. But it set me thinking. Why should we invest tax money into culture? Since then I’ve sought out some artists, and read a couple of articles. Typical is this one from twelve months ago. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/27/arts-funding-reasons-subsidise-creativity

My exercise so far has not convinced me at all. The starting point of course has to be that any euro for art is displacing a euro for something else. Even this simple concept seems to be beyond most artists, who appear to share the same convenient belief that money grows on trees with research scientists at Shell. We can argue about how severe budget cuts should be overall, whether starving budgets actually will spin our economies into further recessions, but that is nothing to do with arts.

By the way, that is the same with student fees in the UK. It is easy to be against putting up these fees, but most don’t really think of viable alternatives. Europe needs to save money, both short term because of recent shocks, and long term because of demographics. True, none of us like bankers and many of us don’t like military spending either, but the bald fact is that most discretionary budgets must be cut. Our mental model has to be that by choosing a lower student fee or a higher arts subsidy, we are depriving a school somewhere.

Read the arguments in the article I hyperlinked in the context of choosing between art and schools, and they fall a bit flat. The argument that everyone else gets subsidised so why shouldn’t we is the weakest of all. Some artists I have spoken too have gone further. Art should be subsidised because it always has been. And art should be subsidised because I worked hard to get my qualifications. Hmm. By that token we should still be pouring money into blacksmiths or steamboats. Sorry guys, get real.

True, investment in arts may give a return. The only artist I spoke to with any figures to bolster his case quoted a study from Italy quantifying the economic return from investing in arts, and also higher growth in towns with museums and orchestras. By the way, this artist was the only one I spoke to who actually made his own living without subsidy. No coincidence – someone with some commercial acumen thinks about his own value as well as the value of the wider sphere. True, value comes in many dimensions, but finance has to be one of them. Nonetheless, impressive though these studies may be, it is still a luxury argument in times of cutbacks. If the funds aren’t there, investments can only be made at the expense of alternative investments.

Then the article gets more emotive. Art builds the national brand, and everyone benefits. Someone else I spoke to went further and claimed that art is how we understand each other’s cultures. Maybe true, but schools do all these things too, with the benefits far more clear and universal. And if these benefits are so clear, why do they need subsidies? Why can’t art attract private investment if it is such a good thing?

The final arguments are the most daring yet also the woolliest. Art challenges power. Perhaps we should subsidise journalists too then? The only countries which stifle art also stifle democracy. So if we deprive you of your little grant for your niche early music the whole democratic edifice will crumble? Sorry, I don’t buy it.

The longer I spent researching this, the harder my heart became. I heard whining that only secure long-term funding can work, that turning taps on and off was crippling. Welcome to the real world my friend. In Shell, I can barely recall a single year when my budget wasn’t arbitrarily cut. It is not ideal. But I coped. So must we all.

I heard entitlement mentality, snobbery and laziness. Some artists seem to think that attracting an audience is a sign of lack of quality, a sort of dumbing down. They are only happy doing their obscure but authentic thing in empty halls with their few like- minded friends. And, by the way, with our money! Shell scientists, come back, all is forgiven! And then they argue that if such activities stopped, they would be lost forever. What? In this age of technology? If something is lost, perhaps it is because in some cases it is not worth keeping.

All artists agree on one thing, that the disbursement of the subsidies is flawed. In the UK, a massive share of subsidy goes to the Royal Opera House, preserving something lacking international uniqueness or deep roots mainly for the benefit of a pampered elite. Not much urban regeneration there, I feel.

Sadly, that is the nature of subsidy, it corrupts. Look at the Common Agricultural Policy, or Russia for that matter. Take away open competition, and you are usually left with cronyism. Multiply that over generations, and it gets sicker and sicker. Consider also that large, subsidised, art, may be stifling new talent rather than promoting it. How can an up and coming artist sell tickets in unequal competition with grander performances of established names?

So what are the alternatives? I cannot advocate wholesale loss of museums or orchestras, nor a retreat to musicals and X Factor as commercialism dominates completely. There are, as usual, no magic bullets. Cut the budget and some things will go that maybe ought not to. Ask for philanthropy to step in, as seems to be the American way, and this will distributed almost as inefficiently as state subsidy. We can use some regulation, and also things like bursaries or differential ticket prices, though I recognise these are very partial solutions.

I love art. I hate to think of a society devoid of culture. Of course I do not advocate less art. Yet I can only conclude from my research that a period of subsidy starvation is wholly justified, not only to protect schools, but to shake up, brutally if necessary, a sick culture.

Perhaps you can persuade me otherwise.

Happy 2011, everyone. Count and cherish your blessings. Live for today.