Posted 3:00 am Monday, May 07, 2012
Send to Kindle
Arts Are Beyond Goverment Control
There are plenty of fiscal reasons for rejecting the New York Times’ “Room For Debate” suggestion last week that government should raise taxes to support the arts.
But there’s an even stronger argument, made by the Cato Institute’s David Boaz: Government shouldn’t fund the arts because the arts are too powerful.
The Times launched the “discussion,” which included Boaz, by answering its own question.
The Times launched the “discussion,” which included Boaz, by answering its own question.
“What can we do to stabilize funding for the arts?” it asked. “Can we learn from other countries’ examples? While arts funding is drying up in parts of Europe because of austerity measures, it’s flourishing in Brazil because of a tax on Brazilian companies. In an era when the National Endowment for the Arts is stretching its budget to fund digital art projects, what can be improved upon? How can public and private sectors work together?”
In fact, the arts in Brazil are awash in tax money — $600 million this year, garnered from a 1.5 percent payroll tax.
In fact, the arts in Brazil are awash in tax money — $600 million this year, garnered from a 1.5 percent payroll tax.
But is the arts community flourishing? Parts of it, sure. But the man in charge of doling out the funds acknowledges he has trouble deciding which are most worthy. The government agency, by necessity, picks winners and losers. And it exercises control over things it does control; even in this seeming arts utopia, no money comes without strings attached.
Robert Lynch, of Americans for the Arts, praised the Brazilian system.
“What we need is the collective will to move beyond debating whether the arts should be supported, and toward what they have already decided in Brazil: that the answer is yes — and here is how we here in the United States agree to do it,” he wrote.
Robert Lynch, of Americans for the Arts, praised the Brazilian system.
“What we need is the collective will to move beyond debating whether the arts should be supported, and toward what they have already decided in Brazil: that the answer is yes — and here is how we here in the United States agree to do it,” he wrote.
Sergio Muņoz Sarmiento warned against government funding for the arts.
“Mandating government and corporate subsidies for the arts raises a few concerns for me,” he wrote. “Will mandated art subsidies affect the quality of artistic production? Will this type of funding encourage a passive artistic community? And finally, will it create a curatorial practice on behalf of granting institutions?”
But the strongest case against government funding for the arts came from Boaz.
“What do art, music, and religion have in common?” he asked. “They all have the power to touch us in the depths of our souls. Which is precisely why art, music, and religion should be kept separate from the state.”
It’s a lose-lose proposition, he explained.
“Government involves the organization of coercion,” Boaz wrote. “In a free society coercion should be reserved only for such essential functions of government as protecting rights and punishing criminals. People should not be forced to contribute money to artistic endeavors that they may not approve, nor should artists be forced to trim their sails to meet government standards.”
Government funding means government involvement, he explained. “That insight, of course, is part of our folk wisdom: ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’ Defenders of arts funding seem blithely unaware of this danger when they praise the role of the national endowments as an imprimatur or seal of approval on artists and arts groups.”
He likened it to another pitched cultural battle.
“The American Founders knew that the solution to the Wars of Religion was the separation of church and state,” Boaz wrote. “Because art is just as spiritual, just as meaningful, just as powerful as religion, it is time to grant art the same independence and respect that religion has: the separation of art and state.”
The Times asks how the public and private sectors can best work together on this. The answer is that they shouldn’t.
“Mandating government and corporate subsidies for the arts raises a few concerns for me,” he wrote. “Will mandated art subsidies affect the quality of artistic production? Will this type of funding encourage a passive artistic community? And finally, will it create a curatorial practice on behalf of granting institutions?”
But the strongest case against government funding for the arts came from Boaz.
“What do art, music, and religion have in common?” he asked. “They all have the power to touch us in the depths of our souls. Which is precisely why art, music, and religion should be kept separate from the state.”
It’s a lose-lose proposition, he explained.
“Government involves the organization of coercion,” Boaz wrote. “In a free society coercion should be reserved only for such essential functions of government as protecting rights and punishing criminals. People should not be forced to contribute money to artistic endeavors that they may not approve, nor should artists be forced to trim their sails to meet government standards.”
Government funding means government involvement, he explained. “That insight, of course, is part of our folk wisdom: ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’ Defenders of arts funding seem blithely unaware of this danger when they praise the role of the national endowments as an imprimatur or seal of approval on artists and arts groups.”
He likened it to another pitched cultural battle.
“The American Founders knew that the solution to the Wars of Religion was the separation of church and state,” Boaz wrote. “Because art is just as spiritual, just as meaningful, just as powerful as religion, it is time to grant art the same independence and respect that religion has: the separation of art and state.”
The Times asks how the public and private sectors can best work together on this. The answer is that they shouldn’t.
