Government Arts Subsidies: Do They Harm the Arts?

While the issue of arts education and training often receives substantial government funding to support various vocations such as carpentry and geology, it is crucial to consider the potential negative impacts of government funding on the arts. This article explores why government arts subsidies might harm artists, the public, and even the very values they aim to promote.

The Master and the Servant

In a democratic society, citizens establish a government to serve their best interests and reflect their values. Art is a powerful means of creating and transmitting values, making it an agent of society rather than a servant. However, when the government funds art, there is a risk that the servant may become the master, which is inherently inappropriate.

This concern echoes the satirical notion that “art is too important to be left to governments”, as famously articulated by Lee Smith. Governments often endorse or censor art, leading to a distorted representation of the arts and their values.

Critique and Ideological Bias

Another danger of government arts subsidies lies in the critique of values. When the government supports certain forms of art, it can distort the discourse and promote ideological slants. For instance, the French government under Jack Lang and Bruno Lion exemplified this issue, where state-endorsed rock and roll became a competing narrative against mainstream genres like Green Day and Nirvana.

“Soviet rock: Endorsed by the state. Who will watch as Marilyn Manson hosts the Kennedy Center Honors?”

The appearance of state endorsement can harm some art forms. It creates a hierarchy where certain voices are amplified, and others are overshadowed. For example, endorsing Jeff Koons’ work with public funds forces taxpayers to support art that they may find non-challenging or even offensive.

The Dumbing Down Effect

Moreover, government-funded arts often lead to dumbed-down, non-challenging art that crowds out more diverse and challenging forms. This occurred with the rise of liberal-leaning NPR, which crowded out the more liberal but advertising-supported Air America. Similarly, when government supports certain arts, it can crowd out other forms of art, leading to a monolithic cultural landscape.

Religious Analogies and Art Critique

My arguments against government arts funding share some parallels with those against government support of a particular religion. Just as governments should not be involved in promoting religion, they should refrain from dictating or endorsing specific forms of art. When governments try to address values beyond basic laws like “don’t steal” or “pack out your own trash,” they often descend into controversy and govern more by ideology than by the people’s will.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while government arts funding can seem like a noble cause, it can also harm the very values and values-transmitting institutions it aims to support. Art, like religion, should be free from government control to ensure a diverse and vibrant cultural landscape. It is essential to recognize that these subsidies can create master-servant dynamics, endorse or censor certain art, and even crowd out challenging art forms. Ultimately, a more nuanced and self-critical approach to government arts funding is necessary to preserve the integrity and diversity of the arts.