It should be asked: Do government subsidies in the arts produce great works of art?
Personally, and I know people are gonna get loopy on this one, I don’t think subsidies in anything are what they’re cracked up to be.
Let’s take an example from politics. One subsidy that drives me crazy is the one where my taxes go to all political parties in the name of keeping democracy healthy. It seems to me that if, say, Canadians decide to vote for only the Conservatives and NDP (two parties that can actually get donations from people) and wipe out the Liberals (the “natural” governing party - snicker, snicker) isn’t this real democracy at work in that the people have spoken through their votes?
Why should a person who freely gives from their own pocket to Party A, for instance, be forced to support Party B through their taxes? Where’s the fairness in this?
Similarly, in the arts, why should people pay for arts they may not like? Some people don’t even care about the arts and culture - and that’s their choice to do so. There’s a lot of subsidized art I find to be, well, lame.
We’re big on the rhetoric of why we need to pump taxpayer money into a lot of things. One popular argument used in defense of subsidizng the arts is it “protects” culture. Another is it makes a person’s creation accessible to a larger audience and allows for artists to travel to showcase their work. At this point, I’m reminded about something Mordecai Richler once said after being asked to give advice to aspiring authors. He bluntly asserted, “write better.”
I have a few reasons why I’m sketpical of subsidies of any kind - be it in business, science, whatever. First, they tend to reward losing companies in losing industries like Bombardier. And why does Bumbardier get subsidies? To save jobs? Bah. Always remember, money is scarce. The money thrown at big corps usually means there’s less of it for small, profitable businesses. It ain’t about jobs. The economy can absorb job losses. Rather, it’s more of a case of them being plugged in to government officials.
What about what’s the criteria to determine which artist gets the cash? Something tells me the one who knows how to play the political game and gets inside the inner-sanctum will usually get it.
Another problem is that it may or can encourage people who think in their heads they’re artists but in reality actually suck. They’d probaby serve society better in accounting or something.
Finally, there’s no real way to measure (just like the government has no real mechanism to determine if they’re getting a return on the bail outs they dish out) if we’re producing any works of art of note.
I know there’s also a debate about this in the United States about whether the NEA has produced anything of worth since being introduced in the late 1960s. Didn’t America manage to produce Louis Armstrong, Cole Porter, Ernest Hemingway, Judy Garland, Merrie Melodies, (yay Bugs Bunny!) and on and on and on without government involvement in the arts? Government interventionism as a means to an end is soooo 1960s.
In fact, the greatest achievements in human history basically came when government interventionism didn’t exist. I know there were Monarchies and patrons but as a whole this was the case. Plus there were no bureaucrats getting in the way determining who gets the cash.
Now the savvy among you will counter with CANCON as a successful government program protecting and enhancing Canadian artists. But as far as I know, CANCON doesn’t subsidize anyone. Instead, it forces radio stations to maintain a quota by playing Canadian music. Sure, many great Canadian singers and bands benfitted from CANCON but I’m willing to bet they probably would have succeeded without it anyway. In any event, CANCON is a CRTC initiative and until that organization becomes more accountable and transparent I see no reason why to defend it. How can a public organism be so secretive? Above all, such regulations only restrict choice.
So. Do government subsidies (and if you’re from Quebec you may want to cover your eyes) don’t produce great works of anything or just more of it?
I could be wrong. I’ll let our dear readers chomp at the bit on this one.