Pain in the arts: Critiquing the creative funding carve up
It’s generally accepted that the arts – from ballet to butoh, kapa haka to community collage courses – deserve public funding. But do they? As we enter arts festival season and head off to enjoy multiple taxpayer-subsidised nights out, it’s a question worth asking.
The arguments in favour of using your money to pay for someone else’s passion are many, varied and compelling, ranging from purely commercial ROI (return on investment) calculations to inspirational waffle about enriching souls and making lives worth living.
Yes, there never will be enough money to satisfy everyone. A similar situation applies in such areas as health, education and reform of the criminal justice system, but we keep paying for oncology treatments, even though we may never get cancer.
Only the most zealous philistine is opposed to creative types getting their paint-stained hands on your money. But there is no shortage of zealous philistines whose 5-year-olds could do that, so the case must be made.
Critic, librettist, screen writer, biographer, poet, academic and commentator Roger Horrocks makes the case for funding the arts as what’s called a “merit good”.
“A government should attempt to create a rich, healthy way of life for its diverse population,” he says. “It also needs to support the arts because they contribute to [improved] mental health, social communication and wellbeing.”
And not just for ourselves but for the future. “Nature is a good example of something whose rewards everybody accepts, but which has no financial value.” Just as supporting the environment creates a natural legacy, supporting the arts ensures there will be a cultural heritage for those to come.
So much for the human spirit. Let me show you the money.
Even the bottom-line-obsessed boffins of the OECD see a value in the arts beyond the merely commercial. In its 2022 report, “The Culture Fix: Creative People, Places and Industries”, it notes that the arts “combat marginalisation and promote inclusivity in society” and improve “the wellbeing and health of cultural participants as well as consumers”, concluding public support is important so that these benefits are “effectively harnessed to steer growth and development”.
And for those who lack a soul, the purely financial case for funding is forcefully made in a US National Assembly of State Arts Agencies policy brief that would melt the heart of a Taxpayers’ Union member. Artistic activity, it says, stimulates business activity, attracts tourism revenue, retains a high-quality workforce and enhances property values. The arts have been shown to be a successful and sustainable strategy for revitalising rural areas, cities and populations struggling with poverty. Small businesses and individual entrepreneurs are critical to every state’s economy. “The arts are a dynamic contributor to the small-business sector.”