Should Governments Subsidize the Arts? Essay Example

This is a question that has been a ball of contention for quite a number of years. However, it is recently that it has received heightened public attention due to its sensitive nature and varied opinions from the public. Right from inception, controversies have plagued government funding towards aiding projects meant to develop the arts. Whenever governments come up and dedicate funds in aiding a resource or idea, the object in which the interest is put on normally gains increased attention as compared to when the same incentives are received from private entities. Before delving into this argument, there is a need to consider a number of concepts as to why governments should or should not subsidize the arts.

What is art? What is its contribution to the economy?

Art is defined as a skill which is achieved through learning, experience, and observation which the artist uses to express technical and imaginative skill. Dancer Nora Younkin argues that the input of the society in regards to the arts for instance dance is educational as well as economically important. It is well documented that dance and the arts generate revenue for local economies. Nora went on to give details on her argument claiming that arts do create jobs for people as well. She wrote, These include not only performers and dance-makers but also the technical crew, the artistic collaborators, the venues, the technical equipment rentals or purchases, the restaurant down the street from the venue, even the taxi driver that got you to a performance (Price, M.E., 1968). In many instances those that create art benefit themselves as they can sell some of the portraits.

In a recent report, it was claimed that arts had contributed to $135 Billion regarding the financial bustle, $22.3 Billion at the cost in the revenue from taxes and over 4 million jobs. This slightly gives a glimpse of the impact that the arts have on the respective governments.

Some of the factors I considered in answering this question include;

Arts lead to the creation of employment, however, are these employment opportunities adequate to indorse relevant subsidies?

In the event that these government subsidies would never be in existence, would these forms of art still be in creation?

How do the art industry and the culture of art at large influence and affect other industries?

Are the parties that are not involved with the arts either through its creation or consumption going to benefit from the inception of the subsidy?

Is it of the essence to allow the art market determined its own fate rather than benefaction by the government?

In the case of ensuring continuity of certain forms for posterity, do these government subsidies enable maintenance of art forms? For example, if classical music was becoming uncommon to the newer generations, would the provision of subsidies revive it?

In what ways are subsidies on the arts used to offer assistance to groups such as people living with disabilities in terms of employment and improvement of life.

In as much as this issue of government patronage on the arts can be largely regarded as modern, there has been a historical standing right from the renaissance periods whereby famous artists such as Da Vinci used to receive aid from sponsors and patrons, for example, the King of France who was a huge art enthusiast at that time (Sawers, D. 1993, 3200). Also, one major point to note is that government subsidies do not necessarily entail monetary grants but also other various aspects such as concessions on the taxes. Arts have increasingly served apparent input on the economy of countries. This is noticed through social, economic trends whereby a majority of artists migrate into low-income affordable neighborhoods. This movement leads to the creation of new cultures by the creative individuals which subsequently give rise to income. Adversely, the cost of living rises which compels the artists to move out eventually. This scenario to an extent justifies a country in its action to support the arts. As a result of the crucial role which arts have in the society, it is quite okay to be in support of governmental subsidies towards them. This is held by the sentiments of Michael Kaiser, President of the Kennedy Center for Performing Arts who agreed that indeed arts are a necessary aspect of our economy. In addition, Michael acknowledged that government subsidies would be helpful towards arts in terms of budget balancing in the event of inflation.

Governments should offer subsidies to the arts. In the absence of this funding, arts would head on a downfall during tough economic times compelling them to rely on well-wishers and philanthropist who have diminished over the recent past. Without a doubt, it has been proved the arts do advance civic life. This can be seen in diverse fields such as in creative performances and architecture which were supported in early periods and survived to be appreciated to date as a result of governmental aid and input towards them (Heilbrun, J. 2001, 480). Another reason as to why it ought to be critical for governments to subsidize the arts would be because musical, visual and literary arts are necessary for a countrys culture. They create a creative avenue whereby human inventiveness and expression helps in shaping individuals and their society. Public subsidies and funding should be projected towards maintaining infrastructure such as museums and art schools where art is preserved and propagated.

Governments should further subsidize the arts just the same way they are doing to other fields. Their impact and value are almost similar. Just like the education sector, the arts are able to instill critical thinking, communication and inter-personal skills as well as empathy which all together shape and define individuals. A culture which appreciates the arts be it literature, music, and theater has an intellectual benefit which brings forth enlightenment and growth. Further, the arts release pent up emotions providing a channel for getting away from daily objectivity. One of the ways that a government can impact and aid this is through offering incentives towards supporting art schools and permitting the occurrence of art events and festivals. Almost everyone either directly or indirectly benefits from the arts. Art should not be regarded as a product hence should be granted government so that it can keep enriching many people which allows diversity and general value to everyone in the country.

Dating back from history, a society where capitalism is common makes it hard for the arts to be able to support themselves independently. Even the consumers themselves cannot adequately offer enough. That is it is crucial for the governments to step in by offering subsidies just as they do in scientific researches and in the military. This would ensure a defined continuous growth of the arts. Finally, art is a major prerequisite for civilization among other variants such as infrastructure, language, political structure and so on. If a government wants to keep its people civilized, then there is a need for the same governments also to purpose to support the arts. Through the provision of amplified government support for the arts and relative cultural practices, national cohesion is achieved. A number of groups which appeared to be in obvious disagreement with the regime including the artists themselves, theater board members, museum curators, communities and the like would look at the government differently as a result of the subsidies and support hence consequently support the government. This would serve as an important achievement by the governments of these individuals in these various in the arts industry consist of community, business, and corporate welfares as well.

There are a number of practical instances where governments have participated in subsidizing the arts. For example, Greece and Australia (Grampp, W.D.1986, 43). In Australia, the government initiated a subsidy in the industry of movie making through availing reductions on tax at different moments which really boosted the movie industry in Australia as major movies got to shot there. This positively stimulated the economy of the country as a result of the subsidy strategy.

As there are numerous reasons to root for the need in governments supporting the arts through subsidies, there are also opposing reasons as to why governments should not support the arts. Most governments are in debt. The idea to spend more money in funding the arts, often regarded as private enterprises would have consequences and finally affect the taxpayer. The top consumers of art are preferably among the rich groupings in the society. Those who most likely would not be affected in the case where government subsidies were to be upheld or not. The thought to argue that without government subsidies art and culture would diminish and die is not validated. Art has been in existence for ages even before the subsidies came to place.

Subsidizing art is also wrong in the case that inhibits creativity of the artists. Artistic execution normally entails the creation of new things using skills, talent, and abilities that an individual has. If an artist gets helps in making their art, then it becomes impure and with time originality and creativity would reduce. In addition, arts serve a purpose to project a free expression of the artists. This, however, is likely to change in the event that governments get involved. Involvement could be through funding, building, and renovation of infrastructure, organizing events and gigs among several others. This involvement by governments would cause the arts to be vulnerable to government regulations and rubrics. Arts should not be subjected to what the governments see conventional but rather have freedom which can only be guaranteed outside the perimeters of the government. Governments should not offer subsidies to the arts since sustainable resources are not adequate in support of non-critical elements (Zimmer, A. 1999, 36). It is important to note that art is indeed a vital aspect of our culture. However, it lacks an outright requisite for a societys survival. Governments need to establish a listing of priorities and only after the most vital and much needed areas have been adequately addressed is when funds can be set for other sectors.

Appreciation of art or a piece of art is greatly personal. For instance, if a piece is appealing and important to me, I would willingly pay for it. There is no point whatsoever why the government should determine which artwork is important and which piece should be the price in what way. However, in that same tone, what are possible happenings that would take place if the arts were to be denied government subsidies? If this funding was to be completely disregarded, prices of tickets for events and gigs would shoot up. There would be an influx of privately owned art galleries and museums whose prices would be exaggerated. Unfunded forms of art would move to areas where they can be supported. Instead of channeling large amounts of taxpayer money into funding the arts, governments should switch the funding into the provision of crucial services for example education and the National Health Service (NHS). The NHS, for example, recorded a large deficit over their set budget which was coupled with spending cuts in the education sector. Governments aiding the arts in an effort to inspire creative expression would actually be causing the creative approach required by artists to dwindle. Art has always thrived, stayed relevant and been present even in the absence of availability of the government subsidies and funding. Government funding directed towards the arts set inception in Britain in 1946 before where artists such as William Shakespeare received support from independen...