The State of the Arts
the case for government funding

The State of the Arts
the case for government funding

In the acrimonious, debate that has been taking place about government funding of 'high' art we have lost sight of the central question - should the 'high' arts exist? If we decide that they should then we must ask, since the arts at all levels have lived throughout history, why does this fraction of the arts now need special treatment? And finally, if 'high' art does require assistance, who should pay for it?

Laissez-faire sponsorship of the arts worked when there was a functioning market for artistic products. Such a market existed when the arts were an essential part of daily life - when they were a necessity, not an option, because the arts:

• presented the only possible way to record ourselves and the world we inhabited; and
• were the most important and widespread means of entertainment available.

Until comparatively recently, ordinary life, both public and private, simply couldn't exist without the exercise of the arts. They were needed to record any event, person, or object that had to be preserved. And, every duplication of the original meant that the painter had to paint a new picture, the singer to sing again and the actor to play once more.

There was lots of paid employment for artists of all types, at all levels.

Throughout the 19th century, and at an increasing pace during the 20th, technological developments - photography, sound recording, motion pictures, and broadcasting - changed all that.

Only the most skilled painters could produce a likeness of a person or scene to rival that which any camera owner can now create with the tiny movement of a single finger. Though the aesthetics of the resulting picture depend on taste and judgement, the actual mechanics of production are simple and are freely available.

Today the exercise of the arts is optional.

We no longer need the arts to record ourselves or the world around us. There's no real money to be made from them and worse, they can raise difficult questions that may impede political and financial agendas.

In such a world, laissez-faire funding of the arts doesn't work.

Individuals, can buy the odd picture. They may even provide a venue for some of the more commercial forms of entertainment, but even for the very wealthy, the ability to 'change the world' is limited. For the rest of us there are more important things to do with our money, particularly in a climate of rapid change and great uncertainty.

Even though many corporations sponsor the arts their ability to do so is limited as they have a responsibility to their shareholders to extract the maximum financial return from moneys invested.

Clearly the return from sponsoring a major, televised, sporting event is far greater than that from supporting the ballet. But, since the officers of a public corporation can exercise some discretion, the arts do receive some funding from the private sector.

The problems with corporate sponsorship is that:

• it is unstructured and random;
• in the scale of things it is insignificant;
• it is mostly directed at large organisations like the opera, ballet and the major theatre companies - it rarely trickles down to grass-roots operations like La Mama or even Mietta's, the restaurant we recently closed.

How can it be otherwise? The only organisations large and rich enough to have a real effect on the position of the arts in society are the three levels of government, particularly the Federal Government. They are also the only bodies with a mandate to assist the arts.

As that great 20th century social planner, Margaret Thatcher, said: "There is no alternative".

So, without government support most of the 'high' arts can never be more than a hobby - does this matter?

Well, that depends on whether there is more to art than just a means to represent our physical world, or entertain us.

If you think that the role of art in society is purely utilitarian, then stop reading now! Contact your Federal, State, and Local Government members and lobby them to:

• stop all arts funding;
• ban the teaching of art in our schools and colleges; and
• privatize, or preferably close, all lending libraries.

On the other hand, if you believe that art is more than just a tool, then reflect on what it can do for us today.

Technological change has not been confined to the arts, it has also re-ordered the way we interact each other. The telephone tore the pen from our hands, and, though the fax may have slipped it back into some, the days when we communicated by writing, or speaking directly to someone, have long gone.

This trend is set to continue. I believe, that within the foreseeable future face-to-face contact between people will become a rarity - it will have become a 'niche market'.

If, or rather when, the Internet becomes the most important means of communication, and of interaction, between people, and safety (i.e. fear of our fellows) confines us to our homes and to workplaces which isolate us from human contact, then we will need some way to touch that part of the human spirit which can't be transmitted by fax.

Art does exactly that. It explains us to ourselves and to others.

In a world of isolated, Thatcherised individuals, strung out along a network of telephone lines, we will need this 'explanation', these intimations that humankind is capable of more than just 'fear and loathing'. Art will be needed to remind us that we can feel human warmth and compassion - that we are capable of generous, nay, noble, ideas.