Subsidizing art
The debate on whether the government should subsidize the arts has raged on for a significant period with both sides holding on to their arguments and beliefs. Those against the move argue that art falls under the private sector. As such, involvement from the government is unwarranted as the support issued in the form of subsidies is reserved for projects that will have significant impact on society and the people in it. In opposition to the argument, those in support of subsidizing the arts consider people against the move as uncivilized and lack the understanding needed to grasp the importance of art to society. Despite being in the private sector, art is of great relevance and its implications greatly influence the way people live their lives. It is therefore important to demonstrate how the government’s involvement in art through subsidies will help to boost the impact it has in society as well as support the artists’ interests. Although art has remained in the private domain, the government should subsidize arts as a way to ensure the sustainability of a tradition that has been passed on through generations and also increate the impact that art has on society.
One major reason why the government should subsidize the arts is to enable artists to reach a larger audience with their work. Despite operating in the private sector, art has yet to get the exposure needed to give artists equal share of the benefits reaped through art. Often times, the pieces created are as a result of the artist’s hard work and sacrifice (Reed, 2015). A significant number of artists have to create their own art, come up with original ideas and seek out the material needed to make their ideas tangible through art. Before a piece of art is made available to the public, the artist has to overcome great obstacles and still remain creative enough to create a piece that the audience will appreciate (Reed, 2015). While some artists find it relatively easy to present their work to the public, there are those who struggle to gain enough attention to earn a living through art.
The challenges that artists go through are further intensified by the fact that the value of art is often determined by the audience. Although the artist’s reputation and past work do contribute to how a new piece of art is viewed, most of the value placed on art lies on the impact that the piece will have on the audience; their experience with art and the manner in which it is presented to the public. Take the case of Van Gogh as an example. Despite having passed away in 1890, his work remains relevant even in today’s society and his pieces are among the most highly priced in the market today (Zuidervaart, 2009). Even with the advancement in technology, creativity and emergence of new artist, an artist from the realism period has remained relevant in a world where art has taken center stage. The relevance of such artists today acts as proof of the impact that art has on society and the value that people place on it.
One major reason behind the dominance of some art pieces has to do with the quality, originality and emotions put in to the work by the artist. Since art is more a form of expressions, artists need the right environment to express this emotion or call to action through art in a way that allows their audience to connect (Zuidervaart, 2009). While a significant number of art pieces has emerged without the government’s involvement, subsidizing the arts will create more exposure and this will allow newer art pieces to come to light and compete with the likes of Van Gogh. Other than creating exposure, government subsidies will likely create a more conducive environment for artists which will in turn allow them to tap in to their creativity and come up with more compelling work and in so doing so, propel the growth for art forward.
Another argument in support of the government subsidizing art has to do with creating equal opportunities for all artist to benefit from their work. Other than the reputation held by the artist, the value of art is often determined by the impact it has on the audience (Marotta, 2017). As such, it is difficult for artist to gain the full benefits from their work if they are yet to make a name for themselves or are represented by a reputable organization. Since art operates in the private sector, various organizations and influences in society have managed to control how people view specific pieces of art (Marotta, 2017). Huge organizations for example are able to benefit from the art they showcase simply because they have the right following and access to the right channels. These organizations are in a position to benefit from the opportunities that exist for artists and unless an artist is affiliated with such organizations or influential individuals, the artist’s work has a higher chance of going unnoticed.
The severity of the issue is further intensified by the fact that most artist opt to work on their own rather than be tied to an organization. Art is a form of expression and in order to work on projects that suit the artist, most artists are very selective of the organizations they work with. A significant number of artist opt to pursue their art on their own and make creative pieces without being restricted by the organizations or trends in society (Reid, 2009). While such freedom allows the artist to create art they can relate to, artists that choose to operate on their own find it hard to make a mark in the art world. This is regardless of whether their art is exceptional or not (Reid, 2009). The influence and power that organizations dealing in art have over society have created an environment where the value of art is also influenced by the name of the artist and the organization representing them. Individuals who decide to go at it on their own have to overcome the challenges that exist and also find a way to outdo the organizations and artists who have already made a name for themselves.
If the government was to subsidize art, it would help reduce the power and control that select organizations have. Rather than allowing select individuals to influence society over what art they consider to be of interest, the government can help ensure that all artists get a fair opportunity and the right platform to showcase their work. While the organizations will still retain their influence and power, the government’s involvement will see to it that even small artists have a platform to present their work to the public (Reid, 2013). In addition, government subsidies will make it easier for small artists to access material and the equipment needed to work on their pieces. Painters for instance can benefit from better canvases and paint to work with. The government can help reduce the cost of some products and spearhead the innovation and development of more affordable products to use.
Reducing he challenges that small artists face will in turn increase variety and quality of art made. Artists will not only have less restrictions when making their pieces but also have a ready market or audience to present the pieces to (Reid, 2013). The public in turn will be exposed to a variety of art and the added exposure will make it easier for them to determine the value of art on their own rather than relying on the opinion and predisposition of specific individuals or groups. Attention will shift from the artist or the organization presenting the art and focus more on the art itself and the feelings and emotions it evokes (Sawers, 2006). This will in turn make it easier for artists to benefit from their work. While such an outcome will result in a decline on the value placed on single pieces of art, it will balance the scale such that the rewards for artwork are relatively average and this will ensure that all artists get equal opportunities to make the most from their pieces.
Other than creating opportunities, government subsidies will help to enhance the sustainability of a people’s culture. Art is often a depiction of the events, experiences, opinions and attitude that the artist has. These predispositions are as a result of the experiences that the artist has had; events going on in society; societal norms; traditions; beliefs and occurrences that take place in society (Reed, 2015). As such, art is often used as a tool to communicate a people’s culture and in so doing, preserves it in a form of art. If the government subsidizes art, it will be able to advocate for artists to create more pieces that help to preserve culture. Since art tries to achieve a common good for the general public, failing to support artists is a failure on the side of the government.
The government should also subsidize art because the art industry does not function like other industries in the private sector. Most organizations are driven by the desire to make profits. This pushes them to analyze the market they operate in and then develop products or offer services to meet this demand. The organizations further target an audience that will pay for the service or buy products, thereby helping the organizations to make profits (Reed, 2015). Art however focuses more on expressing oneself through the various pieces that the artists create. Unlike other organizations that first identify a need and then create a product or offer a service to satisfy it, art focuses more on the product itself. Instead of trying to identify what the audience will like first and then come up with a piece of art to meet this need, artists solely focus on the piece itself (Reid, 2013). While society’s expectations and experiences are a factor, the push behind the original piece is often influenced by other factors that are no necessarily intended to ensure that the audience likes the piece. Artists approach their art with an approach that creates a piece of work and then present it to the public for them to determine what impact it has on them. This adds on to art’s ability to have a different impact on different people despite viewing the same piece.
The different approaches taken when determining what the audience want is therefore more reason why the government should subsidize art. Operating in the private sector means that the art industry is exposed to challenges such as inflation (Marotta, 2015). While other businesses can cope with such challenges by increasing productivity, the art industry is unable to do so because the final product is more a want than a need. Government subsidies are therefore important as they help organizations and artists to source the funds needed to remain operational.
An argument can be made against the government subsidizing art as its involvement could interfere with the quality and freedom expressed through art. Most, if not all, forms of art are designed in such a way that the feeling evoked is left to the audience. While the artist does communicate some information regarding the piece and why it was created, most of the reactions evoked through art are as a result of the impact that the art has on the individual (Meyer, 2014). The government’s involvement is therefore a cause for alarm as the subsidies provided could create an environment where the government tries to influence the type of art created by artists. The assumption is based on the belief that governments should prioritize their support to organizations that make profits and are in a position to help develop the community (Holmes, 2010). There is also the assumption that the art industry is not as beneficial as other projects that deserve subsidies and that it should be left to fend for itself.
In addition, those against the government subsidizing art believe that any shortcomings are as a result of failures on the side of the industry. Since the audience places value on a piece of art, there is the misconception that lack of profits from the art industry is due to the lack of quality pieces (Meyer, 2014). Instead of relying on government subsidies, artists should focus more on improving the quality of their art to attract higher prices. Instead of relying on help from the government, artists should learn to overcome challenges similar to other organizations that operate in the private sector.
While there are various reasons opposing the idea of the government subsidizing art, they are not significant enough to make a valid case. Failure to support art simply because is not as profitable a venture compared to other organizations in the private sector only shows where the government’s interests lie. The government has a moral responsibility to look after the people’s interests. These interests are not always financial and even when they do not have any monetary gains, the government has a responsibility to ensure that the interests of the public are addressed. Furthermore, the lack of government involvement has created a system where taxpayers are unable to access art especially the ones classified as exceptional due to the price tags attached on them. With the government’s involvement however, art will receive more exposure and artists will benefit more from their work as a result. It is because of such reasons that the government should subsidize art.
References
Daniel Reid, (2009) An American Vision of Federal Arts Subsidies: Why and How the U.S. Government Should Support Artistic Expression, 21 Yale J.L. & Human.
Holmes J, (2010) “why we must fund the arts” The Guardian
Marota J, (2017) “Public funding for the arts” Forbes
Meyer J, (2014) “Who should pay for the arts?” City Journal, retrieved from, https://www.city- journal.org/html/who-should-pay-arts-11318.html
Reed W, (2015) “Excuse me professor: Challenging the myths of progressivism” Simon and Schuster print
Sawers d, (2006) should the taxpayers support the arts?” The Institute of Economic Affairs
Zuidervaart L, (2009) “Art in public: An alternative case for government arts funding” the Other Journal
