The Shotgun Blog
« Worldviews Matter | Main | The Olympics are past halftime . . . »
Monday, August 18, 2008
Lemieux: Abolish cultural subsidies
Government subsidies to the arts have been in the news lately. Specifically, Prime Minister Stephen Harper seems committed to slashing them left and right. And many of us are saying, "About bloody time!"
In this week's column, Pierre Lemieux argues that all government culture subsidies should be abolished. Not cut. Not scaled back. Eliminated entirely. Unlike other commentators, he suggests this wouldn't only be good for the budget, but for the arts themselves.
As Lemieux points out, Picasso didn't get subsidies. True, if you go back far enough, you'll see that artists have sometimes received assistance from the state (I'm thinking of the Renaissance here.) At the same time, economic relationships were a tad different in those days, with wealth concentrated in the hands of an elite, and so it was necessary for artists back then to seek the patronage of aristocrats.
Now? Get the artists off welfare. People will pay voluntarily for the art they like. Why should the band "Holy F-ck" receive taxpayer assistance?
Nor is this a free speech issue, as some have tried to make it out to be. No one is talking about banning "Holy F-ck" or other controversial art. They retain their freedom to be as audacious and as offensive as they wish. We just don't think taxpayers should be paying subsidies to artists -- any of them.
Some excerpts from Lemieux's column:
"In what French political scientist Bertrand de Jouvenel calls “totalitarian democracy”, where the democratic state intervenes everywhere, there is no obvious answer to the question of whose culture and lifestyle the state should support. Should the majority oppress minorities or should minorities get a piece of the cake?
It is not a defensible solution to stop subsidizing this or that group of artists because the party in power happens not to like them. The real solution would be to abolish all cultural subsidies."
...
"Cultural subsidies are not much different than if each subsidized artist was given a revolver and told to collect the money himself."
Posted by Terrence Watson on August 18, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5540b2a8b8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lemieux: Abolish cultural subsidies:
Comments
One question that comes to mind reading this is: What would happen to the arts in Canada if all government funding were eliminated? And the answer, I think, might be one that conservatives might not like. You see, bands like Holy Fuck would exist whether or not they got government funds. Visual art made by artists that most people only ever hear about when there is a controversy over government funding would still be made. In fact, the sorts of things most likely to disappear from the artistic landscape are expensive, ensemble productions that most typically are exemplified in "high art".
Symphony orchestras, opera companies, ballet companies, and classical theatre companies produce the sort of work that is, on the one hand, very expensive to produce and, on the other hand, with a small enough fan base that it is hard to sell enough tickets at a high enough price to pay for it. (I have heard of scalpers getting big bucks for Elton John tickets, but not for TSO or National Ballet tickets.)
Recently, the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra got a $250,000 government grant to perform at the Beijing Music Festival in October. Holy Fuck, for the record, got $3,000 to help them do a tour of the UK in 2007. The BC Government brags in the press release announcing the funding that the VSO played for 200,000 people last year, the same number as the attendance at a single festival where Holy Fuck performed recently.
Without government money, the four guys in Holy Fuck would no doubt still pile into a van to tour to play their music. But without government money the VSO (with close to 100 members) might disappear, along with all other smaller symphonies. Now, I am not saying that this is a good reason to continue funding the arts, but opponents of such funding need to be clear what the effect would be when making the case rather than throwing out casual references to bands like Holy Fuck in the hope that people will react to the name of the band alone. It's a good propaganda technique, but not at all honest. The truth is that more "fringe" artists that are easy to vilify in funding debates would much more likely survive the elimination of all government funding while a lot of "high art" might not.
[[ As a postscript, I should also add that personally, I wouldn't go to a Holy Fuck show if I got free tickets (instrumental electronica is not for me, thanks). I also have never attended a ballet, opera or symphony show (unless you count the ones I was forced to go to when I was a kid).]]
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-08-18 9:28:18 AM
Fact Check,
Good points. "High art" would probably be hardest hit if government subsidies were abolished.
That's tough for me. I like classical music; and I've voluntarily attended the opera (with a girl, so it was all okay... I think?)
On the other hand, Jan Narveson, my old professor, regularly holds chamber music concerts in his house in Waterloo. Although I might be wrong, I'm pretty sure he's never received subsidies from the government to do this (he's a bit of a libertarian, heh.)
At the same time, it's possible the musicians he's booked have received such subsidies. So while his concerts might continue, who knows if any performers could attend?
We may have to bite the bullet on this one.
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-18 9:44:40 AM
I'm with Terrence on this one. "High Art", and I play in a (small town) City Band that tries to get funding. They/we will struggle but will survive as many such organization's members receive no pay and there are many keen private donors for infrastructure and expenses.
Why should the Joe-Sixpacks who may prefer C&W be taxed to subsidize the guys wearing tuxedos and who arrive at the concert hall in a Limo.
FC has a good point as well. I don't know anything about H...F... but I can't think of anything more culturally depraved than Rap which enjoys incredible success without subsidies.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-08-18 10:17:01 AM
Terrence, Fact Check – put your crystal balls away.
We can use better economic reasoning than just speculating as to whether or not high art would be privately financed. The government would have us believe healthcare wouldn’t be financed if it wasn’t for the government.
As long as entrepreneurs can capture the full benefit of their investment, why would they not finance high art? They can collect ticket sales, corporate sponsorships, revenue from record sales, donations from rich people, etc. High art is a “private good,” and not a “public good,” as it is excludable. There is no so-called market failure here.
Practically speaking, symphony goers are also a great market if you’re selling luxury cars, or expensive vacation homes. These people are rich. They can afford expensive tickets and they buy expensive things. That sounds like a workable business model.
Besides, owning a symphony, like owning a sports team, doesn’t have to be a great investment. It will no doubt appeal to someone’s vanity. (Now I’m using my crystal ball. I’m put it away.)
Our governments consumes half of GDP. What if it consumed only 10%? That would leave a lot of money in private hands to sponsor culture and sport and whatever else people care about.
The government should cut all culture funding and then offer a 100% tax deduction for every dollar donated or spent privately on the previous recipients of those culture grants caped at their highest level of taxpayer support in any given year in the past five years. This would be a good way to transition toward complete private sector funding without hurting the cultural sector in the process. I just came up with this scheme, so it might be unworkable, but so is the current system.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-18 10:26:56 AM
Matthew,
Yeah, just to be clear: I wasn't claiming that the collapse of high art (sans subsidies) would be an example of a market failure. It wouldn't be, given the meaning of the term.
I'll put away the crystal ball. I'm still not convinced that there would be enough interest in the symphony to keep it going on a widespread basis AND make it affordable to most people if the subsidies vanished. But in saying this, I'm indicting people's preferences, not the market (libertarians can still do that, right? ;-)).
I like your proposal. Actually, it strikes me that it would also be a good way to phase out other government programs.
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-18 10:37:15 AM
The $3000 for a European tour is a small portion of the actual cost. The Heritage minister spent over $3000 to fly from Ottawa to Calgary http://www.pch.gc.ca/div-dis/dfva-dthe/verner_josee/rapports-reports/voyage-travel_e.cfm?yr=2008&qtr=2&row=2 so it seems a bit rich to single out that one grant as finacially iresponsible.If the group was a classical quartet would it draw the same attention.
The cultural sector employs thousands of people who are taxpayers - not including the artists. Look at the credits of a 1/2 hour TV show or on the inside of a CD and count the number of people listed.
The reality is the Canadian business sector is not large enough to support the arts completely on it's own. Other than the U.S. state support seems to be the norm not the exception.
Posted by: kevink | 2008-08-18 11:17:07 AM
The government should cut all culture funding and then offer a 100% tax deduction for every dollar donated or spent................
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 18-Aug-08 10:26:56 AM
What's your definition of culture?
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-18 11:45:36 AM
Once again Pierre is right on the mark. I am with those who oppose any government funding (understand our money) directly or indirectly to this area.
It is interesting though how some want to have it both ways. They demand our money and then claim the government has no right to decide how it will dole out the money.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-08-18 12:06:12 PM
I'm with Lemieux.
If the proponents of "high art" or "gutter art" want, they can solicit corporate sponsors to help them stage their works, or they can put them on at very little cost, or they can incur no cost at all because no one wants to support them.
The slurping at the public trough has gone on for far too long and is far too arbitrary. Who gets the government grants? The most "edifying" plays, orchestras, bands, writers, painters, playwrights? Who determines what is most "edifying" or "avant garde" or "new and exciting"?
The cheerleaders and hangers-on of the "ruling party" of the day get most of the public largesse to the detriment not only of those on the artistic and political margins and the poor, beleaguered taxpayer but also to the detriment of truly original and ground-breaking art.
I haven't read "CanLit" for years: For the most part, it's derivative, its themes echo and imitate the social engineering agendas of the lib-left-fem-socialists, and the story lines are predictable and BORING.
Why should the taxpayer have to pay for THAT?
Posted by: batb | 2008-08-18 3:27:30 PM
Lemieux is absolutely right on.
Just more common sense from the Conservative ranks.
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-08-18 4:31:30 PM
That the CBC draws over a billion a year while many hospitals go without is an atrocity. End the CBC NOW!!!
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-08-18 4:48:18 PM
Right on, ZP.
The CBC? GET. RID. OF. IT. NOW.
An aside: I keep putting a check mark beside "Remember personal info?" and every time I go to post again, Name and E-mail address show up as empty spaces. This didn't used to happen. How come the site won't remember me?
Boo hoo.
Posted by: batb | 2008-08-18 5:01:25 PM
The CBC draws all that money from our coffers while exerting a Liberal/Left political bias.
Only entities that serve the common good should be funded by the government of the people. The CBC has long overstepped it's boundaries. It no longer merely gives the news, it skews it to manipulate opinion.
That same tactic follows most programming coming from that corporation. It's even obvious in their comedy shticks such as Air Farce and This Hour has Twenty-Two Minutes.
Hey, we recently had a CBC alumni go to al Jazeera by the name of Avi Lewis. May a few more follow.
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-08-18 5:21:35 PM
It would be nice to see each CBC employee not only fired, but forced into exile. We don't need their kind anymore.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-08-18 6:53:43 PM
It would be nice to see each CBC employee not only fired, but forced into exile. We don't need their kind anymore.
Posted by: Zebulon Punk | 18-Aug-08 6:53:43 PM
We could send them to Alabama to keep you company.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-18 6:58:03 PM
To set the record straight, I attend classical concerts and enjoy them. I also take part in an amateur choir that sometimes performs in the same venue as professional choirs and orchestras. We charge the same for our tickets as they do. Unlike them we sell out all or most of the house, please the audience and make a good contribution to our finances. We do not ask for government money.
Would the large orchestras fail if not subsidized? Perhaps, but not if they played what the audience wants to hear instead of subjecting the audience to programs laced with avant-garde music or performances that offend the ear and the eye. Bringing your audience along by inserting small touches of of the unusual will work but they must be brought along gradually. These organizaions must sell their product as aggresively as possible if they want to survive.
Indeed, cut all such subsidies.
Posted by: DML | 2008-08-18 10:21:58 PM
LIZ J: Yes, and well written by an anarchist.
Posted by: attitude | 2008-08-18 10:46:14 PM
ATTITUDE, did something strike a nerve? Has it come to the point that criticizing the CBC for bias and waste is considered anarchy? If that's the attitude, the clean-up is long overdue.
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-08-19 6:25:48 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.