What's wrong with government funding of the arts?

"I think when ordinary working people come home, turn on the TV and see a gala of a bunch of people at a rich gala ... all subsidized by the taxpayers -- claiming their subsidies aren't high enough when they know those subsidies have gone up -- I'm not sure that's something that resonates with ordinary people."

Stephen Harper

Of course, we're not really having a discussion about the arts, culture, and what role, if any, the government should have in it - it's all about soundbites and 'gotchas' and who is ponying up the biggest amount of $$ at the trough. So, I've decided to open things up a bit. As a follow-up to this post, here are some thoughts on the topic from U.S. economist Lawrence Reed that are equally applicable to Canada :

[T]he fact that the arts are wildly buffeted by political winds is actually a powerful case against government funding. I’ve always believed that art is too important to be dependent upon politicians, too critical an aspect of culture to be undermined by being politicized. Furthermore, expecting government to pay the bill for it is a cop-out, a serious erosion of personal responsibility and respect for private property.

But those “studies” that purport to show X return on Y amount of government investment in the arts are generally a laughingstock among economists. The numbers are often cooked and are almost never put alongside competing uses of public money for comparison. Moreover, a purely dollars-and-cents return — even if accurate — is a small part of the total picture.

The fact is, virtually every interest group with a claim on the treasury argues that spending for its projects produces some magical “multiplier” effect. Routing other people’s money through the government alchemy machine is supposed to somehow magnify national wealth and income, while leaving it in the pockets of those who earned it is somehow a drag. Assuming for a moment that such preposterous claims are correct, wouldn’t it then make sense from a purely material perspective to calculate the “average” multiplier and then route all income through the government? But isn’t that what they do in Cuba and North Korea? What happened to the multiplier in those places? It looks to me that somewhere along the way it became a divisor.

What if, for instance, “public investment” simply displaces a certain amount of private investment? (Arts subsidy advocates never raise this issue, but I know that I personally am far less likely to make a charitable contribution to something I know is on the dole than I am to something that I know rests upon the good hearts of willing givers). What if “public investment” brings with it some baggage like political manipulation that over time erodes the integrity of the recipient institutions? How does that fit into the equation? What if I, as a taxpayer who earned the dollars in the first place, could keep what the government would otherwise spend on the arts and invest it in my kid’s college education and end up getting twice the return on my money than the government would ever get on the arts?

...

Sometimes, those of us who put faith in such things as the individual, private property, the marketplace, etc., are accused of being focused solely on dollars and cents. But I think that usually, it’s those on “the other side” who are more guilty of this. The arts funding issue is a case in point. Public funding advocates are focused on dollars — more of them, always more of them, and no matter how much public funding of the arts we have, it will never be enough for some. Those of us who wish to nurture the arts privately stress many other, and far more important values. I believe, for example, that money that comes voluntarily from the heart is much more meaningful than money that comes at gunpoint (which is ultimately what taxes are all about). You’ve won so much more when you convince people to do the right thing, or support the right causes, because they want to instead of because they have to. For that reason, I don’t believe in shotgun marriages either.

I can think of an endless list of desirable, enriching things in life, of which very few carry an automatic tag that says, “Must be provided by taxes and politicians.” Such things include good books, nice lawns, nutritious food, and smiling faces. A rich culture consists, as you know, of so many good things that have nothing to do with government, and thank God they don’t. We should seek to nurture those things privately and voluntarily because “private” and “voluntary” are key indicators that people are awake to them and believe in them. The surest way I know to sap the vitality of almost any worthwhile endeavor is to send a message that says, “You can slack off of that; the government will now do it.”

...

Now, I know that art is just about everything to some people, especially those whose living derives from it. But as adults, we have to resist the temptation to think that what we are individually doing is somehow the greatest thing since the proverbial first loaf of sliced bread and that therefore it must receive more than what people give it willingly (that is, that it should also get some of their money unwillingly through taxes).

...

When some people hear me say that [funding the arts is not a legitimate role of government], they think I must be denigrating the arts or somehow assigning them an unimportant role. Not at all. I think child-rearing is pretty darned important. But that’s a parental responsibility first and foremost. I think reading good books is pretty darned important, but that doesn’t mean it’s a government function to make us do it. Making sure there’s food in the grocery stores is important, but as we know, there’s always less of it in places where the government says it will grow it and stock the shelves for us (North Korea being one good example). As I said earlier, lots of things are critically important in life and sometimes all we do is endanger or trivialize them when we turn them over to the government.

The rest.

UPDATE: I think this about sums it up:

"Subsidy is for art, for culture. It is not to be given to what the people want. It is for what the people don't want but ought to have. If they want something, they'll pay for it themselves."

Sir Humphrey Appleby, Yes Minister

[source]

UPDATE: What the hell does this mean?

“We should be the landlords of our own industry, not the tenants,” said veteran actor and CBC presenter Gordon Pinsent. [source]

Note to Mr. P. - landlords are, by definition, owners. So if by your statement above you are signaling your intent to encourage your friends toward the risks and rewards of genuine entrepreneurship - by all means, be my guest - this taxpayer at least would thank you.

A few from the (668 so far) comments to the Globe article above:

Last time I checked though receiving gov't subsidies and dipping into slush funds to travel the globe to promote one's work doesn't make you a 'landlord'.

As any landlord will testify , you need enough for the down payment.

If you can't contribute the 10% needed , then stick with renting and cease the panhandling whine.

Mr. Pinsent a landlord has made a heavy investment into his/her property in order to be able to rent it out to tenants and in turn to hoepfully collect a return on his/her investment.
Similarily the arts and culuture community should invest in itself, or seek private investment, if it is to succeed in this country. Only then can it truly become self-sufficient. For example, if a production company is consistently producing flops how long would private investors continue to back a bad product. Here in Canada we seem to back prenneal losers. We must find a balance.

And on, and on, and on. Perhaps a few of Mr. Pinsent's supporters show up further down in the thread...

UPDATE: And a good discussion about that Harper quote I opened this post with (which does not imply I agreed with it - I don't) over at Raphael Alexander's.