Why, in our society, should the state spend the money collected from many taxpayers to subsidize the few who attend the opera and ballet, and consume the works of avant garde artists and writers?
Respecters of tradition connect these subsidies with the state’s support of higher education. They don’t object to the state performing the patronage role that the aristocracy and the church used to play in former times. On the other hand, many critics believe that the state unknowingly identifies its interests with those of the leisure class. The state, they say, is being a snob.
In Canada, there is no universally accepted theoretical basis for these subsidies and no one is demanding one. But since the ’sixties, and especially in these days of debt-induced austerity, old assumptions are increasingly being questioned.
There is a new way of looking at this problem, which does not raise the spectre of elitism. It’s not a matter of cultural policy at all, it can be argued – it is a matter of social policy. Whenever market forces are proving inadequate, the state should assist the maintenance – and creation – of socially useful communities that contribute to human well-being. Opera-lovers are a community, so are gallery-goers, so are readers of books. And so are supporters of public broadcasting.
In Canada, when common sense does not offer an answer, a committee consisting of Companions of the Order of Canada, of judges, doctors and union leaders could, if necessary, define what is meant by “socially useful.”
I’ve always thought governments support the arts mainly because doing so confers prestige on the country in question. Arts support says “We’re the sort of country that cares about the finer things in life, not one of those lesser states that must limit expenditures to the obviously useful” and is thus a kind of conspicuous consumption at the collective level. If, as you propose, a way could be found to distance arts support from elitism, I wonder how long it would retain its appeal?
There is another way of looking at it – it occurred to me during the night.
The state has taken responsibility for public health, i.e., Medicare.
Why not also for cultural health?
In political terms, this may be the case of a way too many ‘special interest groups’ with vested interests and mutually incompatible ‘cultural value’ platforms on both sides of the issue for any single one of them to be willing and/or able to forge a consensus as ‘a matter of social (or any nominally public) policy’.
In economic terms, this would likely be a case of ‘market failure’, a combination of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ externalities, and a questionable supporting role of the state (‘government failure’).
In cultural (or ‘common sense’) terms, it could normatively be deemed as a ‘socially constructed pathetic disaster’.
Appreciating the “higher arts” requires intellectual effort, however the rewards are great. Is it not wonderful that the state subsidizes these opportunities so that they are available to a more universal audience? If many don’t care to participate, that is their loss.
As an aside, the word “snob” is short for sans noblis, an Oxbridge term mean someone not of noble birth, a striver or nouveau that took on the characteristics of the noble born.
And how will you get opinions from those that don’t ‘consume’ the arts?
Is the problem with basing the case on state responsibility for “cultural health” not that there may not be a consensus on what is comprehended by “culture”, whereas there is a general understanding of the concept of “health”?
True. When Dr. Goebbels heard the word KULTUR, he pulled out his gun. It’s a loaded term.
We have libraries because as a society we agree that anyone (no matter how poor) has a right to explore the treasury of books and knowledge accrued over generations and have access to new ideas occurring now… We should fund public art galleries and music performances (not necessarily a whole music season!) I just mean having artists perform free public concerts which the government could sponser – so that anyone can experience, enjoy and come to appreciate the legacy of art and music from past generations, and have eyes and ears opened to new music and art as they find it. What is a society if its citizens cannot share all the pleasures of books, art and music equally? And there is no ‘elite’ appreciation of the arts – most people take pleasure in beauty, in music and have interests that libraries allow them to pursue. We may differ in what books, what music, and what art we value but most people will find something they love. Elitism would be to deny people that access
There are many reasons why the state should support opera. First of all opera creates many jobs, which generate income tax. I know that the government gets more back in taxes than it gives in support to Stratford. I strongly suspect the same is the case with the COC. As far as the snob appeal is concerned, opera can be considered an art form where the rich heavily support an entertainment which is enjoyed by ordinary folks, which is readily obvious to anybody who attends a performance. Even the ticket prices range from very high to very inexpensive so everybody can enjoy a performance.
The arts are the soul of a country and promote a country international. Most European would not be able to name one of our hockey players, but are more likely to know one of our opera singers.