Policy of reality versus reality of policy

Brain, please check this table from “The Council of Europe/ERICarts, Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, 10th edition, 2009” entitled “Total government expenditure on culture per capita (2000-2008).” It is prepared by agencies of the European Union under scientific standards. As the title suggests, they surveyed 36 European countries and give the numbers for yearly public arts funding from 2000 to 2008.

http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/statistics-funding.php?aid=117&cid=80&lid=en

The table shows that government expenditure for the arts went down in only 2 of the 36 countries. This is conclusive proof of my claims.

And please remember that the UK is far outside European norms. It is the only country that combines the American and European system.

And BTW, you contradict your main point when you note that European film still receives healthy subsidies. Some film-makers do, but it has still not allowed Europe to counteract the effects of Hollywood's hegemony.

It might be clarifying to make the distinction between regulating how end-users (i.e. individual consumers/creators/citizens) interface with culture and regulating how large media and telecom companies are allowed to control the conduits.

The former category is, as you note, often futile, a technical impossibility. The latter is only a matter of education and political will.

87% of Americans think big companies have too much power, according to the Harris Poll. I can't even think of another issue that 87% of Americans agree about!

I should say, despite this post, that I tend to be in favor of regulation. Unquestionably, as Kevin points out, deregulation has had disastrous results on this country, from pointless wars, our financial markets and oil in the gulf. I'd concede media deregulation as well. Steve Tepper and Bill Ivey have also argued the growing privileged culture/fast food culture divide, and I don't disagree. And I too am suspicious of the "let's toss everything out and it will all work out" school. All conceded. So it's a little odd to find myself so pessimistic about the course of regulation of culture. But the whole process seems so weighted in favor of traditional Big Media interests, I wonder about the utility/futility of even walking onto the field. It seems time for some subversive action. Where I see small victories, they seem to be of the subversive sort.

While no one would argue that the supply and quality of art is plummeting, I am certainly willing to argue that whatever increased access we're enjoying now is still largely mediated by class position, geographic location, broadband access, etc, and that the media deregulation of the 90s has had absolutely disastrous impacts on the diversity of voices--artistic and otherwise, that people can access. People like Douglas and I, educated guys who live in big cities with many cultural amenities might not see it. But people I work with across the country, especially in small towns and rural communities generally feel crushed by the way Wal-Mart culture has steamrolled their local civic life & cultural heritage.

I'm thrilled that more people have access to the tools of creativity, and I love projects like Creative Commons, but I've learned to be extremely suspicious about optimistic rhetoric about empowering individuals that's tied to "regulation is an old way of thinking" messages. It's the same stuff we heard during the deregulation era of Clinton. It obscures the ways shallow forms of participation through interactive media can often be tools to increase people's investment in the products of a handful of major entertainment companies and other brands and business interests.

Thomas Frank's 1995 essay "The New Gilded Age" seems oddly on point fifteen years later.