{"id":3005,"date":"2024-04-18T06:37:38","date_gmt":"2024-04-18T13:37:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/?p=3005"},"modified":"2024-04-18T06:37:39","modified_gmt":"2024-04-18T13:37:39","slug":"why-public-funding-for-the-arts-a-personal-view","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2024\/04\/why-public-funding-for-the-arts-a-personal-view\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Public Funding for the Arts: A Personal View"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u00a0wrote a book<\/a>\u00a0looking at how different ways of moral and political theorizing drew different conclusions regarding whether the state should, or should not, subsidize the arts. At the very end of the book I give something of a personal view. There is a review circulating that is terribly confused about this (I won\u2019t link – I read it so you don\u2019t have to), and so I thought it would be worthwhile to just put out there what I wrote in this short conclusion, edited for brevity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

First, to make a claim for public funding for the arts it is necessary, as it was for Keynes, to assert there is an intrinsic value to the appreciation of art. Sociologists and economists who study cultural goods in society generally, as an aspect of their methods, do not make judgements over people\u2019s cultural preferences. The economist takes consumer preferences, not only for private goods but also over public goods and externalities, as data, imposing no evaluation over whether an individual is interested or relatively uninterested in aesthetic contemplation, or, if they are interested, as to whether they have directed their contemplation to works that are worthy of such contemplation. Through the economists\u2019 method, public funding is warranted only for those public goods or externalities that are valued (in terms of their benefits being greater than their costs) by the general public. It is conceptually possible to fund the arts this way, though it will have the practical difficulty of trying to discover precisely what those consumer valuations of non-market goods are, and whether it is worth the process at all regarding genres of art that are only loved by a minority. That this method has never been the basis of a public arts funding system is telling. \u2026 Public funding for the arts requires a turn away from economists\u2019 consumer sovereignty, and contractarian state strict neutrality. \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One can insist on a neutral state regarding the good, but it is not how the Arts Council (and all the subsequent arts councils) were founded, and the rationale for public spending on the arts quickly withers without the guiding assumption that there is something intrinsically good in appreciating beauty and the arts (these not being the only intrinsic goods) and that people are better off with encouragement and subsidy that connects them to the arts. Further, the point of arts funding is to promote the intrinsic value of aesthetic appreciation, which means that there must be judgments in the funding body as to what artists and presenters rise to the level of artistic excellence where such appreciation is warranted. It is not simply a matter of \u201cmore art\u201d, but art that enhances people\u2019s well-being beyond the cultural goods that are easily and cheaply obtained in commercial markets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026Our cultural lives are not a function of the sheer number of artists, and the quality of art depends not upon sheer volume, but on the ability of great artists to connect with, and move, those people who form her audience. If quantity were all that mattered, we would hardly need public funding of the arts; we are overwhelmed with cultural options without any arts council grants. The goal is something different \u2013 a capacity for engagement \u2013 that requires something more of the public funding scheme than simply increasing the number of books published in a year, or the number of songs uploaded to Spotify. \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, caution must be exercised in any motives for public funding of the arts that go beyond the intrinsic good of aesthetic engagement.  \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the decision has been made to provide state subsidies to the arts, the immediate question is: what sort of art? How will allocation decisions be made, whether the decision is made by an arm\u2019s length arts council, or more directly through a Minister of Culture? Artists, and arts presenting organizations, will naturally want to know the criteria used in funding decisions, and to at least some<\/em> degree will be influenced by them. When the funding criteria are determined, that is exactly what the funders hope for: \u201cwe are going to reward this<\/em> sort of thing, in the hopes you will do more of it.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If it is made clear in the criteria for funding that non-arts, instrumental benefits are the justification for the subsidy, perhaps because there is a perceived positive externality through the arts for \u201ccommunity development\u201d, or \u201cnational unity\u201d, or for political messaging of a particular type (though careful not to offend community standards), or for increasing \u201carts participation,\u201d then arts organizations and artists will respond. That is the point.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the pursuit of any of these goals distracts artists from focusing on their art as art. And that is a genuine loss. It is not that community development, or people feeling a sense of national unity, are bad things. But they are being achieved at a cost. The effects of artists pursuing these \u201cinstrumental goals\u201d might in fact have very minimal impact on their targets, but we will have lost what would have been the outcome of the artist\u2019s pursuit of her artistic goals and vision. There are other policies that can contribute to community development, or better public health outcomes \u2013 and if advocates for public arts spending base their argument on instrumental benefits, it is only natural that the government will ask whether there are more effective means of achieving those benefits other than through the arts \u2013 but there is no substitute for art proper. \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In any government program involving a small amount of funds, and that characterizes arts funding, it makes sense to ask where those funds could have the most impact, where they could do the most good, in ways that other programs could not do better. Lowering inequalities between people is a very worthy goal, but there is not much that a public arts budget will be able to do about that, relative to simple redistribution of income. The same is true for improvements in public health, and for the economic prospects of a region. There are other types of infrastructure and spending that can be activated that more directly targets the problem to be solved. What arts funding can<\/em> do is affect the arts \u2013 encouraging artists and presenters to produce great work, and presenting it to audiences. If one is convinced that there is a moral foundation for public funding for the arts, and is willing to allow the state some leeway to encourage our having a richer cultural life, then the focus is best place on the art itself. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s it. I don\u2019t see this as a radically conservative position, nor one that takes an \u201ceconomistic\u201d approach, or that insists De gustibus non est disputandum; <\/em>quite the opposite. But there you have it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cross-posted on Substack: https:\/\/michaelrushton.substack.com\/p\/why-public-funding-for-the-arts<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I\u00a0wrote a book\u00a0looking at how different ways of moral and political theorizing drew different conclusions regarding whether the state should, or should not, subsidize the arts. At the very end of the book I give something of a personal view. There is a review circulating that is terribly confused about this (I won\u2019t link – […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":3006,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[26],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-3005","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-issues","8":"entry"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/image.png","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p3dIW5-Mt","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":4628,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2025\/12\/john-careys-what-good-are-the-arts\/","url_meta":{"origin":3005,"position":0},"title":"John Carey’s “What Good are the Arts?”","author":"Michael Rushton","date":"December 18, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Literary critic and academic John Carey\u00a0died last week at the age of ninety-one. I always enjoyed reading his reviews. If you hadn\u2019t already guessed how the Bloomsbury set and their literary contemporaries viewed common folk, his book\u00a0The Intellectuals and the Masses\u00a0gives you chapter and verse. I enjoyed\u00a0Henry Oliver\u2019s appreciation of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "issues"","block_context":{"text":"issues","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/category\/issues\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/image.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/image.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/image.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/image.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/image.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/image.png?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":4611,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2025\/11\/bill-ivey\/","url_meta":{"origin":3005,"position":1},"title":"Bill Ivey","author":"Michael Rushton","date":"November 12, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Bill Ivey died this past weekend; he was eighty-one years old. It came as a shock to us - just last week he was here in Bloomington meeting with our arts policy students, something he loved doing. He was a great friend to our program, generous with his time and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "issues"","block_context":{"text":"issues","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/category\/issues\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/image-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":684,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2013\/04\/creative-communities\/","url_meta":{"origin":3005,"position":2},"title":"Creative Communities","author":"Michael Rushton","date":"April 19, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"I'm happy to report that Creative Communities: Art Works in Economic Development has been released by Brookings Institution Press. Some background: In 2011, discussions with the Research and Analysis branch of the National Endowment for the Arts led to the idea for a symposium on \"The Arts, New Growth Theory,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "issues"","block_context":{"text":"issues","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/category\/issues\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"creativecommunities_2x3","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/04\/creativecommunities_2x3.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":1442,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2014\/08\/sir-alan-peacock\/","url_meta":{"origin":3005,"position":3},"title":"Sir Alan Peacock","author":"Michael Rushton","date":"August 7, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"I was saddened to read of the death of Sir Alan Peacock, a most influential figure in the scholarship, and application, of economic analysis of the arts. The Daily Telegraph's obituary is here. I remember back to when I first began exploring the field of cultural economics, and his (then\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"Alan-peacock_2995991b","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/Alan-peacock_2995991b-300x187.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":2780,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2022\/05\/book-diary-may-23-what-is-equity-in-the-arts-a-first-look\/","url_meta":{"origin":3005,"position":4},"title":"Book Diary – May 23 – What is Equity in the Arts? A First Look…","author":"Michael Rushton","date":"May 23, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"There are two ways to approach equity, which I'm going to define as a fair or just set of entitlements or outcomes among people, not necessarily equal, but fair. One way is to focus on people's disposable income: what are people able to buy for themselves? How they spend their\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "issues"","block_context":{"text":"issues","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/category\/issues\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"some restrictions apply","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/food-stamp.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/food-stamp.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/food-stamp.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/food-stamp.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/food-stamp.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/food-stamp.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":2729,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2022\/04\/book-diary-april-27-arts-funding-and-welfarism-merit-goods-who-cares-if-you-listen-and-a-first-look-at-perfectionism\/","url_meta":{"origin":3005,"position":5},"title":"Book Diary – April 27 – Arts Funding and Welfarism, Merit Goods, Who Cares if you Listen?, and a first look at Perfectionism…","author":"Michael Rushton","date":"April 27, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"'I think there can't be too many pictures and statues and works of art,' Hyacinth broke out. 'The more the better, whether people are hungry or not.' Henry James, The Princess Casamassima This week (and the next few weeks) I have been wrestling with the topic of perfectionism in moral\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "issues"","block_context":{"text":"issues","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/category\/issues\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/James.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3005","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3005"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3005\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3008,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3005\/revisions\/3008"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3006"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3005"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3005"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3005"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}