How do artists make a living at something that is, in a strictly economic sense, useless and unprofitable?
Most importantly for my purposes today, where should they get their money from?
I just read an article claiming that in America about 90% of art is sponsored by private means, and 10% of the money comes from government subsidies. In certain European countries, on the other hand, the numbers are the other way around; governments there subsidize 90% of art, while private donations make up the other 10%.
The author of the article also implied that it is rather crass for private corporations to sponsor so much art, as if the millionaires were saying, “Art is a luxury, not a necessity. And you owe this luxury to Mr. Moneybags.” The author of the article obviously held just the opposite, that art is a necessity that should be provided for by the state.
As we all can recognize, however, private corporations aren’t the only organizations with ulterior motives for supporting certain artists over others. How many state subsidies for art go to completely unworthy artists because they are friends of a politician or because they support a certain political agenda? Neither government nor private enterprise is safe from trying to use art for its own purposes.
At the same time, however, it is obvious that many great works of art are due to the patronage of government (e.g. court painters) or business (e.g. Charles Dickens writing for profitable magazines).
Where, then, should the money come from? Should it come from the government, from private corporations, or from somewhere else? Is there a best solution?
3 comments:
What an interesting topic! I'm inclined to lean towards private patronage of the art. There are always going to be rich people who know nothing about what they are buying, the tragedy of markets ruling the world! I can see the government having a museum or two, but otherwise I think it should stick to concentrating on monuments and aesthetic architectural projects- initiatives actually connected to our nation.
Creation of art, though the primary question, is not the only one here. Preservation and presentation also cost money. I'm reminded here of the National Gallery, whose construction funds and collection came from Andrew Mellon (with some pieces donated by other wealthy contributors), whereas the location on the National Mall and the operational budget come from the government. That sort of public-private partnership may be the answer, at least some times.
This is an interesting topic. I would think that the govt would also have an interest in educating the nation, generally, about art, so that there would continue to be an audience for the cultural heritage of the nation (also an interest of the govt) and possibly future artists. Museums are one way, classes in the schools are another, more widespread. Beyond that, though, I think it best that govt be very careful in influencing and financing art. Art seems a self-governing field in general. Those in artistic communities decide for themselves what is "quality", though the general public would decide what is "popular". Private donors with personal interests in the art or the artists seem to support the "quality", but the govt seems primarily to get involved with "popular" since that art has shown it's "successful" and of general interest (national expression?). A pity there's not more of an audience for the "quality" art, but that's probably more a feature of education, which can only be improved so far by the general system.
Post a Comment