There is a well-known internet meme that quotes Britain’s war-time leader Winston Churchill’s response to a proposition that arts funding should be cut in favour of the war effort. His retort was: “Then what are we fighting for?”
Not surprisingly this quote has again been circulating over the internet in the wake of the Federal Government’s decision to slash A$87m from the arts budget, only a few weeks after its controversial decision to spend A$12 billion on 58 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.
The quotation, however, is fake. The earliest source for it is apparently an article in The Village Voice from 2008. It is a timely reminder to us all, in this brave new media landscape, of the susceptibility of social media to misinformation.
But it is also something else.
Its frequent reappearance speaks of a deeper longing many of us have. We want the quote to be genuine because we believe the arts indeed do hold out a promise – perhaps in the same way that Churchill’s own life can do for some people – of a higher purpose for our existence. We want to believe in an idea of what it is to be human that goes beyond the merely utilitarian.
Or, to use language more familiar to the current political landscape, we wish the arts to help us understand what it is to live in a society not just an economy, what it is to aspire to a quality life, not just a comfortable lifestyle.
More immediate motives, however, shaped Joe Hockey’s first budget, in particular his desire to “end to the age of entitlement” and return the budget to surplus. In setting out to realise this economic goal, the arts have been asked to play their part (albeit a very small one given the relative size of the arts portfolio). But was he right to see the arts as just another activity of government that needs to be wound back?
This depends, ultimately, upon one’s views of the proper role and limits of the free-market economy. If, for instance you believe the thesis of Michael Sandel, author of What Money Can’t Buy (2012), the answer must categorically be “no”.
The underlying question that government should be asking, Sandel suggests, is not how we balance the books (important though that task is), but rather:
how we want to live together. Do we want a society where everything is up for sale? Or are there certain moral and civic goods that markets do not honour and money cannot buy?
Sandel’s argument is, to be sure, more subtle, and ultimately much more powerful, than a quotation or two here can convey. Essentially, he is arguing that the survival of civil society itself depends upon the cultivation of a sense of ourselves that transcends the limitations of marketplace thinking (and that’s where the arts can play their part). But if our politicians lack the will or the imaginative capacity to argue their case beyond the realm of the economic, these limitations are liable to become hidden from view.
An example of how this problem ultimately constrains all sides of politics might be the results of the Roy Morgan research poll, conducted a day after the Budget was delivered. It claimed that:
Australian consumers (88%) and businesses (74%) overwhelmingly believe Treasurer Joe Hockey’s Federal Budget last night will not benefit them.
This suggests the Government’s case for short-term austerity for the greater good has fallen largely on deaf ears. Our sense of self, it seems, is at risk of becoming rather selfish. Are we just “Australian consumers” or do we aspire to be something more? Civil society is premised on the idea of a greater good that connects us all, that we indeed live in a society not just an economy.
Tim Thornton is one academic who has argued that part of our problem may lie in the way we educate our economists. For Thomas Piketty, the economist of the moment, the problem lies even deeper: it may be a fault in the very nature of capitalism itself.
I would not want to suggest, however, that the arts, like the proverbial Caesar’s wife, are themselves above political suspicion or economic or philosophical interrogation. Indeed, I have strenuously argued on The Conversation and elsewhere that arts institutions themselves must share responsibility for their failure to remain, it seems, something self-evidently “worth fighting for” in our political domain.
And it would be a brave commentator indeed who would suggest that there were no justifiable reforms to be made across the arts portfolio.
But we elect politicians to be visionary leaders, as well as prudent financial managers, and it is a pity that the current government has confined its political message – in the arts at least – more to the latter quality.
FAQs
At the NEA, the Budget of $210.1 million, which is $3.1 million more than the Fiscal Year 2023 Enacted amount, will: Bolster the Agency's Signature Grants for Arts Project (GAP), Our Town, and key Leadership Initiatives.
Should government fund the arts? ›
The arts make communities vibrant, welcoming and desirable.
It creates jobs and stimulates commercial traffic, all of which leverage neighborhood revitalization, attract diverse populations and strengthen communities. Capitalizing on these effects of creative placemaking requires strong public-sector support.
Why is funding the arts important in schools? ›
Research shows that education in the arts improves student social-emotional well-being, keeps students in school, increases the graduation rate, boosts academic performance, and adds to students' ability to create, collaborate, think critically, and communicate.
How much does the government spend on the arts? ›
According to the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, California now invests 0.66 cents per person in the arts, which places it 26th out of 50 states in per capita spending.
Is the NEA funded by the government? ›
The National Endowment for the Arts is an independent federal agency that funds, promotes, and strengthens the creative capacity of our communities by providing all Americans with diverse opportunities for arts participation.
How does the NEA get its money? ›
NEA's revenue totaled $529.5 million during 2022–23, with $374.2 million coming from membership dues and $135.3 million coming from the sale of investments and fixed assets —things like stocks, bonds, and index funds. In the 2022–23 reporting period, all this revenue came from selling Bank of America securities.
How are the arts funded today? ›
In the US, public funding for the arts derives from federal, state, and local government sources. The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) receives congressional allocations. State Arts Agencies (SAAs) receive legislative appropriations from states and the federal government.
How does public art get funded? ›
Public art is typically funded through the government, but increasingly through public-private partnerships as well.
Why should people support the arts? ›
The arts are fundamental to our humanity. They ennoble and inspire us -- fostering creativity, goodness, and beauty. The arts help us express our values, build bridges between cultures, and bring us together regardless of ethnicity, religion, or age. When times are tough, art is salve for the ache.
Why is spending on the arts important? ›
Owning a significant artwork allows individuals to immerse themselves in the rich tapestry of artistic expression throughout the ages. Collectors appreciate the aesthetic beauty, craftsmanship, and unique perspectives conveyed by artists, and they are driven by a desire to preserve and enjoy these cultural treasures.
Arts experiences boost critical thinking, teaching students to take the time to be more careful and thorough in how they observe the world. The arts provide challenges for learners at all levels. Art education connects students with their own culture as well as with the wider world.
Why should schools be fully funded? ›
If fully funded and administered as ESSA was written, nearly every school district in the country would receive an annual allocation that they could use to: increase student access to STEM, computer science and accelerated learning courses; provide mental health services to students; address drug and violence ...
Why would a government provide funding for art? ›
CIVIC CATALYSTS: The arts create a welcoming sense of place and a desirable quality of life. The arts also support a strong democracy, engaging citizens in civic discourse, dramatizing important issues and encouraging collective problem solving. precious cultural character and traditions along to future generations.
Why do arts cost so much? ›
The materials used and the time spent creating a piece can also impact its price. High-quality materials and meticulous craftsmanship demand a higher price. While subjective, the aesthetic appeal of an artwork can influence its price. Unique, visually stunning pieces are often valued higher.
How does public art benefit the economy? ›
Commissioning public art can bring numerous benefits to a city, including: Attracting tourists and visitors: Public art has the power to draw people in and make them want to explore a city. This can result in increased tourism and economic growth.
How much is the NEA worth? ›
The independent investigation or NEA (Non-Examined Assessment) is worth 60 marks in total and forms 20% of the total A level assessment.
Who funds the National Endowment for the Arts? ›
Grant applications are reviewed by panels of arts experts and individuals from across the country. All grants must be matched one-to-one by nonfederal sources, except for individual grants to writers and translators. NEA funding is appropriated by Congress annually.
What is the NEA economic impact of the arts? ›
The overall arts economy grew by 4.8 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars between 2021 and 2022, a rate increase far surpassing that for the entire U.S. economy during the same time period. Since the pre-pandemic year of 2019, arts and cultural industries have surged by 13.6 percent.
Does the NEA fund individual artists? ›
The National Endowment for the Arts has awarded fellowship grants to over 11,000 individual artists since 1966.
