
Who funds the arts and why we should care - mrgintl
http://on.ft.com/1ubPM0g
======
grimtrigger
I think that its important to note that as a culture - we have more access to
art than any time in history. Music, movies, literature is at our reach with
unprecedented ease.

This article is not talking about art as a whole, but "The Arts". I'll be
playing a tiny violin for them.

------
contingencies
True story: I went to the _Bangkok Arts and Culture Center_ in Thailand last
year. Showing in prime position was an 'exhibition' about the dangers of
counterfeit medicines, sponsored by a major international pharmaceutical
syndicate and facilitated by a European consulate. It was mostly composed of
art by children in Indonesia on the subject. The whole thing gave me the
heeby-jeebies.

------
lazylizard
if Artists(capital A) are to be given no-strings-attached money then why not
everyone?

why don't they do their own ice bucket challenge or something to raise their
own funds if they're not happy with their current sponsors?

------
Sungho
This article seems to presuppose that "Art" is some independent entity (from
what? All sponsors?) and that corporate sponsorship of art is problematic.
Namely, that corporate sponsorship of art either sanitizes the image of
morally reprehensible organizations or that the sponsors and the message of
the artistic work itself are in conflict.

But, as the article rightfully notices, this is hardly new. It is a
partnership that goes back for millenia. So for the author to claim that "the
sheer weight of discontent suggests we are reaching a tipping point", it
demands fairly convincing evidence. And to this effect, the author is
tremendously underwhelming.

The simple truth is that the arts are realized to be important to society
(although the specific reasons seem to differ depending on who you talk to)
but are incredibly hard justify spending lots of money on "for art's sake".
It's similar to the tension that exists in funding very basic science
research. Yes, there is the outside possibility that we will generate work
(artistic or scientific) that can contribute greatly in a pragmatic sense
(i.e. a return on investment) but the great majority of endeavors will
probably fall short.

The most convincing arguments for artistic funding are the ones that are being
criticized: sending a specific message either indirectly (i.e. Company X
supports the arts and is therefore a great humanistic organization) or
directly (Company X commissions an artwork about subject Y). And this
criticism does seem to stem from the fact, as mentioned in the article, that
“Much avant-garde and contemporary art is actively hostile towards capitalism.
If an artist who is critiquing corporate power is presented as part of this
branded apparatus, the work is being betrayed quite fundamentally.”

But already, this statement suggests a solution. Have the artist retract their
work. I suspect this doesn't happen more often both due to the legal
complexities in consenting that your art may be shown at an institution, and
the fact that it would mean a lot of artists actively shunning exposure on
some of the most lucrative stages.

And so ultimately that's the crux of the argument: artists need to be funded
to get exposure and survive. If we want them to be truly independent (again,
from what? The article seems to cast it in the narrow sense of capitalist
influence) then we need to find an alternative way of funding them.
FURTHERMORE, and I think this is the truly difficult part, we would have to
explicitly prohibit the commissioning of art by these agents.

The reality would be that we would have much less art than we do now, and
existing art would be harder to see, too. For example, insurance for
masterpieces isn't cheap. That money has to come from somewhere. And if so,
you just have a situation where corporations don't commission art - they just
ensure it can be displayed.

Lastly, though, and this is what the real logical flaw of the author is, does
art truly depend on context? I know that this is the classic post-modern
argument, but the emotions that we feel when seeing art are probably quite
unique to us. They might be the message the artist is trying to convey, or
they may not. Either way, even if the capitalist system wants me to interpret
an artwork in a certain way, it doesn't necessarily mean that I will.

~~~
jerf
I tend to ask this sort of piece to identify clearly "What is your ideal?"
(I'd ask the author, but I can't, so asking the piece has to do.) Like so many
others, I think that this does a lot of hand wringing but won't answer that
question, either because the author hasn't examined it herself, or because on
some level they either wouldn't like the answer or wouldn't want it to get
out.

Of course the answer will vary from person to person. But rather a lot of
artists would, if they answered honestly, seem to want to live in a world in
which they are paid string-free money to just Art, and when it comes down to
it, that's not realistic, nor is it particularly fair to anybody. I mean,
that's great and all. I'd like to be handing string-free money on account of
the sheer radiant awesomeness of being me, but that's just not on the agenda
here.

It's not as if government money is string-free either... it just so happens
that the artists in question _like_ playing the tunes that the artist-funding
portion of the government is calling. Which is their right, but makes this
whole thing a lot less about the Morality of Artistic Funding and a lot more
just grungy money grubbing.

~~~
SnacksOnAPlane
Actually, I think the future is that people are all given string-free money.
If you want more money than the baseline, you have to earn it through the
market, but I think a decent, livable wage should just be provided to
everyone. It would be a net benefit to society as a whole and have very little
downside.

~~~
jerf
"Basic Income" is an entire other problem. No Basic Income proposal I have
ever heard will be enough for some of the performance art installations
artists will want to build, nor should they be. It is perhaps a solution for
musicians (they can burn through dough, sure, but at least equipment tends to
last), or artists of more modest goals, but it is not a generic solution to
the funding problem.

