I have probably blogged about this before - I only have seven or eight regular thoughts and four of them are about tuna, so it seems likely - but I can't find it. Feel free to skip if you know what's coming.
I've just read this post from Marbury about the fact that arts funding is likely to be cut for the same reasons that everything is going to be cut, and I agree with him, as usual. Arts funding is a sign of civilised society but there is less money around and everything is being cut, so what can you do? And so on.
My question is: art funding is usually described as a subsidy for uneconomic stuff, and it probably is that, but has anyone done maths on how it underpins the artistic sector's contribution to the overall economy?* The existence of a vibrant theatrical, literary and artistic culture, partly funded by the taxpayer, may allow the emergence of Andrews Lloyd-Webber and JKs Rowling. OR, and I totally accept this, it may have no influence at all. But I think it probably does.
Because, when you look at what Britain exports, at the literal stuff we make to sell, one of the big ones is artistic product. We haven't got big uranium mines. We don't have forests full of lovely valuable trees. But we have to make stuff to sell. Artists make stuff to sell. This is by no means on earth a direct parallel, but factory owners depend on having raw materials to produce products for sale, which employs people in factories and shops and so on. I have been to a factory turning stuff I made up out of nothing into a saleable artifact, and lots of people were employed in this process.
What role does a writer have in an economy. Is it (in some queasy way) analogous to that of a miner or farmer? I am not pretending I don't have a very easy life, etc., etc., but I do think writers and so on should sometimes point out that, unlike most people who complain about them being spongers, they actually make stuff, which is the primary motive economic act.
All this could be gibberish. I absolutely accept that, and would be happy for someone to explain.
* The real maths. I've heard too many people say, 'For every £ spent on A we get £2/£6/£x back. What's the best maths on this, done by people who aren't just quoting each other's columns as if they are evidence.
4 comments:
It's not gibberish at all. There is a very strong economic case for state funding of the arts. Countries in developed economies depend, increasingly, on attracting talented people from around the world to work and live there. New York, Shanghai, London, Paris etc are in competition for people. When people are deciding what city to work in, they take into account the job, the pay, the tax regime. But they also take into account the lifestyle/cultural environment of that city. The arts scene is a major component of that, and it's one of the things that gives London an edge over most cities. Therefore it's worth investing in. That's the case put by the lobby Sam West was speaking for - it's just that he added his own, rather silly spin on it.
I know there's a strong case in general, societally, and it's interesting that the economic impact is partly invisible, attracting wealth to the city for lifestyle reasons. And/but also: if you're cutting back on health, you'll cut back on the arts too, like you say.
The bit I really want to get to grips with is: does arts funding provide the underpinning for an industry which creates stuff that we sorely need to sell to other people?
OK - so I suppose there are two economic arguments for public investment in the arts (we'll leave broader social questions to one side for a moment). First, to create a cultural environment that attracts people to your country (and makes people want to stay). Second, to foster artistic content/intellectual property that can make money, contribute to growth, be taxed etc - the arts and creative industries undoubtedly contribute a significant amount, and in economic terms it makes no difference if a pound is earned from mining or writing. But the question is whether govt funding is the best way to foster art of commercial value, or indeed of artistic value. JK Rowling or Damien Hirst weren't subsidized, and it's possible they wouldn't have tried as hard if they were - govt funding might be counter-productive in some cases. So I think the first argument, plus social arguments, are the best ones for continuing investment.
Disclaimer: I am as usual spouting on a subject about which I know next to nothing.
Also: http://bit.ly/11tFf
John Lancaster makes the point in the excellent WHOOPS! that there are four areas in which the UK is a worldbeater: finance, the arms trade, the arts, and higher education. Two of these have had government money and policies splashed onto them at every opportunity, one has largely been left by itself, and the last has been systematically run-down, which makes him wonder whether we might not be in a better situation were the priorities reversed.
Post a Comment