Since the word ‘art’ has been included in the dictionary its definition has always been a problem. Philosophers, artists and policymakers have, through millennia of civilization, all struggled to define the indefinable.
Indefinable, because even now there are still many different definitions of the word ‘art’. Just as there are many definitions of the arts and culture industry…
In recent years the European Union has initiated research on having a cultural policy on a European level. The research resulted in a Green Paper that is filled with questions, one of which is the question from the European Parliament to the Commission "to clarify what constitutes the European vision of culture, creativity and innovation and to elaborate political measures (…) in order to develop European creative industries, incorporating these in a genuine European strategy for culture." (European Commision, 2010)
If we look at the subject of this paper, the subsidizing of the arts and culture sector, we have to look at some different aspects: What are we subsidizing? Why are we subsidizing? And who and how are we subsidizing? If all these questions could be answered they would justify a government cultural policy of subsidizing art and culture. But as we can see, the first question, a definition of the cultural sector, is already unanswered. The question of the European parliament shows that there is a need for a clear definition in order to incorporate a strategy, which is still lacking.
For the sake of trying to answer the other questions I will accept that there is a sort of general definition of what the creative industry is, although it will differ per country. (In the UK, for example, there is much debate about the overlap of the creative and entertainment industry)
(Tribal, 2010)
The second question is about the reason of subsidizing the arts. Is there a real need for subsidies or could the sector do without? Is the subsidizing, through taxpayers, legitimized?
If one would look, for instance, to America, one would see a cultural sector that is functioning perfectly with a minimal amount of subsidy funds. Subsidies account for only around 15 percent of the American art institutions. (Kauffman, 1990)
Comparing this to the 63 percent that cultural organizations in the Netherlands need from the government, the conclusion should be that there are more possibilities in looking at other sources of income. (Berenschot, 2010)
Private and corporate sources are the real benefactors in the United States. And this makes sense as well, because the people that are interested in art, pay for it. The government in The Netherlands has, for decades now, trying to reach out to the public, to let them participate in a wide and qualitative cultural offer. This has not been a success. Art and culture is still used, in a majority, by a high-educated, white, middle class.
(E-quality, 2007)
If only an elite and small part of Holland is using it, we shouldn’t let everyone pay for it. Instead, people could pay less tax and decide for themselves if they want to support the art and culture industry.
Mark Harbers, Dutch parliament member for the VVD and supporter of the proposed cutbacks, states in an interview: “people now donate their money to charity. These people could be stimulated to donate to art and culture as well.” (Harbers, 2010)
Generating more income from the private and corporate sector will ask some initiative from the cultural organizations, but as seen in America there are lots of creative ways to market or finance your product.
Just one example is the site Trust Art, founded by Seth Aylmer and Jose Serrano-McClain. The website makes it possible for individuals to become shareholders of public art that has yet to be build. Completed projects are auctioned and any profits are shared between artists and shareholders. (Trust Art, 2010)
Next to that, there are already a lot of organizations in The Netherlands that are profit-based and are sustainable without any subsidizing from the government.
The third and final question that has to be answered, to justify government subsidies, is the matter of how you decide on who to give the money to. This might even be the most difficult one of the three subjects, the one that the Dutch government itself has been struggling with the most. Because you cannot really judge if art is good or not.
The government has outsourced these decisions to specialists who manage the cultural funds, but these are still only humans with their own tastes and opinions. The conditions that are stated are about diversity and quality, but these conditions are still subjected to opinions. (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, 2010)
If there aren’t any clear conditions to base the subsidies on, the danger is that other factors come into play. Gust Meyer, professor Popular Culture at the department Communication Sciences of the Catholic University Leuven, writes in his book ‘Why culture isn’t important and culture subsidy even less’: …”For the subsidy network the term corrupt might be overstated, but the term incestuous, however, is not.” (Meyer, 2010)
If the grounds for subsidizing an organization in the cultural sector are too vague we simply cannot justify the spending of public money on it.
In my opinion there is a definite need for art and culture in our society, but there are just too many questions unanswered to decide on subsidies and the need for it. Cultural organizations should look more for healthy ways of sustaining themselves then stay addicted to cultural funds. The public, in return, will show their appreciation for the expressions they decide on. This will make sure that the organizations that carry support in the whole of society will live on, instead of the ones that are being supported by so few.
