22. The speaker here argues that government must support the arts but at the same
time impose no control over what art is produced. The implicit1 rationale for government
intervention2 in the arts is that, without it, cultural decline and erosion of our social
fabric3 will result. However, I find no empirical evidence to support this argument, which
in any event is unconvincing in light of more persuasive4 arguments that government
should play no part in either supporting or restricting the arts.
First, subsidizing the arts is neither a proper nor a necessary job for government.
Although public health is generally viewed as critical to a society's very survival and
therefore an appropriate concern of government, this concern should not extend
tenuously5 to our cultural health or well being. A lack of private funding might justify6
an exception; in my observation, however, philanthropy is alive and well today,
especially among the new technology and media moguls.
Second, government cannot possibly play an evenhanded role as arts patron.
Inadequate7 resources call for restrictions9, priorities, and choices. It is unconscionable to
relegate10 normative decisions as to which art has value to a few legislators and jurists,
who may be unenlightened in their notions about art. Also, legislators are all too likely
to make choices in favor of the cultural agendas of those lobbyists with the most money
and influence.
Third, restricting artistic11 expression may in some cases encroach upon the
constitutional right of free expression. In any case, governmental restriction8 may chill
creativity, thereby12 defeating the very purpose of subsidizing the arts.
In the final analysis, government cannot philosophically13 or economically justify
its involvement in the arts, either by subsidy14 or sanction. Responsibility lies with
inpiduals to determine what art has value and to support that art.
time impose no control over what art is produced. The implicit1 rationale for government
intervention2 in the arts is that, without it, cultural decline and erosion of our social
fabric3 will result. However, I find no empirical evidence to support this argument, which
in any event is unconvincing in light of more persuasive4 arguments that government
should play no part in either supporting or restricting the arts.
First, subsidizing the arts is neither a proper nor a necessary job for government.
Although public health is generally viewed as critical to a society's very survival and
therefore an appropriate concern of government, this concern should not extend
tenuously5 to our cultural health or well being. A lack of private funding might justify6
an exception; in my observation, however, philanthropy is alive and well today,
especially among the new technology and media moguls.
Second, government cannot possibly play an evenhanded role as arts patron.
Inadequate7 resources call for restrictions9, priorities, and choices. It is unconscionable to
relegate10 normative decisions as to which art has value to a few legislators and jurists,
who may be unenlightened in their notions about art. Also, legislators are all too likely
to make choices in favor of the cultural agendas of those lobbyists with the most money
and influence.
Third, restricting artistic11 expression may in some cases encroach upon the
constitutional right of free expression. In any case, governmental restriction8 may chill
creativity, thereby12 defeating the very purpose of subsidizing the arts.
In the final analysis, government cannot philosophically13 or economically justify
its involvement in the arts, either by subsidy14 or sanction. Responsibility lies with
inpiduals to determine what art has value and to support that art.