In a weeklong online forum that started on August 22 on The Economist.com, Alan Davey, chief executive of Arts Council England, and Pete Spence of the Adam Smith Institute, debate the role government should have in funding the arts. Moderator Emily Bobrow summarizes, “The word ‘elitism’ is cropping up quite a bit in this debate about government funding for the arts. … Pete Spence, arguing against public subsidies for the arts, suggests that government meddling is itself elitist. When bureaucrats are in a position of doling out money to museums, theatres and practitioners, they are essentially trying to promote ‘good’ (i.e., high or sophisticated) art over the ‘bad’ (i.e., popular or crude) stuff. … Yet most voters in this debate appear to support public funding for the arts. Many seem to side with Chia Ai Zhen, who wrote that the government should broaden the reach of the arts and make it easier to create, but not pick and choose individual projects—that ‘should be left for the public to decide’. This, writes Alan Davey in his rebuttal to Mr. Spence, is what the Arts Council aims to provide in Britain. … Mr. Davey also directly addresses Mr. Spence’s point that public subsidies somehow crowd out private investments. Rather, getting individuals and corporations to donate to the arts is a tricky business, largely because they prefer to invest in what is already successful.” The forum, which welcomes comments, closes August 31.
Posted August 29, 2012
