Ever since I was a teen I have heard claims that "every great society supports its artists" and "without government funds for the arts, we would not have independent voices". And for just as long, I have pointed out that government funding is a recipe for uniformity, not diversity, and that the greatest of artists, say in the renaissance,w ere funded by private fortunes. Yes, some of those private fortunes came from nobles who happened to also be the government, but modern "government funding" is a relatively novel creation, and much more common in single viewpoint societies such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Let us take one example. Television, let us say. Look at the private broadcasters, from Fox through Air America. Look at the range of viewpoints. Now look at the "public" media, public television, NPR, and so on. Now which represents a broader spectrum? And which has an almost lockstep viewpoint?

Why is that? Simple.  For profit companies must make money. So they must represent a constituency. Yes, it keeps them from being truly "independent", as in "unconcerned with whether anyone wants to see what they produce", but it does mean that if there are even a handful of people interested in a viewpoint, some entrepreneur will come along to provide them with it, giving us an almost unlimited spectrum of ideas.

The government, on the other hand, has no commercial interests. So it can be "independent", producing art that no one wants to see, but that has questionable value. Yes, some may be brilliant and so ground breaking that it is rejected until some future time, but more often "unwatched" translates to "unwatchable", meaning unwanted is more often garbage than an unrecognized classic*. But the government also does not have to care about the interests of the audience, meaning those giving out the money can impose any orthodoxy they want, favoring whatever viewpoint they choose. Of course, sometimes this means that there will be a public outcry if the bias is too obvious. And so, in the end, you usually end up with a product oscillating between outright propaganda for some viewpoint, and bland mediocrity, consciously avoiding all viewpoints so as to draw no attention. What you will never get is a strong set of divergent viewpoints presented without apology. For that, you need private enterprise.

And that is the joke of government funding of the arts. Think about government funding in any other field. Which produced more goods, in more variety, with more diversity? The government funding of the Soviet Union or the private enterprise of the US? Which produced more diversity of opinion, Goebbels' propaganda ministry or Hollywood?

Government funding has nothing to do with preserving art, or freeing artists of "mundane commercial concerns" to be able to "express diverse opinions". What funding is about is artists who do not think they can compete int he commercial marketplace, but are sure they have political viewpoints pleasing to other artists, and so want to compete in the world of favoritism rather than commerce, all while living on the confiscated tax dollars of the state. They pretend it is some lofty good, but there is nothing lofty about replacing honest commerce with political patronage and favoritism, and nothing idealistic about living on confiscated money.


---------------------------------------------------------------
* Note, nothing in the free market prevents an artist from following his muse even without viewers, listener or readers ( my many unpublished manuscripts attest to this). He may not make money on it, but he is free to do so, unlike many authoritarian states, which do explicitly forbid that very act.
------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

I can't believe I forgot the main point, but apparently I did.

For all the talk of "diversity" and "freedom form pressures" and the "ability to express themselves", it seems the Obama administration was a bit too blatant in their handling of propaganda.

Recall what a stink it was when it came out the Clinton and Bush administrations (I believe)were paying movie studios to push an anti-drug message? Or the Bush administration was paying off bloggers to present a sympathetic message? So where is the outrage over the Obama administration turning the NEA into an explicit ministry of propaganda, asking artists to use their media to push the Obama agenda on various important topics?

After at least three administrations have used their money to try to propagandize, can anyone seriously suggest that the government funding of the arts, culture and everything else is seriously about maintaining an independent viewpoint?

I say the government has two choices. One, stop funding all these ventures and let the market take care of art and culture as it has, with greater success, throughout history. Or they could rename the National Endowment for the Humanities honestly, call it the Department of Propaganda, and merge under it all these supposed "altruistic" ventures to fund "cultural" events. At least the tax payers will be able to see why their money is being spent and we can stop hearing the pious absurdities about "preserving the arts".