US Arts Funding Compared to Other Countries

January 31, 2006 2:57 PM

I know that the US has lower per capita arts funding than comparable countries. How do countries outside the US characterize arts funding and subsidies?

How is arts funding in other countries 'justified'? Are there arguments about it often in legislature or media?

posted by ao4047 to media & arts (8 comments total)

I'm curious -- how does the U.S. stack up statistically here? And are we comparing just federal spending, or all public-only spending everywhere?

I live near a city that has a robust civic arts program. You can't throw a rock without hitting a public sculpture of some kind. Granted, none of the neighboring cities have anything like it..
posted by frogan at 3:17 PM on January 31, 2006

We can talk federal since that is easier to compare. But stats/insights on municipal and state/provnicial are also useful.
posted by ao4047 at 3:19 PM on January 31, 2006

To some, financial justification begs the question, or gets the concept backwards.

The purpose of a society having an economy is to raise the society's standard of living, therefore, the economy is a means, not an end, and thus subservient to things that raise the standard of living, such as artistic and cultural recreation. If the economy does not serve the standard of living, what is the point of having an economy?

I can't remember the exact quote, but someone said something vaguely along the lines of "without support for arts, you're just a shitty little fishing port out in the pacific"
posted by -harlequin- at 3:25 PM on January 31, 2006

The UK Arts Council heavily play up the fact that they get funded by the lottery. It's listed first on the funding page and has a whole sub-page. I would imagine they do this because lottery proceeds are not seen as something to get really worked up about, compared to regular taxation.

You have to look at the annual report to find out that 2/3 of their funding comes from the government (taxes). (£368 million vs. £160 million).
posted by smackfu at 3:30 PM on January 31, 2006

I understand (don't ask me where I heard it) that arts funding in the US evens out somewhat because philanthropy is much more common than in other countries. You're much more likely to have a public sculpture or a painting in a gallery donated by some rich guy in the US, than paid for by the public purse.

Here in Australia, there isn't much "debate" about public funding of the arts - it's just accepted, generally. Except by the artists themselves who naturally want more, and by orchestras who continue to plod along declaring the need to preserve "real music" using public funding, instead of just going out and trying to earn money by giving the public what they want like every other sort of musician out there. Grumble grumble.
posted by Jimbob at 4:03 PM on January 31, 2006

The Canada Council for the Arts has a nifty paper in PDF form which compares public spending on the arts across countries including the US, and also talks about some of the hassles involved in simple comparisons.

While US public spending per capita is significantly lower than other countries' public spending on the arts, we're often told that there is also a much higher level of private patronage in the US than there is in my own country (Australia). Anecdotally, this does appear to be the case.

I don't often see criticism over why the government funds the arts in the Australian media; I do see arguments that the government does not provide enough arts funding, and also doesn't provide significant tax incentives to encourage private donations to the arts. You do see occasional arguments and protests about particular artists or particular projects which are proving controversial.

As for justification, it seems generally accepted that the arts enriches the lives of people and their communities, creates a sense of community cohesion, and enhances our understanding of one another and the world. If all that sounds a bit flaky, there are also good economic arguments for strengthening the arts sector.
posted by andraste at 4:04 PM on January 31, 2006

Perhaps their should be one of those little check boxes on tax returns so that people could choose to have some/all of their tax refunds go to the arts. That way they people who want to support the arts can do so, easily, and those who think the arts should be privately funded won't be forced to fund it.
posted by JamesMessick at 7:20 AM on February 1, 2006

(I think we should do that with the Pentagon too!)
posted by ao4047 at 10:03 AM on February 1, 2006