Friday 5th November:

This week, Tara will present Should the state subsidise the production and consumption of art?

“The public is wonderfully tolerant. It forgives everything except genius.” - Oscar Wilde

“The history of modern art is also the history of the progressive loss of art's audience. Art has increasingly become the concern of the artist and the bafflement of the public.” - Paul Gauguin

Art is given a special place in many societies. In addition to providing enjoyment to consumers of art, it is often considered to play an important role in challenging norms and provoking thought among the general public. But does this mean that it should be subsidised by the state? Why should markets not decide the value of art and reward artists accordingly? Who gets to decide what qualifies as ‘art’ and how much value it gives to society?

There are a number of ways in which the state chooses to subsidise art. In 1969, Ireland introduced a law which made artists exempt from paying tax. In 2006, the government made what we like to call the ‘U2 amendment’, which put a cap on the exemption at 250,000 euro, but any earnings under that amount that come from ‘creative’ work are free from taxation. The arguments behind this are as follows:
• Art brings prestige to the country.
• Art generates income in other industries such as tourism.
• Artists’ incomes are highly variable and so income in one good year may be needed to survive a number of bad years.
• Often, art is not fully appreciated at the time in which it is created.
• This policy is a signal that Ireland holds artists in high regard.

The consumption of art is also often subsidized. In the UK and Ireland, entry into many museums is free. What is the justification for this? Does it make sense? Does it increase art consumption among the general public or does it just reduce the cost for art lovers? Also, the public pay a TV licence so that public TV and radio stations don’t have to rely on revenue from advertisements. This means that they don’t have to compete with other stations for viewers and can show ‘better’ and more educational programs. Does this assume that the general public don’t know what is good for them and therefore it shouldn’t be left to market forces to decide what TV shows should be broadcast?

What makes art different from other sectors? Are some forms of art more valuable to society than others? Are there externalities to the consumption of art? Or by subsidising art are we insulting the intelligence of the general public by assuming that they are not capable of judging the true value of art?