Is prosperous sustenance of contemporary art the fiscal responsibility of the government? Noel Carroll's article "Can government funding of the arts be justified theoretically?" analyzes this question.
Is prosperous sustenance of contemporary art the fiscal responsibility of the government? Noel Carroll’s article “Can government funding of the arts be justified theoretically?” analyzes this question. The justifications as presented by Carroll can be seen as an approach towards appeasing the irate tax payers who are demanding to know the reasons behind the spending of public money on prospective art. In light of recent controversies in North America over the merit of artistic work, it’s funding and purchase by government institutions, the public has the right to demand the reasons for such allocations of their hard earned dollars. Carroll presents a wide range of theoretical justifications for such spending of public money. These justifications range from issues concerning public welfare to moralistic role of art in society.
The main focus of the article lies upon direct funding in the form of grants for the creation of contemporary art. Carroll describes the importance of museums which serve the purpose of preserving the culture and therefore, public funding for museums is a legitimate function of the State. This preservation is critical for educating the public about our past and our cultural roots. Sadly, the same argument cannot be applied to contemporary art because it ‘…is not part of our heritage yet’ (22) and does not possess any educational value. Carroll’s perspective appears to be fairly elitist in refuting the cultural and learning component of contemporary art. I deem modern art as a much more faithful expression of the personal and societal challenges. It confronts the dogmas of the society and provides an observable window inside the oppressing issues of the world. Therefore, disregarding its educational and cultural value is indeed a preposterous consideration for an artist and future arts managers like me.
However, Carroll does provide pragmatic justifications for public support of contemporary art. One of the first justifications is that the government has a responsibility towards the welfare of its citizens and by funding prospective arts; the welfare of the artists will be sustained. However welfare issues deal with providing basic necessities of life to those living an impecunious life. Do products of contemporary art funding serve similar needs? Funding prospective art cannot be justified in the same realm of welfare, because no matter what, public funding of arts cannot be held equivalent to sleeping in a shelter on a frigidly cold night or lack of hospital beds for emergency patients. The second argument proposes that it is the responsibility of the government to provide aesthetic welfare for its citizens. An environment rich with aesthetically pleasing paintings and plays will serve the interests of the citizens. Another reason for public funding can be seen as an ‘obligation to the beneficence’ of the general public. Although, it seems improbable for government to facilitate every aspect of human need. Furthermore prospective art funding can be viewed as a way of satisfying the aesthetic need. Ignoring this particular need can cause psychic tension and depression among the public. Both of these improbable justifications deal with human needs, values and environment which are unique and complex. Also, the criterion for defining ‘aesthetic art’ is highly subjective. Often contemporary art is anything but anti-aesthetic and therefore artist working with dead animal body parts might not qualify for such funding. Such justifications rekindle issues of censorship and abandon the creation of art as a freedom of expression.
