Dialogue: Poor will pay for rich subsidy of the arts

By BRUCE LOGAN*

Government support for the arts is seen in New Zealand as a normal feature of central and local government. And now the Prime Minister has announced a sub-sidy to the arts, culture and heritage sector of more than $80 million.

The panel of cultural high priests who make up Heart of the Nation will be opening their bottles of bubbly. It is only in the past 40 years, however, that governments in the Western world have adopted the role of subsidiser, rather than occasional patron of the arts. From the 16th to the 20th century, the development of the arts was mainly influenced by individuals.

Supporters of state subsidy tend to argue that the nature of society has changed over recent years and that the role of the arts has changed as well. The creative development of people has become more important and the arts are, therefore, vital to the health of society.

The implication is clear. The arts enhance the moral environment and support the emotional and spiritual health of a society. And Hamish Keith has been reported as wanting to "redefine culture." Quite a task, and a little pretentious.

The argument goes something like this. The Government subsidy is justified because the arts are essential to society, because it allows more people to enjoy the arts, because it helps in the development of the arts and because the institutions which once supported the arts - churches, guilds, religious communities and large companies - no longer do so.

There is a belief that the arts cannot survive in the private sector and that they would wither away without the infusion of funds from the state.

The demand for state funding tends to come from a particular and usually wealthy group. There can be little doubt that those with above-average incomes and education have more political influence than those on lower incomes. They are more articulate, carry more weight in the political enterprise and provide most politicians.

Heart of the Nation's talk of culture is revealing. The panellists appear to be committed to what we used to call high culture. They use "culture" in this narrow sense, rather than how a sociologist or anthropologist might use the word. Heart of the Nation even wants to market "culture." What that might mean is not clear.

It is natural for those who govern to favour subsidies from which they benefit and to also believe in the virtue of their apparent altruism. After all, society is the winner, not just us. So the argument goes.

There are, however, several good reasons why the state should not subsidise the arts. Our cultural heritage was created and shaped without the aid of government support when incomes were much lower. Now that we are richer and better edu-cated, why cannot the arts flourish without government support?

The people who benefit from a state subsidy are likely to be richer than most of the taxpayers who pay for the subsidy. State subsidy of the arts is, in fact, an exercise in inequity. Money is taken from the poor to pay for something that the rich are much more likely to enjoy.

That is particularly true of the recent handout. Most of the money is going to activities that will be of little benefit to the poorer tax-paying New Zealander.

Lotto, too, is an example of this. Money that goes to the arts out of this fund is the consequence, in reality, of an increased tax on the less well-off.

Perhaps the best reason that the state should not support the arts is because the state will be selective in its use of taxpayer funds. Heart of the Nation at the very least looks elitist. What ideology will shape the selection?

Any government is always going to be seduced into supporting those aspects of the arts and individuals in the arts who support it. It is unlikely that the symphony orchestra will be limited to Wagner, as it was for some time under the Third Reich, but the move is in that direction.

There is also an obvious similarity between the nature and influence of art and that of religious conviction and expression. Art is essentially religious. In fact, art has to a large extent taken over the role that institutionalised religion used to play. For that reason alone, it should not be subsidised by the state.

Because contemporary art seldom echoes Christian conviction, it is no less religious in effect. The state does not subsidise the churches except that they, along with other charitable bodies, are exempt from income tax. If the arts deserve government subsidy, why does it not also support religion?

Ironically, there are calls, somewhat inconsistently, from some of the same people who support the subsidy of the arts, to take tax-exemption status away from the churches. What we should have is a higher level of tax exemption for those who support the arts. At least that is equitable.

A case can be made for local authorities to raise funds for the arts, if their electorate agrees. Those who benefit from local fund-raising are more likely to be those who fund the process.

In all of this, of course, is the problem of heritage and its preservation but that is different from a subsidised support for the arts. Inter-generational continuity is important and a fundamental educational task. It is here, and in this area alone, that the state should assist.

* Bruce Logan, of Christchurch, is director of the New Zealand Education Development Foundation.