Kansas may again resort to government art


Kansas may be ready to restore some state funding for the arts. But for reasons economic, human, and artistic, we ought to keep Kansas government out of art. Kansas should allow people themselves to decide how to spend their own money on what they think is important to them. To implement government funding of art is to override the freedom of individual choice with political and bureaucratic decisions.

It’s puzzling as to why artists — generally a group of independent minds and free spirits — would want to reintroduce government control over the funding of their craft. Perhaps it springs from the prevailing attitude taught in our (government controlled and funded) schools and universities that government is a force for accomplishing good. While government does some good things for us, when government expands too much — like deciding which artists to spend someone else’s money on — it overreaches and tamps down individual freedom and liberty.

The economic case for government art funding

Supporters of government art funding make the case that government-funded art is good for business and the economy. They have an impressive-looking study titled Arts & Economic Prosperity III: The Economic Impact of the Nonprofit Arts and Culture Industry in the State of Kansas, which makes the case that “communities that invest in the arts reap the additional benefit of jobs, economic growth, and a quality of life that positions those communities to compete in our 21st century creative economy.”

This report, however, is full of the same problems that fill most other reports of similar type. As an example, the report concludes that the return on dollars spent on the arts is “a spectacular 7-to-1 return on investment that would even thrill Wall Street veterans.” It hardly merits mention that there aren’t legitimate investments that generate this type of return in any short time frame. If these returns were in fact true and valid, we should invest more — not less — in the arts. But as we shall see, these returns are not valid in any meaningful economic sense.

Where do these fabulous returns come from? Here’s a passage from the report that government art spending promoters rely on:

A theater company purchases a gallon of paint from the local hardware store for $20, generating the direct economic impact of the expenditure. The hardware store then uses a portion of the aforementioned $20 to pay the sales clerk’s salary; the sales clerk respends some of the money for groceries; the grocery store uses some of the money to pay its cashier; the cashier then spends some for the utility bill; and so on. The subsequent rounds of spending are the indirect economic impacts.

Thus, the initial expenditure by the theater company was followed by four additional rounds of spending (by the hardware store, sales clerk, grocery store, and the cashier). The effect of the theater company’s initial expenditure is the direct economic impact. The subsequent rounds of spending are all of the indirect impacts. The total impact is the sum of the direct and indirect impacts.

The fabulous returns erroneously attributed to spending on the arts derive from this chain of spending starting at the hardware store. But there’s a problem with this reasoning: Most spending induces the same rush of economic activity. What the authors of this study fail to disclose — and what government art supporters fail to see — is that anyone who buys a gallon of paint for any reason sets off the same chain of spending. There is no difference — except that a homeowner buying paint is doing so voluntarily, while an arts organization using taxpayer-supplied money to buy the paint is using someone else’s money. Money, we might add, that is taken through the government’s power to tax.

The study also pumps up the return on government spending on arts by noting all the other spending that arts patrons do on things like dinner before and desert after arts events. But if people kept their own money instead of being taxed to support the arts, they would spend this money, perhaps on restaurant meals, too. Most importantly, people would spend their own money on the things they value — not on what someone else values.

This report — like most of its type that attempt to justify and promote government “investment” — focuses only on the benefits without considering secondary consequences, how these benefits are paid for, and what people would do if left to their own devices. The report, however, seems to make sense in promoting taxation and government spending on arts. This is characteristic of many arguments for government spending, as explained by Henry Hazlitt, in his masterful book Economics in One Lesson:

While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible.

It is, as Hazlitt terms it, “the special pleading of selfish interests” that drives much of the desire for government spending on the arts. Government-funded arts advocates promote their case with these economic fallacies.

The human and artistic case

Besides the economic aspect of government funding of arts, there’s the artistic issue. There are very important reasons to keep government away from art. Lawrence W. Reed wrote in What’s Wrong with Government Funding of the Arts? of the harm of turning over responsibility to the government for things we value and find worthwhile:

I can think of an endless list of desirable, enriching things in life, of which very few carry an automatic tag that says, “Must be provided by taxes and politicians.” Such things include good books, nice lawns, nutritious food, and smiling faces. A rich culture consists, as you know, of so many good things that have nothing to do with government, and thank God they don’t. We should seek to nurture those things privately and voluntarily because “private” and “voluntary” are key indicators that people are awake to them and believe in them. The surest way I know to sap the vitality of almost any worthwhile endeavor is to send a message that says, “You can slack off of that; the government will now do it.” That sort of “flight from responsibility,” frankly, is at the source of many societal ills today: many people don’t take care of their parents in their old age because a federal program will do it; others have abandoned their children because until recent welfare reforms, they’d get a bigger check if they did.

The boosters of government arts funding in Kansas make the case that arts are important. Therefore, they say, government must be involved.

But actually, the opposite is true. The more important to our culture we believe the arts to be, the stronger the case for getting government out of its funding. Here’s why. In a statement opposing the elimination of the Kansas Arts Commission, former executive director Llewellyn Crain explained that “The Kansas Arts Commission provides valuable seed money that leverages private funds …”

This “seed money” effect is precisely why government should not be funding arts. David Boaz explains:

Defenders of arts funding seem blithely unaware of this danger when they praise the role of the national endowments as an imprimatur or seal of approval on artists and arts groups. Jane Alexander says, “The Federal role is small but very vital. We are a stimulus for leveraging state, local and private money. We are a linchpin for the puzzle of arts funding, a remarkably efficient way of stimulating private money.” Drama critic Robert Brustein asks, “How could the [National Endowment for the Arts] be ‘privatized’ and still retain its purpose as a funding agency functioning as a stamp of approval for deserving art?” … I suggest that that is just the kind of power no government in a free society should have.

We give up a lot when we turn over this power to government bureaucrats and arts commission cronies. Again I turn to David Boaz, who in his book The Politics of Freedom: Taking on The Left, The Right and Threats to Our Liberties wrote this in a chapter titled “The Separation of Art and State”:

It is precisely because art has power, because it deals with basic human truths, that it must be kept separate from government. Government, as I noted earlier, involves the organization of coercion. In a free society coercion should be reserved only for such essential functions of government as protecting rights and punishing criminals. People should not be forced to contribute money to artistic endeavors that they may not approve, nor should artists be forced to trim their sails to meet government standards.

Government funding of anything involves government control. That insight, of course, is part of our folk wisdom: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” “Who takes the king’s shilling sings the king’s song.”

A few years ago Rhonda Holman of the Wichita Eagle wrote an editorial (City can be proud of its arts work, July 15, 2008 Wichita Eagle) which started with the stirring invocation “The arts fire the mind and feed the heart.” I hoped that she was going to call for less government involvement in the arts, thinking that she would argue that anything so important to man’s nature should not be placed in the hands of government.

But she described the City of Wichita’s commitment to permanent spending on arts as “a bold and even brave investment in quality of life.” It appears that even the yearnings of our hearts and minds are subject to government bureaucratic management.

“Government art.” Is this not a sterling example of an oxymoron? Must government weasel its way into every aspect of our lives? Governor Brownback and the Kansas legislature can do the human spirit and the people of Kansas a favor by opposing government funding of the arts.


6 responses to “Kansas may again resort to government art”

  1. Pam Porvaznik

    There are so many reasons for government-funded arts’ programs that to leave a comment here would be akin to leaving a masters’ thesis in two inches of writing space. I, a conservative in almost every other way, find in the current political atmosphere and financial dearth, the argument for continued public funding provocative. Wichita’s art museums and participatory arts’ projects would wither without government support–and perhaps are doing just that now. Would this bode well for any community which values what the arts bring to the table, namely, pride of city and country, respect for history and the social changes unique to every age, avenues to actually be in theatre productions, singing choirs, adult and youth symphonies; the excitement of actually creating art projects, studying the past, marveling at the future? With government schools cutting back on this vital part of education, will the young even know, much less care, what the world was like way back when, or what it may become someday? Without government and city funding, would we lose the stellar museums we have in our own hometown? Or would just the wealthy and the highly educated make the trips to art meccas around the world, outside our city to satisfy the creative spirit? I hope we never have to find out. I say we need government help in this instance, and to do away with it because it doesn’t jibe with a political philosophy is foolish.

  2. If I may, I wrote an article about this very thing. I invite you to read it.


  3. Ben Blankley

    Private funding is great. Nearly all arts organizations rely on it for a majority of their budgets already. It works exceptionally well for very large non-profits. Saying, “Oh, art needs to be free of the influence of government” is a cop-out, however. One could just as easily say, with the exact same justification, “Oh, art needs to be free of the influence of rich people.” The only problem is, we don’t elect who the rich people are.

    There are a lot of citations in this post from national organizations whose primary purview is large, national, non-profits. The problem is when you look at small to medium arts organizations who have a local focus. The big ones have full time staff that can court private donors to get millions of dollars in funding. The small ones are entirely volunteer-run, and do not have the resources to court large private donors with galas and social visibility.

    Filing a state grant application, however? The playing field is equal. Every organization gets a shot. You prove your financial stability with your application, and the process is publically vetted and approved. Private foundations do not grant to organizations that don’t already have grant funding. It is a classic chicken-and-egg problem. Public grant funding is a stepping stone to larger projects. Private foundations are notoriously cautious about investment in “unproven” organizations.

  4. judbudy

    Arts should NOT be funded by tax payer money. That is one big reason our government is in debt & our taxes are outrageous. Do away with EVERYTHING that is non-essential & not the original intention of our Founding Fathers for the Federal Government.

  5. Pam Porvaznik

    Here’s how I see it: The government is taking my money one way or another. I would rather see at least some of it go to the arts…than to oil projects in Brazil; solar projects that go bankrupt; corrupt bankers and speculators that reward themselves first before paying back the American tax payer; abortion pills and Viagra to anybody who wants them; interest on continually-climbing debt all in the name of power over the people; medical care and food stamps to illegals and to parents who prefer cell phones, iPads and flat screens than to feeding and caring for their own children; guns and butter in the form of pay-off money to any number of threatening nations so that we put the heat on their soil so we don’t have to take it on ours. One could do a whole lot worse than apportion a part of his hard-earned money to the arts–money that is taken from him every day on every transaction he makes, on income he has already been taxed on all in the name of “the public good.”

  6. […] Kansas may again resort to government art […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.