follow-up on arts funding
Topics: Subsidy, Programs
09 Feb 1995
From: "DG Ervan Darnell"
In today's Houston Post, Juan Palomo (a liberal columnist) wrote:
"The callous and greedy grab [of $500K] by the MFA [an upscale art museum]
.. and its rationalization that it qualifies for the fund because it offers
some scholarships for low-income kids and because it is near some poor
neighborhood is not only outrageous, but is proving an embarrassment to
other arts organizations. ... The manipulation of [the mayor's wife] who is
on the museum board, to give the money to the MFA while the only critic of
the move was out of town is enexcusable."
True. But the deeper point is that it is always that way. That's how
government works. It does not spend money to do the right thing, it spends
money to buy votes (or to pay off campaign contributors, which is the same
thing). Even when it goes where it supposed to, poor neighborhoods in this
case, the same mechanism is at work. One group was paid off by narrowing
the scope of the grant. And within the final pool the money goes to whoever
is best "connected" for the second payoff. If it is good art or if it ever
shows up in any place that people actually care to see it just is not
relevant to the decision making process. Any bureaucrat who momentarily had
such notions, would quickly be out of a job for not properly using the
patronage system.
The "Bean sprout case" is the classic symptom of what is wrong with art
subsidy. A female performance artist had a stage act where she appeared
nude, spread chocolate sauce on herself, then stuck bean sprouts on the
chocolate sauce. The chocolate sauce was the "shit" that women have to take
from men and the bean sprouts were sperm attacking her as men always attack
women. The ticket price was subsidized by the NEA. The audience was
well-off, artsy New York types. Nonetheless, the farmers in Nebraska paid
for it. The politics are simple, New York liberals (patrons and artist) had
their votes bought with this subsidy of entertainment they would have paid
to see anyone, that they already understand and agree with the message of.
Post hoc rationalizations about how this is good for the poor who were taxed
to pay for it are then offered. Us unenlightened types did not see it, will
not see it, will not be "educated" by it, and are hard pressed to understand
how this increases anyone's civic mindedness.
BTW, I don't care at all whether or not it is "offensive". That's just
irrelevant to the deeper problem.
Home