Hollywood Babble On & On #705: Fine Art, Film, & Fiefdoms

There's a lot of talk going around about government financing and the arts. Cutbacks to film and arts subsidies in England have spawned protests, there's work afoot in the US congress for the federal government to stop funding the CPB/PBS/NPR system, and folks are complaining about that too.

Which brings me to today's topic, well, actually more of a question: What role should the government play in the funding of the arts?

The days of deep pocketed taxpayers are over, governments worldwide are looking to tighten their belts, and arts funding is usually the first thing tossed over the side. Is it really the end of civilization as we know it as some are saying, or can it be a good thing once all is said and done.

So let's step back from the often emotionally tinged arguments, and look at the pros and cons of government funding for the arts, specifically film, which is my forte because I've actually had a little experience in the heavily government funded Canadian film system:

PROS:

1. TAXPAYER FUNDED ART AGENCIES FINANCE PROJECTS THE COMMERCIAL FINANCIERS WON'T TOUCH.

We all love the idea of people producing art for art's sake, which is something you're really not going to get at a major studio. Studios are looking for a return on their investment, and they are not going to get that for your short film about Freudian angst and bodily functions. Nor will they fund your 8.5 hour film which consists of a single shot of a garden gnome in the rain.

But government agencies will, if you show that your project has the right artistic merit.

2. TAXPAYER FUNDED ART AGENCIES WILL GIVE NEW TALENT A CHANCE WITHOUT A COMMERCIAL TRACK RECORD.

Because movies especially are so expensive to make commercial film financiers want to have some sort of insurance for their investment in the form of filmmakers with a track record. The better your track record, commercially, the more likely you are to get a precious green light. But if you don't have a track record, you are shit out of luck. Government agencies can actively seek out that new talent, and bring them out of the shadows and into the public eye.

3. TAXPAYER FUNDED ART AGENCIES ARE BASTIONS OF ARTISTIC FREEDOM.

The idea is that without the pressure put on commercial investors to both dip to the lowest common denominator while being the least objectionable artistic freedom is dependent on taxpayer dollars.

CONS:

1. COMMERCIAL FINANCIERS WON'T TOUCH MANY OF THOSE PROJECTS FOR A PRETTY GOOD REASON.

While I'm no fan of the tastes of studio and network executives when it comes to the sort of projects that get government funding there is usually a good reason why no commercial investor would touch it.

Artistic merit has very little to do with whether or not a project gets government funding, what gets a project funding can be found in reasons #2 and #3.

2. TAXPAYER FUNDED ART AGENCIES HAVE MORE TO DO WITH FIEFDOMS THAN FINE ARTS.

Government bureaucracies, even arts based bureaucracies are run by bureaucrats. Bureaucrats, by definition, care about one thing, preserving and propagating their own power. They do this by creating little fiefdoms within their agencies, and fostering relationships with people that can help them maintain and expand those fiefdoms.

So they tend to keep the projects they back within the very narrow confines of the politically and socially connected people that they need in their quest for advancement.

These bureaucrats can only lose their jobs if these politically and socially connected people grow displeased with them and the subsidies that they can bring to their social lives. So arts and film agencies will deliberately finance projects that will either bore or repel the general audience, but get them pats on the back for "courage" at the various festivals and exhibitions they spent other people's money on.

3. THE IDEA THAT TAXPAYER FUNDED ART AGENCIES GIVE NEW TALENT A CHANCE IS LARGELY A MYTH.

Where commercial studios look for a track record, arts agencies look for connections. If you want in on the government money, you must be personally invited in by someone who already has a seat on the trough and has room for one more, because, like the bureaucrats, they too are looking to create their own government funded fiefdoms.

4. TAXPAYER FUNDED ARTS AGENCIES ARE NOT BASTIONS OF ARTISTIC FREEDOM.

This can be boiled down to a simple, yet effective cliche: Who pays the piper calls the tune. There are two different sets of people calling the tune when it comes to government funded arts. First are the bureaucrats, and as I stated earlier, they are only interested in fostering the goodwill of the political and social elite who can keep them funded. The second are the politicians, but they don't call the tune all the time, preferring to usually play the sleeping giant.

You see there is a line that exists in the world of arts funding, the "I don't want to pay for this shit" line, and the bureaucrats have to carefully skirt that line without crossing it. They need to skirt the line to keep the bigwigs thinking they are brave, in service to art over mammon, and that the people who pat him on the back are better than the great unwashed. However, when they miscalculate and cross the line, they awaken the sleeping giant.

When the taxpayers start complaining about arts funding going to crucifixes in urine, or Christian religious icons covered in feces, the last thing the politicians want to be is on the side of the urine and feces. So they suddenly become interested in taxpayer funded arts funding, and think it's something they can do without it, because the only people benefiting from it, are not going to vote for them anyway.

So in conclusion, I guess you can say that, in my experience, government funding for the arts is usually way better in theory than in practice.