Government support for the Arts and Entertainment is an issue of concern for many peoples across the political spectrum. Within each of the two "blocs," on the opposing sides of the issue, there are also two distinct basis for the support or opposition. On the side advocating support for arts and entertainment, one faction (the Left) believes that not subsidizing the arts and entertainment is a form of censorship, that private control of news and educational programs often results in reliance only on the cheaply-attained offical sources, advances the cultural philosophy of the dominant group in society and is subject to corruption by the necessity of getting money through the financial support of private groups with various interests. The other faction within this bloc, frequently moderates and some conservatives, holds that the government has an important obligation to educate and "enculture" the masses. The opposing bloc is largely composed of libertarian-minded individuals, who think the government should not interfere in the rights of individuals to view and watch what they enjoy and that the market-place is best suited to the attainment of accurate information, and cultural conservatives who oppose the "godless" and "obscene" art and entertainment subsidized by government.
The Preliminary Issue:
Art and Entertainment as a Form of Enculturation and Education |
Those who advocate government subsidies for art and entertainment in order to create a more cultural and erudite populace but think that ONLY "correct" forms of enculturation and indoctrination should be subsidized, are, in effect saying that They [and They alone] are wise enough to know what qualifies as proper "culture" and "information." Such a view is counter-productive to the extent that it stifles new forms of expression and new ideas. Such a situation, much as under the originally progressive and humanist Confucian doctrine of post-Qin China, discourages innovation and reform. Eventually, it becomes mere orthodoxy and any new ideas or reforms become heretical. Subsequent generations, indoctrinated in the prevailing culture and "information," accept the prevailing views as dogma - reflexive rather than reflective. It is culturally reactionary and, in the long-term, poses a danger far surpassing the possible detriment to the existing society and culture posed by nihilism and multi-culturalism.
The Core Issue:
Is Government Funding for the Arts & Entertainment a form of censorship - or does it encourage free speech and free thought? |
The defenders of the National Endowment for the Arts and for Public Broadcasting take a very different view. It is their argument that if government does not support unpopular art, entertainment or views, then government is, in essence, censoring expression!
|
For example, if someone wants to make a political statement by wiping animal feces on a flag, most Libertarians and Leftists would defend this right [whereas most conservatives and even most moderates would oppose this right]; however, the Leftist would go further and state that since this art is likely not likely to find sympathy or financial backers among the general populace, the government must make sure that the art is publically available for viewing - and that such expressions should be encouraged by financially supporting the artists who produce it. If such art is not supported, then (according to their reasoning) like-minded artists will either not produce art or will feel compelled to produce more socially acceptable art in order to insure financing through private and individual sources!
It is at this point that Libertarians find themselves opposed to the Leftist idea of free expression. The counter-argument is that such subsidies also chill free expression! When the public are required to put out certain funds, they have less money to spend, as individuals, on programs or art which they might enjoy more than (or as opposed to) the art subsidized by the government. Due to this, they must make choices as to which programs and art they find MOST to their tastes. This means that the money is not spent on programs which they may also enjoy marginally less. These programs then suffer BECAUSE of Art and Entertainment subsidies. The effect, then, is often that because fewer people spend money on such art or entertainment, the smaller number of people who find this to be their major source of enjoyment or entertainment (as opposed to their secondary form of entertainment) are insufficient to support it and it (and related types of art) fail due to lack of support. Clearly, this is a discouragement to the free expression of the artists who desire to produce such art or programs - censorship! Of course, it is possible that government subsidies might subsidize some of these forms of art / entertainment, but such money would have gone to those programs anyway. Further, such subsidies are necessarily limited in nature, so other forms of such entertainment and art will not get this support. In effect, then, certain programs and art are being censored so that others can be subsidized (even though the latter may have little or no potential audience whereas the former may have a much larger potential audience - albeit most prospective viewers would only see it as a secondary form of entertainment). Since it is not necessarily true that the art which displeases the public is more insightful or thought-provoking than art which pleases them, albeit, for most, only as a secondary form of enjoyment, there appears to be no reason to prefer such governmental forms of censorship over that self-imposed by the general populace.
In the final analysis, it seems that the publically-funded arts, entertainment and news are not superior to that of the private sector. On the contrary, the private sector seems to have the advantage of being less biased and less censorial.
|