Contemporary governments seem to be inevitably and inextricably committed to supporting arts and culture. Given that, what options do they have and what are the consequences of adopting certain strategies over others? Generally, three basic models of support have been employed by governments:
patronage strategies through which cultural activities are underwritten through direct public funding;
indirect funding through diverse models of delivery including arms’ length agencies such as art councils, ministerial directorates and departmental arrangements; and
facilitative strategies designed to build philanthropic, sponsorship and partnership liaisons between culture and public and private sector agencies, clients and communities.
Concurrently, a bureaucratic culture of arts administration has burgeoned, bringing with it myriad managerial-style interventions in funding and evaluation.
Governments have struggled to justify the adoption of ‘mix-and-match’ approaches to arts and culture. Among the justifications frequently offered are:
boosterism, involving the sustained promotion or ‘talking up’ of strategies;
instrumentalism, through which ‘culture’ is used to leverage solutions for social, economic and cultural disadvantage;
cultural capital, in which arts and culture curricula in public education are used to build ‘cultural competence’;
branding and recognition, using culture to enhance international competitiveness, brand awareness and export potential;
citizenship, by embedding culture within notions of citizenship and national identity; and
cultural or creative industries, in which culture is viewed an ‘industry’ capable of demonstrating commercial viability and success within the constraints of broader consumer culture (cf. Jowell 2004, 2006; cf. Holden 2004, 2006).
The result is that governments at all levels now support more forms of culture than ever before and for more diverse reasons. Although there is talk of budget cuts or shortfalls, total government spending on the arts and culture is increasing. Governments are funding this sector, both directly (in the form of agencies and programs) and indirectly via strategies such as tax expenditures. Culture is certainly on the agenda but at what cost?
In many cultural forms, such as the performing and visual arts, arbitrary attempts to change support mechanisms have in fact compromised their potential for sustainability and created what may amount to a permanent dependency on support. Meeting enhanced accountability requirements often results in an increased cost burden that is not compensated by increased box office takings, merchandising or franchising revenue. In short, if these artforms are forced to undertake more activities in order to fulfil accountability requirements, they risk becoming less economically viable and sustainable (MPAB 2004).
Some level of government subsidisation of the arts and cultural sector appears to be inevitable. Government support for the arts is a double-edged sword, as the accountability requirement attending funding provision is often perceived as a source of ‘interference’ with the creative nature of the endeavour. This is especially so with the elite forms of culture that are under increasing pressure from a combination of rising costs, declining and aging audiences and other competing forms of culture. Governments, therefore, find themselves unable to resist calls to support both elite and marginal cultural forms. Furthermore, they are susceptible to the arguments of insider lobbyists and elite institutions (as Australia’s cycle of reviews including the Nugent Report demonstrated).
We need to ask why governments accede to special pleading by elite arts and, furthermore, why established elite arts are unable to stand on their own two feet? Furthermore, does a resort to direct subsidy or co-funding undermine efforts to shift the funding burden to the private sector and community partnerships?