America’s leading review of the arts and intellectual life
Supporting the "public good"
by Daniel Grant
On government funding for the arts in Europe & America.
was right!Support The
There are three reasons that arts advocates customarily give for continued and increasing governmental contributions to the arts. The first, oldest, and most traditional (and least used nowadays) is that the arts are a “public good”—that the arts are good for us. The second rationale, which has been increasingly used since the mid-1970s, is that money funneled into the arts by government has a “multiplier effect”; that is, publicly expended arts money helps the rest of the economy. The third is made by comparing arts support in the United States with that of most other industrialized nations, finding that the United States lags behind Canada and much of Europe (and should become more like them).
Each of these arguments is problematical. Who is to say what is “good” for you or for anyone, and what makes it good? There is something highly elitist and top-down about the idea of a public good. Th ...
This article is available to subscribers and for individual purchase
This article originally appeared in The New Criterion, Volume 31 December 2012, on page 32
Copyright © 2015 The New Criterion | www.newcriterion.comhttp://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Supporting-the--public-good--7500
E-mail to friend
by Daniel Grant
Censoring offensive art blinds us to history and misses and important teaching opportunity
Updike began and ended his career with poetry. More than his other writings, Updike's verse provides the clearest picture of who he is.
Donald Stoker's new book on Clausewitz helps dissect Clausewitz's complicated legacy.
The Walter Duranty Prize for Journalistic Mendacity
Introduction to The Kennedy Phenomenon
The Kennedy Phenomenon: "Watching the Kennedy Train-Wreck"