It is not an utopian claim that art and cultural exchanges possibly can stop war. We wish this for the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine or Ukraine and Russia. Artistic representations of war can affect us and in the long term can be an effective tool for influencing a conflict, since the artists are still being imprisoned for their creations. Only recently, the female artist Alexandra Skochilenko was imprisoned by Russian authorities. She replaced price labels in supermarkets with anti-war messages against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Art will not let us forget the horrors of war and loss, the agony and conflicts in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria and so many others. Is art decisive? No. Can art raise social consciousness? Yes. Anton Chekhov said, “The role of the artist is to ask questions, not answer them.” By asking questions, artists implicitly create ground for social debates, conversations, and learning. Artists through their work can change the world and eventually, shape the future.
The arts are fundamental to our humanity. They ennoble and inspire us—fostering creativity, goodness, and beauty. The arts help us express our values, build bridges between cultures, and bring us together regardless of ethnicity, religion, or age. When times are tough, art is salve for the ache. Art can uplift, provoke, soothe, entertain and educate us and is an important part of our lives. At its most profound level, it takes us from the everyday to a place of introspection and contemplation, to see the bigger picture of the human condition.
Art helps to develop motor skills, eye-hand coordination and has a large impact on their social and emotional growth. It also enhances their cognitive development which can have a positive effect on math skills and other related subjects. Promote creativity in your child's life in as many ways as you can. An extremely relevant element of art value is societal meaning. Art indeed is a means of communication, as it passes ideas, values, feelings, concepts, which might be received differently by each observer but still vehiculate ideas concerning society and human condition.
Public art reflects a community and its surroundings working to cultivate a cultural identity by setting a community apart and attracting people to its uniqueness. Artwork helps express a community's values and creates an elevated sense of awareness for community members and visitors. Art represents life in many ways.
The arts are an important community builder and prosperity generator warranting investment from the public sector. Here, we explore the groups who support government investment in the arts as well as their benefits for both society and public policy. Leading public sector organizations have identified the arts as part of a strong state policy portfolio. These include the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Education Commission of the States.
American taxpayers concur, with 55% supporting increasing federal investment in the arts, 57% supporting state government funding for the arts and 58% supporting local government funding for the arts. Business leaders, economists, property developers, tourism officials and community planners have joined with parents, educators and civic leaders to promote public policies that strengthen the arts. They do so because they recognize the benefits that accrue to communities when the government helps to foster a robust arts sector.
One reason why artists should receive government funding is that their work contributes to the cultural and social fabric of a nation. Artists provide diverse forms of expression that challenge societal norms, stimulate critical thinking, and promote cultural understanding.
There are many roles that an artist fills. But, in smaller cities, having local artists brings a sense of pride to the community. It also sets examples for young people who might be considering careers in the arts. Artists support their communities by teaching their art and craft.
Further, the arts are a vitally important economic industry, generating revenue, creating jobs and developing communities. Several resources below offer substantial research findings on the arts and economic development, from statewide economic impact studies to national reports. Many museums and theaters would close permanently without government funding for the arts. The true development of a nation depends as much on the arts as it does on science. In conclusion, the arts benefit both individuals and society. Thus, it is needless to say the government arts funding is not wasteful.
The arts create jobs and produce tax revenue. A strong arts sector is an economic asset that stimulates business activity, attracts tourism and expands a state’s work force and tax base. The arts have been shown to be a successful and sustainable strategy for revitalizing rural areas, cities and populations struggling with poverty. The arts cultivate young imaginations and facilitate success in school, enhancing academic achievement in multiple subject areas. They provide the critical thinking, communications and innovation skills essential to a productive 21st century workforce.
The arts foster physical, mental and emotional health, aiding recovery processes and contributing to well being. Arts therapy is a medically and economically effective tool for treating aging adults, children and people suffering from trauma, including military combat personnel and veterans. The arts create a welcoming sense of place and a desirable quality of life. The arts also support strong democracy, engaging citizens in civic discourse, providing forums for important issues and encouraging collective problem solving. The arts preserve culture and heritage, passing along a state’s unique character and traditions to future generations of citizens.
A comparison of arts funding in selected country by Canada Council for the Arts has put Finland per capita public arts spending at the maximum followed by Germany, France, Sweden, Nehterlands, Canada, UK, Australia, Ireland and USA. Differences in how various countries define and classify spending on the arts, as well as varying economic and political systems among countries, make a comparative analysis of public arts spending a difficult endeavor. Comparing public arts spending across countries is a complicated task, partly because various countries have a variety of methods of defining and accounting for arts expenditures. For example, the Arts Council of England (ACE) notes that cultural spending in Australia includes expenditures on zoos, while the United Kingdom does not count zoos as spending on the arts. These kinds of inconsistencies require researchers to employ a “ring-fencing ” technique of measuring arts spending by various countries on a consistent basis.
The main indicators used to compare arts funding between countries in the studies have been: • per capita arts funding figures • arts spending by national governments as a percentage of GDP • arts spending by national governments as a % of all government spending • comparative income sources of arts organizations (public, private and earned revenues).
The problems with undertaking international comparisons of arts funding are numerous and have been well documented in a working paper prepared by the Australia Council with the International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies (IFACCA). Key problems include: definitions of the arts varying between countries; not taking account of both direct and indirect sources of arts funding; and the fact that exchange rate conversions do not take account of real differences in cost of living between countries.
When thinking about why we publicly fund the arts, we can point to their multifaceted benefits. Not only do the arts contribute directly to the economy, but they can be important for health and wellbeing; not only can they make people love the place they live in but they also help to shape the global view of a particular country. Of course, not all investments in the arts do all these things - nor should we want them to. Some investments are about pushing the frontiers of forms or technologies, whilst others may be aimed at giving children their first taste of a museum, sparking lifelong curiosity. The same theatre may produce one show which traverses the world, and another created by and for a specific local community. These myriad benefits link to many policymakers’ objectives for public money, whether that is funding to support innovation, unlock health benefits or make us proud of the places we live in. That is why policymakers at all levels - from those in international bodies (like UNESCO), to national governments, to local policymakers - have historically invested in the arts.
The pandemic had hit the arts and culture industries across geographies hard. In the wake of lockdown-induced budget shortfalls across the sector, advocates have called on governments to offer targeted emergency bailouts for culture. Most have heeded their calls in some capacity, understanding the important role culture can have in propping up the wider economy.
While much has been celebrated about Germany’s €2 billion “Neustart Kultur” plan, it is actually France, which has issued €7 billion to a smaller population, that comes out on top in culture funding per capita. The European nation is followed closely by Canada, which has distributed the equivalent of $124 per person to its culture sector. The US—which had the largest package in dollars but also, by far, the biggest population—comes in fourth place, followed by the UK and Germany. The smallest figure we recorded was for South Africa, which issued a $6.6 million bailout to its arts institutions.
In India, the Ministry of Culture was responding to observations made by a parliamentary committee that the allocation of the Ministry of Culture was just 0.075% of the total Budget this year which was in sharp contrast to countries like China, the U.K., U.S., Singapore and Australia which spend roughly 2%-5% of their Budget on the promotion of art and culture. Officials who appeared before the committee also noted that a majority of the amount spent on art and culture in the countries mentioned above are sourced from non-government sources which is not the case in India. They, however, observed that the Ministry has been consistently able to increase its budgetary outlays over the years except during the COVID-pandemic period where priority was given to other social sector Ministries.
However, according to the 289th Report of the Parliament Standing Committee on Culture, the allocation of Rs 2687.99 crore in 2021-22 is 14.66 percent lower than the allocation of Rs 3149.85 crore made in 2020-21, which witnessed a severe cut of 29.77 percent at the revision expenditure stage in 2020-21. Considering the projected demand of Rs 3843.68 crore by the MoC, there is a substantial shortfall in the provisions for art and culture. Apart from trends in allocations and expenditures by the MoC, the report also looks at vacancies in institutions supported by the ministry, and issues in the MoC schemes for tangible and intangible culture. The latter receives the least support, as a result of which several art forms lie on the edge of extinction, with their practitioners struggling for basic survival.
In 2017, the MoC set up the National Mission on Cultural Mapping to compile data of artists and art forms. According to Sahapedia’s report, this exercise, which started with identifying artists at the block level, was abandoned due to the lack of IT infrastructure to record details of artists, as well as lack of support from state governments, with only five states having appointed a nodal officer.
"The Cultural Mapping Mission could have addressed the biggest question: who are our artists, where are they located and what is their status? Its failure thus far is a big blow to any real conversation on support for the intangible arts," says a known artist under anonymity.
Yet the Ministry of Culture claims that they are always trying and evolving innovative methods to maximise the participation of non-government organisations in the field of promotion and conservation of art and culture like in some of the marquee countries. The Ministry of Culture cites the example of the Monument Mitra scheme. Under this scheme, the government aims to hand over around 1,000 monuments under the control of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to the private sector for their upkeep.
“Culture should be an area where a large part of expenditure needs to be sourced from non-government sources” and hence the Ministry was also supporting non-governmental and voluntary organisations through its various schemes for participating in overall propagation, preservation and promotion of all forms of art and culture, the report submitted by the Department Related Standing Committee on Transport Tourism and Culture quoted the Culture Ministry as saying.
The Union Budget for 2023-24 has allocated ₹3,399.65 crore under revenue and ₹285.40 crore under capital heads to the Ministry of Culture for undertaking various prioritised programmes or activities.
There is also an additional allocation of ₹25.55 crore under the head ‘Global Engagement and International Cooperation’ which is mainly to be used for the activities related to the G-20 and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) presidency of India. The Ministry has to release funds for the arrangement of G-20 and SCO cultural track meetings to be hosted by India during its ongoing presidency.
Public funding for performing comes from central government and local authorities. Each country has its own national body – e.g. Ministry of Culture or Arts Council. In France, Spain, Italy and many countries of Central and Eastern Europe, funding comes directly from the Ministry of Culture, via specialist performing arts departments. In the United Kingdom, Ireland and Nordic countries such as Finland, Denmark and Norway, an Arts Council is responsible. Arts Councils were conceived as a type of ‘arm’s length’ executive body with independent decision-making procedures separate from government, although their true independence has been questioned in some countries in recent years.
There is added complexity in European countries with federal or other regional structures. In Germany, the 16 federal states (Länder) assume political responsibility for funding culture, each with their own funding programmes and policies. Belgium has distinct territorial regions and linguistic communities, each with separate structures to support culture, in the Flemish, French and much smaller German-speaking Community. In the United Kingdom, there are separate Arts Councils for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Although the national level is the most prominent, local authorities are generally credited overall as the major contributors to the cultural sector, far exceeding ministries and other sources. Local authorities vary from one European country to another in their structure, distribution, political and economic significance. In some countries local authorities are minor performing arts funders while, in others, they far exceed central government funding. Regional theatres are often owned and managed by local authorities. Many cities and regions are renowned for their high arts investment. In Spain, while central government funds national arts organisations, more funding for performing arts is at regional level from the 17 Autonomous Communities
(e.g. Catalonia, Aragon).
To sum up the decline of art and culture funding, it is essential to examine the everyday experiences of arts and cultural organisations in negotiating various governments’ cultural policies for funding income diversification. Efforts need to be made to identify the challenges of declining public funding and the connected pressures for arts and cultural organisations to be accountable for this purpose.
By Sarat C. Das
(The content of this article reflects the views of writers and contributors, not necessarily those of the publisher and editor. All disputes are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of competent courts and forums in Delhi/New Delhi only)
Leave Your Comment