D-day
So, yesterday was "D-day for the Arts", the day on which Arts Council England announced three-year funding for just over 600 organisations across England (Wales and Scotland have their own Arts Councils). It was a day of mixed news - good for some, who were funded for the first time or who had their funding increased; bad for others, who had their funding reduced; and very bad for 206 organisations who had their funding removed completely. Tweets abounded, press statements flowed, and predictably a number of people insisted out loud on the comments boards that arts shouldn't be funded by the taxpayer because they didn't use arts.
I'm going to ignore the solipsism for a moment and examine why I think this point of view is simply incorrect. You hear this argument from time to time about other state-funded systems, such as healthcare: "I never get sick so why should my taxes pay for the NHS?" I'm going to briefly state the two things that I think are wrong with this viewpoint: 1) It is extremely unlikely that any individual in the UK has not benefitted from universal healthcare, if only in their early years. We don't keel over and die of measles, for example, because every child in this country is vaccinated. You have benefitted from healthcare already, and you continue to do so. Just ask the Third World what happens when you don't vaccinate. Or these people.
Further, 2) Everybody in this country benefits from other people having access to healthcare. Even if you haven't visited your GP in forty years, your life is more pleasant because you are not surrounded by people collapsing in the street and dying in front of you, breathing deadly germs as they go. The fact that everyone can pop to the doctor's whenever they need to means that everyone is healthier, which means that you in turn are healthier, which means you are benefitting from the NHS. Although some people would earnestly seem to believe they are not a "user" of the NHS, everyone in this country is because everyone benefits from the health of the generality.
I would make a similar pair of arguments for the arts. First, even if you never set foot in a theatre, even if you don't visit your local art gallery, I'll bet you're a user of the arts. Enjoy that scupture in the town centre? Like the way that mural brightens up the back of the railway station? Public art is everywhere - in its visual, literary and performing forms - and I've yet to meet anyone that actually complains about them being there. Yes, sometimes people have views on an individual work of public art; but they rarely if ever express the view that it should all be burned in a heap.
There's a clear parallel for the second argument as well - that everybody benefits from public investment in the arts, whether they view themselves as a direct user or not. I've written elsewhere about what I believe the positive effects of the arts to be; in short, I think the whole of society benefits from a more educated, thoughtful, tolerant population, and I believe enagagement with the arts promotes consideration, self-education and open-mindedness. Some of it is pretty, some of it is thought-provoking; all of it has its place in contributing to how we think and feel about our world.
So in short, I'd say that anyone who feels they shouldn't contribute tax to the funding of the arts has fundamentally misunderstood how the tax system works and what public funding is for. I would also say anyone who thinks they don't use the arts is a liar, twice over. Arts are everywhere, and they benefit everyone. We are all users of the arts, and that's a good thing.
I'm going to ignore the solipsism for a moment and examine why I think this point of view is simply incorrect. You hear this argument from time to time about other state-funded systems, such as healthcare: "I never get sick so why should my taxes pay for the NHS?" I'm going to briefly state the two things that I think are wrong with this viewpoint: 1) It is extremely unlikely that any individual in the UK has not benefitted from universal healthcare, if only in their early years. We don't keel over and die of measles, for example, because every child in this country is vaccinated. You have benefitted from healthcare already, and you continue to do so. Just ask the Third World what happens when you don't vaccinate. Or these people.
Further, 2) Everybody in this country benefits from other people having access to healthcare. Even if you haven't visited your GP in forty years, your life is more pleasant because you are not surrounded by people collapsing in the street and dying in front of you, breathing deadly germs as they go. The fact that everyone can pop to the doctor's whenever they need to means that everyone is healthier, which means that you in turn are healthier, which means you are benefitting from the NHS. Although some people would earnestly seem to believe they are not a "user" of the NHS, everyone in this country is because everyone benefits from the health of the generality.
I would make a similar pair of arguments for the arts. First, even if you never set foot in a theatre, even if you don't visit your local art gallery, I'll bet you're a user of the arts. Enjoy that scupture in the town centre? Like the way that mural brightens up the back of the railway station? Public art is everywhere - in its visual, literary and performing forms - and I've yet to meet anyone that actually complains about them being there. Yes, sometimes people have views on an individual work of public art; but they rarely if ever express the view that it should all be burned in a heap.
There's a clear parallel for the second argument as well - that everybody benefits from public investment in the arts, whether they view themselves as a direct user or not. I've written elsewhere about what I believe the positive effects of the arts to be; in short, I think the whole of society benefits from a more educated, thoughtful, tolerant population, and I believe enagagement with the arts promotes consideration, self-education and open-mindedness. Some of it is pretty, some of it is thought-provoking; all of it has its place in contributing to how we think and feel about our world.
So in short, I'd say that anyone who feels they shouldn't contribute tax to the funding of the arts has fundamentally misunderstood how the tax system works and what public funding is for. I would also say anyone who thinks they don't use the arts is a liar, twice over. Arts are everywhere, and they benefit everyone. We are all users of the arts, and that's a good thing.