Normative justification for public arts funding: what can we learn from linking arts consumption and arts policy in Israel?

Abstract

This article studies the socioeconomics of government public expenditure for the arts and the normative foundations of state intervention in the arts. I pose two interrelated research questions: (a) what is the relationship between the public funding of the arts and their consumption? and (b) what mode of justification and what perception of the place of art in society is reflected in this relationship? Based on the philosophical work of Alan Badiou, I develop a novel conceptual framework to delineate three types of normative justifications for the public funding of arts organizations: romantic, didactic and classical. Using data from the public funding of 92 orchestras, theaters and dance troupes in Israel between 1999 and 2011, I estimate a cross-lagged panel data model to study how arts funding both affects and is affected by the levels of consumption of the organizations’ productions. The results of the study show a complex pattern of different relationships between funding and consumption that accord with the three types of normative justifications for public arts funding.

From starving artist to entrepreneur. Justificatory pluralism in visual artists' grant proposals

“…First, the ideological assumptions based on which a government subsidizes the arts may seep into artists’ justifications for obtaining support. Feder (2018, pp. 3–4) distinguishes several “normative justifications” on the part of the government.…”

“…3–4) distinguishes several “normative justifications” on the part of the government. Cultural policy may romantically “conceive of art as having a value of its own and se[e] the merit of its existence in the artistic expression itself,” (Feder, 2018, p. 3) free from “external” values. For example, state intervention may be motivated by a wish to support experimental forms of art that would disappear if left to market forces.…”

“…In contrast, governments may also justify public funding through a heteronomous, more instrumental perception of art and artists. The focus is then “not on the artwork itself but on the objective of the artistic expression, which is the public use of art as an ‘ideological state apparatus’” (Feder, 2018, p. 4). The most compelling example here is socialist realism, a genre that the Soviet Union endorsed for the idealization of its communist values.…”

“…Grant applications may then appeal to Boltanski and Thévenot's “civic world” or Heinich's “civic register,” drawing on principles of collectivism, participation, engagement, civil rights, and justice. Finally, Feder (2018, p. 4) argues that art subsidies may also be legitimized by “conceiv[ing] of the arts as a kind of amusement or leisure time activity,” bringing “enjoyment to its audience,” using “the enjoyment and approval of the audience” as the yardstick for measuring the value of art. Such a context may invoke justifications in grant proposals from Boltanski and Thévenot's “world of fame,” emphasizing the importance of the public, maintaining public relations, attracting a large audience, and appearing in mass media.…”

Access to arts consumption: The stratification of aesthetic life-chances

“…Still, it was another Weberian concept, that of lifestyles , that guided most of the subsequent sociological literature on arts consumption, especially following Bourdiue’s (1984) influential oeuvre on cultural taste. Access to art was studied mostly by economists and cultural policy scholars due to its importance as a rationale for public arts funding and a cultural policy goal (Feder, 2020; Laaksonen, 2010; O’Hagan, 1996). These studies have two main caveats.…”