Cultural Economy

I commented at Cliff's Crib that, if more people truly understood what their tax dollars paid for, our national conversation about government would be completely different.

Instead, the national conversation is awash in complete misconceptions, falsehoods, and made-up theoreticals. One of those is that "the government does not/should not provide funding for the arts." This one has been around for a while, and is a narrative often trotted out as an anecdotal example of pervasive government waste and the largeness of government size. The perception is that government pays artists to create pretty pictures or songs, and that the money never goes anywhere else. People who buy into that narrative seem to think this government money is there simply to subsidize the bohemian lifestyles of liberal, artsy types.

The truth is, arts and culture have tremendous economic impact all over the United States, and any honest discussion of the validity of government funding should take that economic impact into account.

Because if it is worth $400 million to the state of Georgia to land a KIA assembly plant, it may be worth it to the state to fund the arts and culture as well. It all depends on the return on investment per government dollar spent, and the taxpayers deserve to hear the truth about the economic impact of their tax dollars. Unfortunately, all they're getting right now are narratives and platitudes, as return on investment isn't a part of the "Big Government Waste" conversation we so often hear.

(HT: Jeffrey)

.

Subsidizing the Arts

Author Kevin Kane recently advocated Louisiana cut subsidies for 'the arts' in the Pelican State.

If there is evidence that government support has been integral to any of these great traditions, Martin does not offer it.

Lamar quickly takes him to task:

Mardi Gras? I hate to break it to you, but it’s publicly-subsidized.

.

How to Manufacture Controversy Out of Nothing

You know, I didn't even know the Smithsonian had a major artistic display by homosexual artists. Until the right-wing activated their "Christ in Pee" narrative - you remember that one, dontcha? It exists because of that one time some no-name artist somewhere recieved a small government grant for crappy art that no one would have ever heard of or seen if it hadn't become political.

Anyway, activation of this narrative scared the pants off a Simthsonian curator while he was traveling, and had a piece of negligibly controversial art removed from the exhibit. A small skirmish in the culture wars, to be sure, but the censorship vs. liberals-hate-Jesus conversation always starts up when Congressmen have to start making actual budgetary decisions, and need something else in the papers and editorial pages.

It is like the Breitbart video-splicing racisim-into-a-speech-against-racism firing of Shirley Sherrod. People are now more frightened of right-wing fever dreams and fake controversies than ever. The GOP Gangsta Rap strategy continues unabated.

.