The value of the Arts to Economics
Posted By Marc on January 29, 2010
Margaret Atwood was recently honoured with a Chrystal Award at the World Economic Forum. The true esteem in which the Arts are held by the WEF, however, was clearly shown in how they handled the acceptance speaches by the various winners: the canceled them.
I really can’t let this go by both as an Anthropologist and as a performing artist.
All too often, the Arts are considered by many to be either “Big Business” or a “Luxury”. Atwood’s speech, available on her blog since she didn’t get to actually deliver it, Atwood asks “what is the place of the Arts at an economic forum?” and answers it by saying
Unlike the discipline of economics, and indeed unlike money – a lately-come tool we invented to facilitate trading at a distance — art is very old. The anthropologists and neurologists are now telling us how old – it’s as old as humanity. It isn’t a frill – something human societies can choose to indulge or to discard. Art isn’t only what we do, it’s what we are. Our musical and dancing and linguistic abilities appear to be built in to every single one of us, in every society on earth. So it’s not a case of whether or not we’ll have art: it’s a case of what sort of art we will have. Good, or bad? Old, or new? Our own, or somebody else’s? Whatever the choices, any theory of humanity that fails to take account of human art fails indeed.
Thank you Margaret – that is a beautiful way of explaining the current perceptions and dilemmas. You are absolutely correct; it is a case of what sort of art we will have. It is not only old or new, good or bad, ours or someone else’s; it is also a question of what type of society we will have.
Now, I am a baroque choral singer. I’m not a soloist and, indeed, I actually dislike doing solo’s – I prefer making music with friends and colleagues. Now the one’s I’m working with now, the Ottawa Bach Choir, is an absolutely top notch group of people; fantastic singers, great conductor, and an absolute blast to tour with. That, BTW, is not meant as an add, although if people want to show up for our next concert I won’t complain 
. I’m mentioning it because I believe that music is built into our souls, brains and bodies. When we sing together, we bond together. Now, leaving aside the Baroque stuff, I also spent a couple of years singing in Irish pubs but, you know, the same general dynamic was at work: singing together brings people together, so it isn’t just a matter of one style or genre – it is music period.
When I say that how we view the arts is also how we view society, I am quite serious. Over the past 100 years, music has increasingly become professionalized and lodged in a mass market, star system. This has served to abstract much of the joy, and opportunity, of people singing together since increasingly, we hear people say “Oooh, I can’t sing!”. Nuts, everyone can sing (I’ll admit that several Guinness’ may help in some cases…). When we, as a society, support a professionalization of something that every human being is genetically programmed to do (see, for example, Daniel J. Leviton’s This Is Your Brain on Music
It is time for the economists to go back to their roots; “economics” comes from the Greek roots oikos nomos which, literally, means “household management”. Now one of the surefire ways to mismanage a household is to systematically denigrate the abilities and potentials of the members of that household and, in this case, the analogy holds true at the social level: a society that relies solely on “experts” is doomed to fail and can only be characterized as “abusive” in the strictest sense of the term.
My friend John Robb has spent a lot of time talking about the concept of community resilience, and this is where my concern lies with how the arts are treated and the scorn show even to the “stars”. How can a community or a society be “resilient” when its members have been systematically cut off from something that we are genetically programmed to do? This might sound like a stretch, I don’t think so as I’ve noted in a few other places, but I would suggest that a large number of people currently caught up in revitalization movements (including Al Qaeda) are involved because of a faulty oikos nomos that has disregarded, trivialized and professionalized everything outside of the mundane, material world discussed by Marx.
JWC on 
Daniel Gallant on 
MM on 
Mr. Xyz on 
Marc on
I’m not sure what your personal take is on public funding of the arts, but I thought I woudl chime in.
I live in British Columbia. In a few days the 2010 Winter Games will open in Vancouver. The Games, and the expense associated with them, have proven to be an issue of great controversy in this province. The budget for the Cultural Olympiad, recently cut by 20% from $25 million to $20 million due to the Organizing Committee’s cost overruns in other areas, forms about eight-tenths of one percent of the estimated cost of $2.5 billion for the entire Games (including almost a billion dollars for security alone). It’s a small amount, very near zero. But people seemed to be happy about it, not only because it’s allowing the display of a great deal of talent and creativity, but also because it could just as easily have been exactly zero.
Last year, the British Columbia arts and culture sector received about $47 million per year in funding from the provincial government. This is about one-twentieth of one percent of the entire provincial budget, almost the least arts funding of any Canadian province. But the government has announced that this $47 million will be reduced to about $2.65 million by 2012. This is almost a 95% cut.
No other province has cut arts funding during this recession. Many provinces have actually increased funding, because they understand the compelling social and economic arguments for it. But after the Cultural Olympiad is over, there will be very little left in the cupboard for British Columbian art and artists.
Hi Brian,
I really have mixed feelings about public funding of the arts. Part of that stems not from the concept but from what I can only describe as bureaucratic sillyness. For example, a number of municipalities have requirements that X percent of construction of public buildings must be used for “art”. This has led to the production of some pieces that I consider to be a) grossly overpriced and b) excrement being inflicted on the public. At the same time, it can be very difficult for good artists in almost every medium to get funding for their work (even if I don’t, personally, like it
).
Personally, I would like to see more public funding for publicly oriented arts production – community choirs, local art shows, competitions, etc. I would also like to see more money going towards operating grants for all levels from local, community groups to professional groups (i.e. professional quality, but not income). I think it would also be very useful to put money towards training of people in the arts in business management issues and other forms of professional development.