The Artist against Arts Funding
2
AGAINST ARTS FUNDING In 2010, the National Arts Council cut the annual grant given to local theatre company Wild Rice on the basis that it was critical of governmental policies and satirized political leaders. This instantly instigated a backlash from the artistic community. While we might be inclined to jump in on the hype – we should pause to think for a moment where the real problem lies – that is, in the nature of arts funding itself. Of course, arts funding has its benefits. The government can amass resources to fund something as obscure to the public eye as the arts. Yet, with organizational funding comes financial censorship. Any organization which provides funding necessarily promotes its interests through the work it funds. We cannot blame the NAC for cutting the funding of productions with anti-governmental sentiment, just as we cannot blame someone who refuses to patronize a work of art critical of them. We must thus be conscious that it is not the people in control of arts funding, but the very nature of arts funding which places the artist in a compromising position. The artist’s goal, is above all, to reach new horizons and to be fresh, be novel. In contrast, arts funding belabor the artist with conditions under which
-
Upload
samuel-johnson-ho -
Category
Documents
-
view
1 -
download
0
description
A short article detailing some of the reasons why arts funding is not as glamorous as it puts out to be.
Transcript of The Artist against Arts Funding
AGAINST ARTS FUNDING
In 2010, the National Arts Council cut the annual grant given to local theatre company Wild Rice on the basis that it was critical of governmental policies and satirized political leaders. This instantly instigated a backlash from the artistic community.
While we might be inclined to jump in on the hype we should pause to think for a moment where the real problem lies that is, in the nature of arts funding itself.
Of course, arts funding has its benefits. The government can amass resources to fund something as obscure to the public eye as the arts. Yet, with organizational funding comes financial censorship. Any organization which provides funding necessarily promotes its interests through the work it funds. We cannot blame the NAC for cutting the funding of productions with anti-governmental sentiment, just as we cannot blame someone who refuses to patronize a work of art critical of them.
We must thus be conscious that it is not the people in control of arts funding, but the very nature of arts funding which places the artist in a compromising position. The artists goal, is above all, to reach new horizons and to be fresh, be novel. In contrast, arts funding belabor the artist with conditions under which the artist has little, if any, space to break the rules. This in turn propagates self-censorship and creates a stale artistic landscape in which to work.
The top-down nature of arts funding also inspires another breed of artists bent on breaking the rules. And to make their point, they go for overt, flashy and crass. And in the end, what is the public left with bad art.
Besides, with the advent of crowdfunding, arts funding loses some of its relevance. Political works which the Government are against will surely find support from many financially able Singaporeans.
In a sense, the only party which benefits from arts funding is the Government. Which is why, if practitioners wish to operate freely, they should not be asking for more money from the Government. For their own good and for the sakes of the rest of us.
