European art in an age of austerity

Michael Marder worries about the effect of austerity cuts on European arts funding:

Last month, the Portuguese government announced the definitive closure of 38 cultural and social foundations and 100% cuts in the funding of 14 more.

Likewise, the Spanish government has reduced public funds allocated to cultural organizations by 70% in the last three years. Despite State Secretary of Culture José María Lassalle’s previous affirmation that culture is “neither a luxury nor a caprice,” the new budget of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s government did not spare the hallmark Prado Museum, the Institute of Cinematography, or even the Network of Public Libraries, which will receive no money for new books next year.

Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, arts funding has been slashed by 25%. And Italy’s La Scala opera house faces a $9 million shortfall, owing to reductions in subsidies.

Marder worries about the longterm effects of this, writing, “Cultural production, the wellspring of collective imagination, generates resources for finding creative solutions to problems – even those that seem completely disconnected from art.”

As I wrote last year, discussing U.S. funding for public television compared to other industrialized countires, European governments fund the arts and culture to an extent that’s nearly inconceivable in the American political context.

The most recent comparative study of government arts funding that I can find, a 2005 Canada Council for the Arts report, found that Arts Council of England grants came to about $22 per person. In Sweden, it’s around $27. The U.S.?  43 cents. (I’m converting these figures from Canadian dollars.) A 1998 comparison by the Arts Council of England, included in Canadian report, noted that French arts funding accounted for 1.31 percent of public spending. In Finland, it was an astonishing 2.1 percent. The U.S. was .13 percent.

All this is to say that even after dramatic austerity cuts, European countries are likely to fund the arts at levels well above what American voters consider exorbinant. This does not mean that this cuts won’t be potentially devastating — thanks to high levels of government spending, European countries may not have the same infrastructure of private funding to support the arts. In a time of recession, it’s hard to image that a phalanx of wealthy individuals and foundations will suddenly emerge, desperate to spend cash on modern dance or installation art. 

The other interesting question is how artists will respond. In the winter of 1968, French New Wave filmmakers and their student supporters were willing to take to the streets — at times clashing violently with police — to protest government interference in the arts after the Ministry of Culture decided to replace the eccentric preservationist Henri Langlois as director of the Cinematheque Francaise. The protests wound up shutting down that year’s Cannes Film Festival. And this was a government that was actually increasing support for the film industry. The ultimately successful cinematheque protests — Langlois was reinstated —  are today remembered as something of a coming attraction for the more dramatic strikes and sit-ins that were to come that summer.

The trends in European art may not be quite as radical as they were in the late 1960s, but the response might still be interesting to watch. I can’t imagine how you would quantify this but it seems reasonable to assume that generous government funding might have something of a moderating effect on the content of art. With artists increasingly left by the state to fend for themselves, could European culture get a little rowdier this decade?