Part 9 (1/2)

The analysis broadly conrovernment subsidizes the arts because of external pressure, but Jonathan is wrong in assuovern the arts Instead, this pressure stems from internalized values that are shared by people in the art world as well as in the various governencies These values depend on the mystique of art, the sauen-eral interest

In practice the rent seeking and general interest explanations overlap So and soeneral interest Depending on an individ-ual's personal experience with the arts, one e one explanation as more important than the other

Because I shall present a third explanation in the following chapter, I postpone the assessment of these two explanations until the end of chap-ter 10 In that chapter I will exaovern a blind overnments can be perceived as an effective donor that receives nu the arts In other words, art overnoers have an above-average income Subsidiza-tion allows some people with more moderate incomes to attend these kinds of concerts If the aim of subsidization is to assure that concerts remain accessible for people with lower incomes, where would you draw the line? How h the fact that an incoh incoree that the arts do not need support topondof artists in order to produce some extraordinarily talented artists?3 Can art consumption help people with little cultural capital to increase this very capital?

Chapter10 Art Serves the Government How Symbiotic Is the Relationshi+p between Art and the State?

How the Veiled Purchase of a Mondrian Painting became the Center of Public Debate In 1998 the Dutch National Bank bought a Mondrian painting for 36 ave it to the Dutch people Journalists found out that the pur-chase had been handled behind closed doors using intereal The 'gift' from the bank to the Dutch people came from public money; therefore, parliament should have been asked for per The elected representa-tives of the Dutch people ive themselves The Pri, adht that parliament would have never con-sented to the deal Therefore, a 'enuous procedure and soovern 'nice' for the country While the gift was meant to be public, the deal had to remain veiled When it nally became public, a row ensued and the public reacted particularly negatively The people were not happy with the gift because they did not like Mondrian's painting Alex res about the affair They liked the painting very ht that it had cost far too ue Rosa had the most extreme opinion 'I like this Mondrian, but I could never accept it as a gift The president of the bank is a thief; he gives ahat is not his to give He is ift couilders For that money a thousand visual artists could paint s for the rest of their lives' This is what Rosa does when she has paid work Then Peter asked her: ”How certain are you that those murals are what the people want?” And Rosa responded, ”Of course they'd rather spend their money on bus trips to the Costa Brava, but at least their local board representatives like usted by the sneaky ents At the same time, he are of the fact that as a heavily subsi-dized artist he was an accomplice; ”It is terrible that we can only make art and have art around us at the expense of others” This is what he hated most of all Apparently, the whole affair depressed hiuilt, but ry with the bank director for such a poor and clumsy cover up job Alex was pretty sure that the hatred of the Mondrian painting was not terribly profound The hatred for the painting only becahhanded governors who the people resented Under nored it off, and a few years later they'd probably be proud of this new 'pearl' in their national collection Moreover, Alex began to understand that the conceal up soious institution like the Dutch National Bank could never bequeath a national gift in an atant cele-bration with food, drink and entertainment for everybody, nor could it have been the source of an exciting debate in parliament In order to show their special inuential positions both the national bank and the Dutch State needed a 'veiled'presentation

How the Dutch Made a Favorable Impression in Berlin In the summer of 1999, Alex visited his friend Adrian in Berlin where he presently has a studio Sitting in a cafe and reading the newspaper head-lines, Alex noticed that the Dutch Dance Theatre had given a number of extre he heard from Gerhard, Adrian's new boyfriend, that the performances were part of a combined Dutch political and trade mission to the Gerhts fro and he had been involved in the staging of the performances of the Dutch Dance Theatre Gerhard said he and his col-leagues were very i The style, although international, still had a Dutch touch to it They noticed that the artistic director and the large majority of the dancers were not even Dutch But then listening to them speak, they discovered that everybody in the coehands it was a strange experience to see so ners in this Dutch company because in Germany the members of state-subsidized art companies must be German Alex noticed that the newspaper critics had also praised the cultural openness of the Dutch Gerhard certainly loved the inspiring international charise lighting in the Netherlands And at this ti so at 'Het Muziektheater' in Aovernovern to the Dutch public, when they would have preferred another kind of art or a tax deduction instead? And why did the govern deal into a overnhbors? Finally, what kind ofto convey?

The explanations for government involvement in the arts presented in the previous chapter are probably lacking They don't explain the extent of the government's involvele It looks at the govern art, one can say, is in the interest of the govern-ment

Unlike the previous chapter, this chapter approaches governift-duty continuued or forced to support art Instead like a large corpo-ration the government has the power to support art and does so in order to prot fro to overnment sup-ports art because art is ily convinced that the govern on this subject is incomplete Nevertheless, I like to share what I have1 Governe of the sciences and arts” This saying fro time inu-enced Dutch art policy If one interprets it in the strict sense, it overnment should never interfere in the arts In a broader sense, it overnment is 'allowed' to support the arts, but must leave subsidization choices to the art world2 The idea that a government could have artistic taste is abhorrent The autonomy of the arts must be respected at all costs Government neutrality when it comes to art is par-ticularly important in countries like the us, Britain, and the Netherlands In Germany and France, for instance, art is more politicized Neverthe-less, these countries also have overnment neutrality with respect to the arts

This chapter exa art It deoverne of the arts' Because governovernovernment to only support certain kinds of art

My approach to government behavior in this chapter differs fro this rather abstract introduc-tory section to justify my approach This section eneral readers

The welfare approach to government expenditure discussed in the previous chapter treats the governathers fro these citizens in the foret more and others less than what they paid in taxes this kind of redistribution is supposed to serve incoovern-ain or lose froovernment has no interests of its own, it can be called seless When it subsidizes the arts, it selessly serves public interest by 'serving art' This vieas treated in the public interest explanation in the previous chapter (Also in the other explanation in that chapter, the rent seeking explanation, the government was seless; in fact in that explanation, it was seen as a victihly abstract view of governe and persistent involveu in the case of the arts The other, the rent seeking explanation, is in a broader senseIt nevertheless reanized art world could lead to persistent large-scale support, whereas other, better-organized pressure groups actually lost much of their earlier sup-port

The latter scenario could change, if it is acknowledged that civil ser-vants and politicians can also be rent seekers, as the public choice theory in economics assumes Individual politicians could increase their elec-toral base, coalition ministers could minimize conicts, while civil ser-vants could try to ets4 However, if we really want to explain govern one step further I want to look at governencies and not just at the interests of specic government employees

In order to develop a overnovern ive and take as two separate functions These functions are not carried out by soencies that operate on different levels and in urations The relationshi+p between taxation and expenditure is often extreovernment or a state is not a totally independent 'natural' entity5 Nor is it merely the indiscrioverne rroups of employees have relative autonomy They have discretionary space6 Under constraints, they pursue their own goals Constraints come primarily from share-holders, but also from laws, conventions, trade unions and, in the case of a departher authorities within the company Therefore, boards of directors do not indiscriminately carry out share-holders' wishes In the saencies do not auto-matically carry out the wishes of citizens or their representatives Within constraints, established by higher governoals

It's often iuish actions that proceed from the use of discretionary space from those actions that proceed frooals and other li circumstances It is equally difcult, if not impossible, to determine which actions of individ-ual civil servants and politicians fully utilize discretionary space There-fore, it is better to draw the attention to the interests and actions of gov-ernency to agency Therefore, govern identities or, , personalities By way of overnovernanism

In this context, it should be noted that the use of 'government interest' often serves as a shortcut When no detailed inforroups in and around the govern-overnment interests serves as a second-best solution However, by speaking in terovernment interests I also emphasize that institutions have relative autonoovernment behavior ultimately rests on the private interests and behav-ior of individual ofcials, voters, delegates, and others does not overnment actions can be reduced to those private interests and behavior patterns For instance, the satisfaction civil servants and politi-cians get froovernovernment, the total is more than the sum of the parts The institution maintains a state of relative autonoanisovernment institutions, a modal habitus is reproduced that newco in the administration, civil servants' and politicians' attitudes change For instance, if before enter-ing the administration most important bureaucrats and politicians had little respect for the ne arts, they would quickly learn to respect it

(In this respect, I depart froical individualism of tra-ditional economics and the public choice theory and I side instead with the sociological approach such as the guration theory of Elias and the habitus-eld theory of Bourdieu7 Because the total is overnment interests cannot be equated to the sum of internal pressures applied by bureaucrats and politicians who favor the arts Therefore, the present approach differs fro, as is the common practice in public choice theory8) In this context, I shall not only speak of governovern with certain tastes in art This is a shortcut for coovernment enables certain experts to develop tastes that becoov-ernment subsidies and purchases' At the same time, it's more than just a shortcut; I eovernment in its pref-erence for art

Art Appears to be Less Serviceable than it was during Monarchical Tie by the courts, the church, and other patrons pre-ceded e It seeovernments are the successors of the church and the e if the interests thatthe arts bore no relation to the interests of the patrons of earlier periods

In stylized fashi+on, a Patron and a Maecenas can be said to have been interested in art in three respects Firstly, they enjoyed the immediate benets that followed fro on the castle walls and music was performed for exclusive circles Secondly, they enjoyed the indirect benets of the internal display to sub-ordinates, which led to increased respect, obedience, solidarity, etc Thirdly, they enjoyed the indirect benets of external display to competi-tors in the form of the preservation or improvement of their position in social space These three dimensions of art utilization depend on one another Solidarity, respect, worshi+p, awe, or fear of others are just as related to art utilization as enjoyht be

One use cannot be separated from the other, as we made clear in chapter 3

The Patron and Maecenas of old did not hide the fact that art repre-sented an attractive consuood The possibility of display was an auxiliary attraction9 By conspicuously consu art products, rich consuave them returns in the form of more respect10 Respect was a reciprocal effect: onlookers responded to the ed' the respect and awe for the Patron or Maecenas Not only subordinates or 'friends' were impressed, but also enemies In the past, the rich used art to mark their position on the social ladder in order to preserve or improve that position

In overnments can still be analyzed froovernue that this is iovernments are purportedly disinterested, and also because art is increasingly considered as useless to large donors like governovernments, the Patron and Maecenas of old openly consuift giving Because they were interested in art, these 'benefactors' ations were speci-ed Although viewed froifts the Maecenas basically commissioned artworks, while the Patron employed artists12 Even churches were 'consumers' of art rather than donors Unlike the common people, they could afford the conspicuous consuovernments on the other hand are donors rather than con-sumers They often spend more overnments are supposed to be disinterested, they prefer to present themselves as donors and not as consuovernovernifts serve the need to display better than conspicuous consumption does

It is also true that the arts have changed Art has lost soer used as propaganda Modern advertising strategies are es Nevertheless, display through art has not disappeared, but its nature has changed The eneral This is particularly obvious in the visual arts

More than 200 years ago visual art was attractive to the Maecenas because of the artistic symbols that painters es of the artworks and could respond to them (In this respect, it resembles the way modern people 'read' adver-tisele between churches, kingdoms, aristocrats, and the afuent, the arts were often used for a direct and specic purpose Specic es, not easily misunderstood, indoctrinated subordinates to sub, local aristocrat, priest or les that would assure their superiors' place on the social ladder Observ-ing the various scenes depicted in paintings that presently hang on the walls of our museums, one can see that patrons ate concrete es in the political strife of the time

Current art does not tell buyers and observers what to do or believe, at least not in a blatant way The eneral, not specic When the cia sponsored A the Cold War, it wasn't trying to convey a concrete e, like 'shake off the chains of coeneral, s and you will see freedom in America'14 The cia evidently believed that ht or wrong as they may have been in this case, it is unlikely that art has lost all of this instruenerally only in retrospect that the instrumentality or lack of instru for instance, which for a long time stood for a totally disinterested 'l'art pour l'art', can in retrospect, be viewed as having had a e that served the needs of a new clientele It effectively ained independence and prosperity of those urbanites who could afford to take trips to the countryside It is this countryside as seen through the eyes of the urban visitor that the Is, consuuish themselves and develop a new identity

I still believe that the arts are instru so others in social space The saions, and countries The es are less literal anddid not depict liberty; it is liberty The fact that this kind of vague e is short-lived, just as short-lived as ests that art can still be used in an instru would probably not be used to symbolize American liberty) European Governed and so has its patronage The new patronage is one of deovernree, of private corporations and private foundations Most of all overnments have replaced the courts, churches, nobility, aris-tocracy and regents of previous generations (In the us, governins elsewhere15 Nev-ertheless, as I suggest in the Appendix to Chapter 10, the explanation of government involvement in the us does not have to be all that different) Three interdependent develope First, the old donors became less relevant in soci-ety Secondly, the arts became more independent or autonomous; the arts were less prepared to serve as conveyors of concrete es plus they becaes Thirdly, the new donors, ly needed art to convey their general es

At the same time that the formersocial order, the arts gradually became less serviceable to the former masters In the nineteenth century, Bohemian artists entered the scene Gradually artistic autonomy became an ideal not only of artists but also of the art world and of general society There-fore, it was not so unusual for a Dutch e of the arts' It is a state or bishop

It is possible that the obsession with artistic autonoe In a number of countries, there appears to have been reluctance on both sides to resue It is hard to calculate, but it is likely that in these countries the level of overall support of the arts showed a relative downhill slide in the second half of the nine-teenth and the rst half of the twentieth centuries This was more likely the case in a country like the Netherlands than in, for instance, France, where the authorities overnment support increased rapidly after the Second World War in all Western countries, including the us In the Netherlands, it rose from a very low level to that of a per capita rate equal to that of generous countries like Germany and France17 That the restoration of a substantial patronage systeun earlier is probably due to the fact that both the art world and govern-ments were not ready for it The art world reained more autonomy it had to develop a new and stable habitus before it could once again deal with large donors, who could very well be wolves in sheep clothing Political parties were also reluctant to participate They didn't want overnment to follow in the footsteps of the old royal syste a new type of ofcial or state art

After the Second World War, this reluctance did not altogether disap-pear, but it becaovernes On the one hand, the situation in the ne arts appeared to be degenerating Art world expenses,quickly and the relative inco artists was on the increase There was a sense of urgency; assistance was called for

On the other hand, the benets of involveovern-ments had also increased Coly based not only on ht, but on cultural inuence as well Moreover, culture was increasingly being seen as essen-tial for creating solidarity and coherence anicant role in all this The governes froes could be interpreted as expressions of government inuence, this had to coovernment did not overtly promote its assistance to the arts Governments often supported the arts in a surreptitious way And this betted the arts

Despite an initial reluctance by both sides, art and govern to play their newfound roles After the Second World War, gov-ernan to rise quickly In the Nether-lands, government expenditure on the arts, per capita, corrected for ination, more than tripled from 1950 to 1980 (After 1980 the amount stabilized) It's impossible to ascertain whether the priovernments or frole most decisive factor18 Govern-ments needed art for veiled display both internally for their own people, and externally for other nations

Governments need display their power As we noted in chapter 8, in 'times of peace' power only exists as a display of power symbols These symbols keep others informed about the power of their 'superior' or 'competitor' and ultioverne enormous amounts of collective riches and have a monopoly on the authority to levy taxes and use violence, the power of the state is seen as unrivaled Today's governments with all their wealth and power are the heirs appar-ent to kingdoms of earlier times19 Like the h art and direct it at their own citizens or at coions or towns) I will rst exam-ine internal display

Veiled Display Serves Social Coherence In 1999, as mentioned earlier, the publicly owned Dutch National Bank spent 36Never before had soAs described above, the painting was given to the Dutch people, which meant that it was handed over to 'Het Mauritshuis' ift represented a ceremony to mark the eventual transition to the Euro

Given the celebration and the enorift, one would have expected the transfer to occasion a grand celebration to be attended to by istrates and perhaps e reworks display for the rest of the nation No such thing hap-pened, however The queen unveiled the painting in the presence of a s of mostly art world people If there were any speeches, they were not broadcasted on radio or television The unveiling went almost unnoticed in the news Why wasn't this opportunity utilized for a grand display of cultural values? One would have expected as much