Whether the government should subsidize the arts has been a long-standing debate. Although history has proven that art has been subsidized by the princes and nobles of the Medici family, the emperors of Austria, members of the British Parliament, and the French government and government. But should governments subsidize the arts? Supporters believe that art is for non-profit purposes, has public benefits, and needs government protection and support. Opponents believe that government involvement in art will hinder the free expression of art and become a tool to promote national ideology and identity. In recent years, with the global financial austerity, arts subsidies have been increasingly reduced, and raising self-financing has become a major challenge for museums, art galleries and other art institutions. Although art institutions such as museums and art galleries hope that the government can invest more resources and subsidies so that museums and art galleries have enough funds to present high-quality exhibitions and educational activities, the formulation of cultural policies not only needs to be subject to public supervision. It is also closely related to policy makers’ understanding of art. Therefore, using the question "Should the government subsidize art?", this paper analyzes the views of Western art economists and sociologists on government subsidies for art, examines the pros and cons of the debate, and reflects on the social value and relationship between art and museums. Responsibility, in order to think about how the art subsidy policy mechanism should be formed, and also hope to seek theoretical basis and reference for the formulation of policies for our government to subsidize art and regulate art activities. In favor of government subsidies for the arts. In the West, some economists’ views on government subsidies for the arts often start from the external benefits of art, believing that the external benefits of art become the reason for art to receive subsidies. Take education as an example to illustrate what external benefits are. Education creates personal benefits for the educated and also provides external benefits to the entire society. External benefits are the benefits that each educated member brings to other members of society. Since the external benefits of all consumption generally benefit all members of society, it can also be called "collective benefits." The analysis and description of external benefits of education are also applicable to art. While both art and education provide personal benefits to consumers, these benefits are the pleasure and education people receive from attending live art performances, visiting museums and galleries, or being exposed to other works of art. These pleasures and edifications are classified as external or collective benefits. So what external benefits does art have that can justify government subsidies? Some Western economists believe: First, art is a legacy left to the next generation. Famous economists W.J. Baumol and W.G. Bowen believe that it is in the collective interest to preserve art and culture as a legacy for the next generation. This applies not only to the preservation of books, architectural monuments, and museum artworks, but also to the performing arts, which require excellence in craftsmanship, taste, and preservation of tradition. Take museums as an example. Through research and collection, museums ensure that past and present culture and art can continue to be preserved. Through display and education, museums allow future generations to understand the rich cultural heritage of mankind, thereby establishing their own identity. Second, art can help enhance a country’s reputation. Some are proud of the international recognition of their national artists and performers, and the high profile of these artists creates some degree of collective benefit. In addition, art helps to demonstrate the country's "flexible rights" and thus builds the country's reputation. Third, art can help improve local economic benefits or urban regeneration. Arts activities can provide spillover benefits to producers in the local economy. Many economists believe that the existence of cultural institutions such as museums can help develop local economies or promote urban regeneration. Art can attract consumers from out of town. In addition to buying tickets for local performances or museums, they will also spend money in local shops, restaurants and hotels, thereby promoting the development of the local economy and even increasing employment opportunities. The most well-known case is the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain. The establishment of the museum promoted the regeneration of a declining urban area and successfully created a new regional style and image. It has become an important case of using art to promote urban regeneration. The fourth is the contribution of art to general education. The main function of a museum is education.
The American Association of Museums believes that museums are institutions that collect and preserve materials that can most effectively explain natural phenomena and human life, and use them to enhance people's knowledge and enlightenment education. Education is the reason for the existence of museums. Whether it is formal or informal education, museums provide the benefits and contributions of public education services. The arts are an integral part of a general education. Fifth, art contributes to the social improvement of participants. Participation in the arts can hone our appreciation or expose us to the highest and best achievements of our peers, making us better people. If this is the case, it is an external benefit, as the public seeks personal satisfaction simply through participation in the arts. If that person's behavior improves during the process, it is also a good thing for others and is external to the participants. Sixth, art encourages artistic innovation. Innovation is a major source of economic development and can be protected by patents. However, innovations in the field of art cannot enjoy patent rights. Specific artistic works such as paintings, music or choreography will be protected by copyright. But copyright provides no protection for a particular work's innovative principles—like a new painting technique or a new dance style—and artistic experimentation is expensive and prone to failure. When it fails, the artist or nonprofit group trying to do so must bear all the costs. But when it succeeds, the person who invented it can't stop others from using the new technology for free. The increasing number of such situations will hinder those who want to reform art, and as a result, their experimental creations will fall far short of what society expects. So from an innovation perspective, this is also a rationale for government subsidies for the arts. Arguments against government subsidies for art. “Subsidy” itself contains an unequal power style, because any intervention leaves the public with no way to make a wise choice. Therefore, those who oppose subsidies are worried that the intervention of the state apparatus in the development of art through subsidy policies will cause art to lose its autonomy and become a tool to propagate national ideology and identity. Because through subsidies, the government has the power to decide what is “good” art and exhibitions, museums may also favor certain types of exhibitions based on the tastes of those in charge. What kind of art is "art"? What kind of art is “good” art? Subsidy policies seem to highlight the contradictory nature of this issue. For example, U.S. Senator Jesse Helms's fight against the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is a well-known case. In 1989, NEA-funded artist Mybert Thorpe exhibited works related to homosexuality in the exhibition "The Perfect Moment." The organizer of the exhibition is the School of Contemporary Art at the University of Pennsylvania, which received a US$30,000 NEA grant and plans to tour the exhibition in Philadelphia, Chicago, Washington and other cities. The exhibition angered Senator Helms, leading the Senate to vote to stop the NEA from supporting "obscene or vulgar" works. The incident highlights the struggle between artistic freedom and the control of power, and is also the result of the conflict between public and congressional aesthetics and the professional aesthetic standards of the art world. In addition, subsidy policies often involve issues of fairness. Are subsidies paid by the rich to help the poor, or vice versa? How does the current income distribution affect access to the arts? Does income inequality prevent the poor from full access to art and culture, and thus become a reason for public subsidies? It is precisely because of the rights versus equity argument that not all sociologists or economists are in favor of government subsidies for the arts. Among the most vocal opponents of public subsidies for art was the social philosopher Ernest van den Haag. In the article "Should the Government Subsidize the Arts?" Hager expressed his opposition to government subsidies for the arts from three aspects: Hager believes that there is no good sociopolitical reason for the government to force taxpayers to subsidize the arts selected by the government. He believes that American museum collections have nothing to do with the national life of the United States and do not contribute to national cohesion or identity. If the government subsidizes the arts, it will force all classes to subsidize the middle class. Doing so harms, rather than helps, truly valuable artistic creation. Haag believes that when it comes to true artistic creation, government subsidies actually do more harm than good.
He believes that the government cannot distinguish between good and bad art, so it will distribute subsidies equally to all. But if payments were distributed in a non-discriminatory manner, fake artists would be attracted and huge government budgets would be wasted on making fakes. Worse, while subsidies build a world of fake art, it’s harder for real artists to succeed. Subsidy is one of the important means of cultural and arts policy. From the above analysis, we can understand the external benefits that art brings to society as a whole. Among the most important are the preservation of cultural heritage for future generations and the collective benefits derived from artistic innovation. There are also some sociologists who oppose government subsidies for the arts from the perspective of rights and fairness. These debates have an important theoretical guiding role for the rapidly developing contemporary art and museum construction in my country. At present, as our government vigorously develops cultural and creative industries, non-profit institutions such as contemporary art and museums have been included in the field of cultural and creative industries, and cultural industry policies have a tendency to replace cultural and art policies. Under such circumstances, it is even more necessary to discuss the norms, policies and legitimacy of national art support. How to make government subsidies for the arts more efficient and effective and improve the subsidy mechanism are issues that cultural policy makers must solve.