Owais Lightwala, the professor, producer and arts entrepreneur, says yes.
Imagine, for a second, a world without music or stories or dancing. Would you want to live in such a world? Art is a basic human need, and thankfully, in Canada, we recognize this and have a long history of publicly funding it.
The origins of public arts funding can be traced to the 1951 Massey Commission, which called for a strong public funding system to protect Canada’s settler cultures from rising US dominance of our radios, screens and stages. While this vision succeeded, it failed to respect the sovereignty of Indigenous cultures or anticipate today’s multicultural mosaic. Still, the commission’s core concern remains vital: how to cultivate a distinct Canadian cultural identity in the face of US influence.
We already know how to support Canadian industry. We spend $1.6-billion annually to help Canadian farmers stay in business. Without these supports, Canadian agriculture would likely collapse against cheaper imports, making us forever dependent on others for food. Similarly, according to an OECD estimate, we spend some $4.5-billion annually in subsidies to oil and gas industries. Alberta alone contributes more than $1.6-billion annually to oil and gas, and this is for a sector that posted record profits in 2022. This spending is considered necessary to sustain business investment in Canada and keep high-paying jobs here. Meanwhile, total government investment in culture is about $10-billion annually, but the sector accounts for some $57-billion in GDP and 672,000 direct jobs. Of that $10-billion, only 7 per cent is for the “arts” (visual, performing and literary)—the subsidy-backed arts sector is quite a bargain compared to the rest of the budget.
But we shouldn’t buy something just because it’s cheap; it has to add value. The arts are hugely popular with Canadians. We now spend twice as much on the performing arts ($1.4-billion) as we do on live sports ($650-million). Canadians value theatre as much as, if not more than, professional hockey. But just as it’s good that we spend public money on making sports accessible for everyone, it’s good to spend public money on artistic activities that many more people engage with. Total public investment from all levels of government makes up only 36 per cent of Canadian arts revenues. If arts organizations weren’t popular, how would they raise the remaining 64 per cent from tickets, donations and sponsorships?
Not only do we need to fund the arts publicly, we need to invest much more. While the arts have proven resilient, stagnant funding and rising costs mean companies must charge higher ticket prices. Public funding should prioritize subsidizing access for people on low incomes (youth, seniors, people with disabilities etc.). We should also prioritize those communities that are often neglected when it comes to culture, such as rural towns and First Nations. The current system of arts funding is far from perfect, but the way to improve it is to invest more so that more Canadians can enjoy the many benefits art gives us.
Colin Craig, the president of think tank Second Street, says no.
Imagine being the convenience store worker you see every time you visit the store. Or perhaps you’re a low-income single mom or senior citizen on a fixed income. Now imagine you read a news story about a Canadian artist who received several thousand dollars from the federal government to put on a solo art show in Germany called “Whose Jizz is This?” The artist’s show features sculptures, prints, videos and several giant sex toys she calls “The Fleshies.”
How would you feel knowing your tax dollars were used to fund such a controversial purpose while you were struggling to make ends meet? Suffice it to say, many Canadians would feel disappointed.
Is it right to force people to fund the arts through their taxes? I argue no. To be sure, I like the arts as much as the next person, but the arts are not a core government service such as policing, road repair or healthcare. When many people are struggling just to scrape together money to fix their roof or repair their fridge, it’s hardly fair to force them to fund a sex-toy show in Germany.
Now more than ever household budgets are stretched. Inflation has hit a 40-year high and food banks across the country are overwhelmed. Many Canadians will tell you they have more pressing expenditures than art—food, their mortgage and home repairs, to name a few.
A more effective and fair approach to funding the arts would be for governments to leave more money in each taxpayer’s pocket. This way everyone can decide for themselves if spending their own money on art is a priority, and if so, what kinds of art they want to support.
Some readers might suggest the “Whose Jizz is This?” example is an outlier. But it’s not. Art by its very nature is subjective and often divisive. Many readers will remember the controversy caused by “Voice of Fire,” a large $1.8-million painting that the National Gallery of Canada purchased in 1989. The painting had just three simple lines—two vertical blue stripes with a red line up the middle. Another example is the band that Ottawa funded whose album depicted Jesus Christ as a piece of excrement. One doesn’t have to be a Christian to understand why this was controversial.
In Calgary, city hall has funded public art that offended local Indigenous people (“Bowfort Towers”), that literally burned a hole in an observer’s jacket (“Wishing Well”) and that had to be removed because it used images without permission (“Snapshots”). The city’s art program stumbled so many times that public pressure led to its being paused and reviewed.
When you—an individual—are left in charge of funding the arts, you can decide whether a piece is offensive or brilliant, great or mediocre, or if it’s a priority given fiscal constraints. And when you’re left to fund the arts, governments then have more time to focus on what they should be doing—core services.
Owais Lightwala responds to Colin Craig
My colleague gives the example of the art project “Whose Jizz is This?” as something that is too “controversial” to “force” “struggling” Canadians to fund with taxpayer dollars. Let’s unpack each of these last three words.
What exactly are the criteria for being “controversial?” Simply that the content references human sexuality, a topic that is literally the subject of most popular songs? Or perhaps it’s the queer, feminist, questioning nature of the piece that makes it too risqué for the average Canadian to bear the existence of? No one will argue that every Canadian must participate in or equally appreciate every piece of art, but it is a core value of our society to protect freedom of expression unless it incites hatred or violence. Also, we need to clarify how the creator of this piece, the musician Peaches, came to receive federal funding to present “Whose Jizz is This?” in Germany. The current system for public arts funding is a highly competitive process, with rigorous layers of evaluation, reporting and accountability. For example, the Canada Council for the Arts funds only 10 per cent of the applications it receives each year (6,000 out of some 60,000). In contrast, the top Ivy League universities in the US have an acceptance rate of around 7 per cent. The artists who do somehow make a living working exclusively in the arts (and most do not) are the very best of the best. We don’t fund hobbyists; we fund renowned experts who bring us acclaim and prestige on an international stage.
Then there is the issue of “forcing” “struggling” Canadians to pay for arts while they may have difficulty making ends meet. This argument does not hold much water, as a 2017 report by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation shows that Canadians who earn less than $50,000 only contribute 13 per cent of federal income tax revenues, while representing 68 per cent of all tax filers. In fact, one-third of Canadians, presumably with the lowest incomes, didn’t pay any taxes at all. So the convenience store worker, struggling single mom and senior citizen cited as examples are probably not contributing to the funds that pay for any public services, let alone for the arts. The group that’s arguably “forced” into supporting the arts is the wealthiest Canadians who pay the majority of taxes, a group for whom I am reluctant to shed tears.
Anyone committed to democracy has to be committed to democratizing means of expression and speech.
The larger argument put forth against public funding for the arts is that governments should focus on core services and let individuals decide the rest. I’ll challenge this in a couple of ways. First, as I already established, public funds are largely coming from wealthier people to begin with, so individual choice instead of public funding would really only lower taxes for the rich. Those wealthy individuals can now spend the surplus funds as they see fit, concentrating more power for censorship into the hands of fewer people.
In this country, thankfully, our government is elected democratically, and if we don’t like our representatives we get to fire them and hire new ones. By extension, public funding has to be accountable to the larger public or it will be subject to public outrage. The example of Calgary temporarily suspending funding for public art is given as a failure, but I’d say it’s actually a great example of public accountability in action. Conversely, if a handful of wealthy patrons decide privately what arts are good and bad, what is offensive and inoffensive, we return quickly to a medieval culture of aristocratic feudalism. Anyone who is committed to democracy has to be committed to democratizing means of expression and speech as well. One is impossible without the other.
My main contention with this claim that governments should focus on “core services” is the definition of core services. The arts are absolutely a core service. Funding the arts is funding education, as the arts include arts education and training. The arts are where we build the increasingly valuable skills of communication, collaboration, creativity, innovation, conflict resolution, emotional intelligence; the list is endless. These are vital skills that our workforce is going to need as the economy continues to transition away from traditional low-skilled labour to high-skilled knowledge and service sector work. Funding the arts is also healthcare, as a slew of studies have demonstrated the strong relationship between participation in arts activity and better mental health and increased community belonging. Dancing is a much cheaper way of preventively addressing diabetes, hypertension, arthritis and heart disease than any drug currently on the market. What could be more “core” than ensuring Canadians live long and healthy lives? The arts are at the core of our humanity, and robust participation in the arts has to be core to any thriving human society.
Colin Craig responds to Owais Lightwala
I agree with Owais Lightwala’s point that life would be pretty dull without the arts. A good tune, thought-provoking painting or captivating movie—these artistic endeavours enrich our lives. However, mankind has created art for millennia without government subsidies. Exceptional artists will thrive with or without state funding.
Lightwala argues subsidies are necessary because Canadian artists have to compete with the dominant cultural presence of the United States. So why is there such a long list of famous Canadian artists who have overcome that challenge without public funding?
Readers will know the name Justin Bieber, one of Canada’s most popular musicians ever. It’s fairly well known that Bieber got his start after he and his mother began posting clips on YouTube of him singing. Through sheer talent and word of mouth, Bieber’s videos attracted 10 million views in no time. His performances eventually caught the attention of a recording executive, and the rest is history. No subsidies required.
Nickelback is a polarizing band—you either love them or hate them—but it’s not debatable that they’ve enjoyed success on the world stage. In an interview with loudwire.com, the band explained how guitarist Ryan Peake used his day job working in the cattle industry to borrow $30,000 from a local bank to get the band off the ground, while lead singer Chad Kroeger borrowed money from his father-in-law.
It’s not clear if Rush, one of Canada’s most successful rock bands of all time, ever accepted public funding, but as they started out as a libertarian-inspired band, it seems doubtful they would have asked the state for financial help to write lyrics denouncing the state.
Justin Bieber, Nickelback and U2 show that exceptional talent will rise to the top without subsidies.
Like Canada, Ireland also has a culturally dominant neighbour: the United Kingdom. So how did U2 break through and become the top grossing act in the entire world during the 2010s (pulling in more than $1-billion)? Watch their performance of the song “Out of Control” at Slane Castle on YouTube and you’ll hear lead singer Bono explain that each band member asked a relative for a loan of 500 Irish pounds in the 1970s. U2 used that money to help pay for recording their first album, and that obviously turned out quite well.
These examples show that exceptional talent will rise to the top without subsidies.
Lightwala cites the 1951 Massey Commission report as the impetus for state funding of the arts in Canada. But even if you accept the argument that subsidies were needed in the 1950s, one can’t ignore how much the world has changed in the last 70 years. As Justin Bieber has shown, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok allow artists to build a following directly with the public. Etsy, eBay, Bandcamp and other sites help artists sell their products around the world. Artists who want donations can always try Patreon, GoFundMe or Kickstarter.
What about public art—surely it would fail without subsidies? Not necessarily. Consider the “See Art Orlando” project in Florida. Unlike the City of Calgary’s scorned subsidized public art program, Orlando’s has received positive reviews and is paid for 100 per cent through donations and corporate sponsorship. While the City of Calgary has placed public art in inconvenient locations (including one piece behind a fence in a compound that’s inaccessible half the time), Orlando’s nine exhibits are located throughout the downtown and make for a nice two-mile stroll from exhibit to exhibit.
Finally, Lightwala argues that there’s an economic benefit in favour of governments subsidizing various special interest groups, including more funding for the arts. Let’s ignore the fact there’s no money available—Ottawa’s debt is rising by $6 million per hour. The pro-subsidy claim is common: give a special interest group millions and get an even larger economic return. But is that true? Readers should note that such claims are routinely put forward by recipients and their hired consultants. The conflict is obvious. Conversely, independent economists often come to the opposite conclusion. For example, while every professional sports team will tell you significant benefits come from subsidizing their facility, a 2005 survey of US economists found 86 per cent agreed or strongly agreed that subsidies for pro sports teams should be eliminated.
Lightwala cited how much Canadians are spending on the arts right now. A good question to ask is: Why aren’t people spending more? There’s nothing stopping them… unless of course it’s just not a priority, considering their budget constraints and other choices available to them.
This brings me back to my first point: when governments leave more money in your pocket, you can decide for yourself if supporting the arts sector financially is a priority for your household and, equally important, which artists to support.
