Arts can (and should) stand on their own

Whenever the region’s arts organizations and their leaders and representatives convene for a conference or summit, inevitably, discussions get around to lamenting the state of taxpayer funding for the arts.

That occurred last week when arts leaders and supporters gathered for the Arts and Cultural Alliance’s Arts Summit at the Sarasota Opera House. As our Arts & Entertainment Editor Monica Roman Gagnier reported, the gathering featured “a mixture of optimism, defiance and facts and figures.” And let’s say some hope. 

Angelica Hull, the Arts Alliance’s director of grants and advocacy, told attendees the perception is state lawmakers — Republicans and Democrats alike — would like to see state funding restored. In the 2024 session, Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed $32 million in arts funding.

One argument always used to justify such funding is the economic impact studies reporting how much the arts contribute to local economies.

In this region, that is a big deal. The area proudly claims it is Florida’s Cultural Coast.

We love the arts. 

At the same time, given our bent against government subsidies, the logical preference should be that the visual and performing arts are like any other business or self-funded not-for-profit organization and should stand on their own financially.

Consider this: Should taxpayers fund professional sports stadia and arenas? Pro sports franchise owners, like arts organizations, immediately respond with data showing the wonderful economic impact of their teams on local economies. Yeah, well, if they’re so wonderful, why don’t those billionaire owners finance their own stadia and arenas instead of sapping taxpayers?

On whose shoulders should the arts and sports arenas rest?  

French economist Frederic Bastiat in the late 1840s was one of the best on this topic. An ardent advocate for capitalism, free trade and individual liberty, Bastiat addressed funding “Theaters and the Fine Arts” brilliantly is his famous essay, “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen.”

Take the example of a new performing arts center in Sarasota. If, say, city government obtains tax revenue — in Bastiat’s example, 60,000 francs — from its citizenry to build the PAC, that is the “seen.” We will see a wonderful arts hall.

But as Bastiat asked: “From where do those 60,000 francs come? This is the other side of the coin. What is the source of these 60,000 francs? And where would they have gone if a legislative vote had not directed them to the rue de Rivoli and from there to the rue de Grenelle? That is what is not seen.

“It is clear,” Bastiat wrote, “the taxpayer who will have been taxed one franc will no longer have this franc at his disposal … He will be deprived of a satisfaction to the tune of one franc, and that the worker, whoever he is, who would have procured this satisfaction for him, will be deprived of wages in the same amount.”

Bastiat clearly sided with the arts having to stand on their own without subsidies. They should compete in the marketplace just as every private business does. 

If their product fills a need that pleases enough customers (including philanthropists) — just as is required of every privately owned business — they will thrive.

In a true capitalistic world, government should not be in the business of paying for and developing sports stadia or performing arts halls or funding the arts — with perhaps one exception, and that is if taxpayers vote democratically to do so, presumably understanding the effects on their pocketbooks.

We don’t need economic impact studies to prove or justify the worth of the arts. This region already knows that. And our bet is, even without government grants, this community would support the arts.