Barrett Kalellis
Thursday, July 22, 2004

Story Continues Below

  This is not only a bad idea, but a bad idea on stilts — unless you are a closet socialist. It’s bad for two reasons, one philosophical, the other practical.

One of the difficulties in discussing the issue is that all sorts of things are lumped into the cultural category: museums, symphonies, parks, recreational programs, even the zoo. But parks, recreational programs and the zoo seem more the province of local municipalities and should be funded by local levies. If they can’t afford them, then they shouldn’t have them.

The first question to ask is, should government be taxing and redistributing for the arts in the first place? The correct answer is no. Once taxpayers are coerced into paying for what they do not necessarily want, all sorts of mischief results. Is it fair to take from one person’s pocket to fund another’s activities? What about money given to fund art activities that go against your personal beliefs? Should evangelicals be forced to help pay for a gay pride exhibit? Why should a farmer from Owosso have to subsidize a museum of African-American history if he has no interest in this?

To avoid ensuing battles over how to spend the taxpayers’ money, we should declare a “separation of art and state.”

Many arts organizations are suffering because there isn’t a wide enough base of patronage to support their budgets, and many corporate and state subsidies have been cut. If the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, or the Detroit Institute of Arts, or the Henry Ford Museum had the same size audiences as regularly attend Red Wings games, or the Hootie & the Blowfish tour, they wouldn’t have to go hat in hand every few years and justify their existence.

Unfortunately, the primary organizations that need the most funding assistance are those that, in some way, preserve the past. But not enough of the present generation is concerned with the past, only the present. Put this down to ignorance, poor education, a plethora of alternative entertainment choices, and the media-driven “Church of What’s Happening Now.”

The often-overlooked root cause of their distress is that the art forms these groups represent, whether music or art, are no longer the dominant cultural language of our time. Appreciation of art music and painting, to point out only two, has become ever more an elitist passion, requiring either some education, training or exposure at an early age.

The hoary arguments for continued funding of these institutions that cater to the few are those that declare them as “good for society,” or how they “improve the quality of life.” No one questions the truth of these claims.

But given the realities of American society today, I would rather think that the quality of life could be more readily improved by stamping out hip-hop music, which is worthless and unclean; or by teaching young people something about economics, about language, the pursuit of virtue and spirituality, or even the history of their country. Surely steps in these directions would help build audiences for the finer things.

Once the camel’s nose of arts taxation is in the tent, it will suddenly never be enough — and subject to repeated increases. Eventually the funds collected will strangely be used for other purposes, following the familiar pattern we have witnessed before.

People are taxed enough — too much, in fact. Slapping a surtax on concert or game tickets will only have the effect of driving many people away from these venues, since ticket prices are already high. Nor will another tax boost attendance at the arts organizations, because it really is not price that deters patronage.

An arts tax makes about as much sense as putting a moustache on the Mona Lisa.

Barrett Kalellis is a Michigan-based columnist and writer whose articles appear regularly in various local and national print and online publications. He can be reached at kalellis@newsmax.com.