Image citation: by Markus Winkler, licensed under Unsplash
Art and freedom
Art remains inherently tied to freedom, originating from the right to freedom of expression. Art, as a reflection of individual expression, has evolved alongside humanity. Considering art’s significance to society, a key question emerges: Should it be supported through public funding? From a libertarian standpoint, although art is widely acknowledged as valuable, there are three core arguments against its public funding. These stem from three distinct angles: the moral or philosophical view, the economic or utilitarian view, and the artistic view.
Morality argument
The moral argument against public funding of the arts aligns with the broader case for individual liberty. Rooted in natural rights theory and the Lockean principle of self-ownership, this view holds that individuals have ultimate ownership over their bodies (physical integrity), their actions (freedom), and the fruits of their labor (property). Any coercive actions based on the use of violence and/or threat with violence, except when they are in self-defense, are violating individual liberty and the principle of self-ownership. According to “Mr. Libertarian,” Murray N Rothbard, “War is Mass Murder, Conscription is Slavery, Taxation is Robbery.” Since public funding relies on taxation, which is regarded as a form of theft, using tax revenue to finance the arts is seen as immoral and unjustified.
Utility argument
The utilitarian argument against public funding of the arts is grounded in economic reasoning that upholds individual liberty, drawing on insights from the Austrian School of Economics. A key concept from the Austrian tradition is Hayek’s theory of local knowledge and Mises’ understanding of the role of prices in society. Local knowledge refers to the dispersed, context-specific, and temporary information that emerges spontaneously through interactions in a free economy. It is decentralized and constantly changing, making it difficult, if not impossible, for governments to acquire or utilize it effectively. Since rational resource allocation depends on this knowledge, government intervention often leads to inefficiencies and market imbalances. Prices, in turn, serve as the primary mechanism for disseminating this knowledge throughout society, stimulating individuals to make informed economic decisions.
Artistic argument
From an artist’s perspective, public funding can harm the arts by creating dependency, restricting creative freedom, and hindering true artistic success. When artists rely on government funding, they become dependent on the political regime, leading to conformity and, in some cases, censorship. Art that challenges the social status quo or criticizes political elites is unlikely to thrive when funding decisions are controlled by the very institutions it seeks to critique. Ultimately, recipients of public funding cannot remain entirely independent from those who distribute the funds. Public funding also undermines artistic creativity by removing the incentive to produce self-sustaining, innovative, and challenging work. When artists rely on government support, political elites, not the market, become the primary arbiters of artistic value. As previously discussed, these elites often lack both the ability and the motivation to foster truly independent and self-sufficient art. Instead of responding to audience demand and artistic merit, publicly funded artists may tailor their work to align with bureaucratic preferences, leading to stagnation rather than innovation.
Finally, public funding limits artistic success. The world’s most renowned and successful artists are not funded by the government but by consumers who value their work, with the market regulating supply and demand. While publicly funded artists may receive a basic level of financial support, this safety net often becomes a ceiling rather than a stepping stone. Lacking the pressure to compete and innovate, they risk falling into conformity and passivity, preventing them from reaching their full potential.
Conclusion: Pink Floyd or Sex Pistols
The first question to consider is whether there are objective standards for judging art, specifically, whether we can determine if a particular work is good or not. The answer is both yes and no. On one hand, certain art forms can be considered “good” based on the emotional response they provoke and the evaluations of experts in the field. These factors provide some level of objective assessment. On the other hand, artistic value remains inherently subjective, as different individuals experience and interpret art in their unique ways.
Here’s an example of both objectively and subjectively good art. Pink Floyd, one of the greatest bands in music history, can be regarded objectively as good. Their evolving musical style, from psychedelic rock to hard rock and later to the more classical rock sound of The Division Bell, demonstrates technical skill, innovation, and lasting influence. In contrast, the Sex Pistols, despite being one of the most influential punk bands, positioned themselves as a countercultural force, provoking strong negative reactions. At the time of their rise, they, and punk music in general – were often dismissed as bad art by critics.
Yet, both Pink Floyd and the Sex Pistols achieved tremendous success while staying true to their artistic vision. It’s also worth noting that both bands, pioneers in their respective styles, were not publicly funded. Instead, they achieved their success through market-driven distribution.
The key takeaway is that the market serves as the ultimate, and perhaps the most just, judge of good and bad art. Through voluntary interaction, people “vote” with their time, money, and feelings, supporting what they find valuable while ignoring what they do not.
