7精

All governments are entitled to fund artists that are willing to do propaganda for them, yet mass government funding of the arts as a mechanism, if it is possible at all, would destroy the soul of the arts.

First of all, the government, as a bureaucracy, is consisted of endless complicated systems and red tapes. Its main work is to make plans and finish them. If they are going to fund something, they would definitely plan it. The arts, however,do not emerge from elaborate planning or complicated organization. Let us turn to Florence in the 15th century to see a concrete example. Population there was less than fifty thousand, but it included great artists like Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael, Alberti and so on. Was this splendid art prosperity resulted from an art foundation funded by the Florence government? Or in another case, had the Paris government in the 19th century made some plans about the Impressionism that “produced”great artists like Renoir, Cezanne and Monet? The arts come out of the genius of the artists spontaneously. And strictly hierarchy and rigid, bureaucratic rules and the massive amount of trivial red tapesbrought by the government would definitely suffocate this genius. In a word, the arts cannot be planed.

Secondly, government censorship would inevitably come with the funding which would greatly threaten the freedom of the artists to create. To fully appreciate the gravity of it, we just need to look at some totalitarian countries which claim to protect the rights of their artists while censorship prevails. In China, for example, it is not possible to publish any literature concerning the dark side of the society, not to mention those criticizing the government. Since describing social reality is one of the most essential parts of literature, and freedom is a necessity of creativity, it is no wonder that none writer living in China has ever won a Nobel Prize. Even in democratic countries without overt censorship, the government funding could still harm the integrity of the arts. Since the information-asymmetry between the government and artists is inevitable, the government cannot fund equally fund every artist. So there would be quite a few artists who endeavor to create works that please the government or even bribe officials to get more funding.

Finally, government funding would probably devastate the diversity of the arts. Diversity, the veryspirit of the arts, lies in

the fact that the artists are fundamentally individual human beings who have diversified life experience. It is hard to imagine that Jack London could accomplish his great works that are filled with wildness and manhood just sitting in an office or apartment provided by the government. Nor would Von Gogh go crazy and paint the DeSterrennacht if he were paid to paint or even paid to do nothing. Most artists live lives of their own and feed themselves by art or any other means. And for the sake of the arts, the government should not interfere by giving them money for the mere fact that they are artists.

Art is like a seed that that has prosperous vitality, and it does not need any attendance. The only way to ensure the prosperity of the arts, so at least it seems to me, is to be tolerant and liberal about the arts and give them enough space to grow.