If you tune in to Desperate Romantics, the new drama starting tonight on BBC2, you might start thinking about the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood: possibly about the integrity of their art, more likely about the steamy carryings-on in their studios. What you won't be thinking is: how did they manage those paintings - and that sex - without the aid of a government grant? Ben Bradshaw (pictured left), our latest Culture Secretary, has said that his main job, up to the next election, is enticing the artistic and sporting elite back to Labour. "We have had a great cultural and sporting renaissance in the past 10 years," he said. A Conservative government, with its programme of spending cuts, would put that at risk. "I hope," he intoned ominously, "the arts, cultural and sporting world will wake up to that." - Telegraph
Dominant Social Theme: Labour supports the arts.
Free-Market Analysis: There is an idea obviously - at least within Britain's Labour party - that the top-level of artistic composition will whither and die if it is not supported by government grants. This idea is on a par with the idea that scientific research is best advanced through government subsidies and grants from universities also intermingled with government. But is this really so? Here's a fairly cogent rebuttal also excerpted from the article above:
The best books and songs and poems and plays do not get written, nor works of art crafted, because of state subsidy. They are born from the talent of the artist. Cutting subsidies might complicate their lives, but it won't necessarily compromise their work. Vote for whomever you like, but don't worry too much about the end of our "cultural renaissance".
An excellent point, and one wishes it were made more often. There is so much money flowing through Western governments these days that there is an endless line of apologists eager to inform the general public that art, science and other kind of human activities are endlessly predicated on government largesse. In fact, the greatest accomplishments of the late 20th and early 21st century - industry-wise anyway - probably lie in the fields of electronic and communications technology where Western governments have little or no influence. Two young men in a garage, after all, created Apple. And Bill Gates needed no subsidies to develop Microsoft.
Conclusion: The idea that many kinds of creative endeavors are somehow linked closely to government funding is actually a surprising one when the scope of history is properly observed. The lone genius, pursuing his or her area of interest, is both time-honored and highly credible. Whether one speaks of Socrates, Shakespeare or Schubert, the profile of creativity is individual and has little to do with the funding mechanism. The results would have happened one way or another because the inspiration was innate and the individuals took human action to realize their dreams.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/sp_en_6_207x100.gif)
