At WiseGEEK, we're committed to delivering accurate, trustworthy information. Our expert-authored content is rigorously fact-checked and sourced from credible authorities. Discover how we uphold the highest standards in providing you with reliable knowledge.
What Are the Different Types of Arts Funding?
Arts funding is financial support for artists and the work they create in the form of grants, fellowships, and public arts programs. The term generally refers to any arts financing that does not come from the commercial sale of works of art. National and local governments, private companies, and wealthy individuals offer funding to individuals or art organizations. This is the primary means of financing for many forms of art that do not lend themselves to mass-produced, commercial business models. The volatile natures of politics and art sometimes create controversies over publicly funded art.
Since ancient times, artists have been supported by powerful figures such as kings, emperors, and popes. This system was refined during the Renaissance, during which great artists such as William Shakespeare and Michelangelo enjoyed patronage from wealthy state or church systems to create their masterpieces. In modern times, arts funding has remained a way for wealthy people to increase prestige while supporting the work of their favorite artists. National arts programs, meanwhile, have fostered the development of culture in communities around the world. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, revolutionary U.S. programs like the Federal Art Project saved many artists from devastating poverty.
Today, a significant portion of arts funding is provided by foundations working in behest of large corporations. These have the double benefit of reducing the public burden of support for symphonies, ballet companies, and other arts organizations while providing tax breaks to the donating company. Wealthy individuals often set up foundations for the same reasons. Churches do not offer the arts patronage they did during the Renaissance, except for supporting occasional faith-related art or literature. Some monasteries, however, do offer writing fellowships for artists in residence.
State and national entities are another major source for arts funding. In the United States, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has provided millions in arts financing every year since 1965. Local arts councils and similar state-based agencies also offer grants and fellowships. Many private arts foundations will match state-provided funding, effectively doubling the amount of any grant. When governments face budget shortages, these arts-related programs are sometimes among the first that politicians will attempt to cut, although a strong public outcry can often preserve them.
Artists often portray the extremes of the human experience, which can be disturbing or even shocking to some people. Public arts funding is occasionally the subject of controversy when politicians or their constituents question the merit of daring artists. In the 1980s and 1990s, the NEA came under fire for supporting the works of artists like Robert Mapplethorpe, Andres Serrano, and Karen Finley. The 2000 film Dirty Pictures dramatizes one of these controversies. In the 21st century, public arts funding is again jeopardized, this time by shrinking state and national government budgets.
AS FEATURED ON:
AS FEATURED ON:
-
![Many ballet companies rely on arts funding.]()
By: Aleksandr DoodkoMany ballet companies rely on arts funding. -
![Patronage, such as that received by Michelangelo to create the art on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, is one type of arts funding.]()
By: Marco DesscouleursPatronage, such as that received by Michelangelo to create the art on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, is one type of arts funding.
Discussion Comments
@clintflint - The problem with that kind of thinking is that without arts funding we would have almost no public art at all and very little intellectual art. Unfortunately, what is beautiful and enduring is not always what sells. And what is good for people is not always what they want to spend their money on.
On top of that, there's the fact that something like an orchestra costs massive amounts of money, so if it didn't receive funding through grants, no one would be able to afford to see it. Remember it includes dozens of people who all need to be able to practice full time and travel to a performance space and maintain expensive instruments.
That's not even including all the other elements like the venue and the people who work there and so forth. If everyone who went to see the orchestra had to bear the full weight of the cost then no one would go and the whole thing would very quickly fall apart.
If you live in a society where there isn't a massive gap between rich and poor, then you need to fund the arts somehow, because otherwise they cease to exist.
@Fa5t3r - I honestly don't think anything like that should be subsidized past a certain point though. If it isn't good enough to earn money for the creator on it's own merit, I don't see why we should all have to pay for it anyway.
I feel the same way about sports though. And most of the time they don't need extra funding, the money just needs to be used more appropriately.
I understand that people who are starting out sometimes need a boost and that's one thing. But I just don't think dying arts should be propped up when no one is genuinely interested enough in them to actually spend money on them.
There was a controversy in the local papers recently where some people were complaining about a local author who had received grants to work on her writing. She had then turned around and complained about how the government doesn't support the arts enough and was called ungrateful.
But when they actually listed her funding it was only a fraction of a fraction of what they put into sports and other forms of media for grants. And she wasn't complaining on her own behalf, but on behalf of all the authors who don't get funding. So I have to say I'm kind of on her side.
Post your comments