ABSTRACT
The question addressed in this articleCan government art support be justified theoretically?—might elicit an abrupt response: “Perhaps not, but so what, that is, why should it require a theoretical justification?” If, in a democracy, the citizens favor public arts funding, then public arts funding is what we should have. But the suspicion is abroad that the citizenry does not favor the use of public money for arts funding. The likelihood that Americans may not endorse arts funding indicates that some justification, in terms of the right and proper activity of the state (i.e., a theoretical justification), would be demanded if state funding were to continue in a context of public disapproval. Of course, we cannot claim to know that the majority does disapprove of government arts funding. Rather, that prospect merely recommends that justifications be prepared. Furthermore, charges, quite plausible ones, have been
made that public arts funding primarily benefits the already advantaged. And this suggests yet another reason why a theoretical justification ought to be produced. The purpose of this article is to explore various avenues for justifying arts funding. Our results are mixed. Some grounds for government arts funding are found, but it is noted that in embracing these justifications untoward consequences may be incurred. Thus, it is urged that we refrain from government funding of the arts because the effects of such funding, when guided by the kinds of justifications available, would be deleterious to the art world. However, the conclusions of this article are provisional; there is no reason to believe that someone may not construct better justifications for government arts funding than those examined here.
