Taxes and The Arts

 Adolphe-William Bouguereau's The Nut Gathers which can be seen at the DIA. Source.

Art galleries are now more then ever in the UK under pressure to make their social benefits heard as the country sinks further into recession. Bankers may not be facing more taxes but the arts certainly are finding less pennies in their piggy banks. But is this actually what the tax paying public want? According to a recent primary election here in Detroit funding cuts to the arts may not necessarily be the case. 

But let me start with the UK. Art in the UK is run through the Arts Council of England [ACE] under instruction from the government. Founded in 1945 it is home to 7,500 artworks which it lends out to galleries and museums. While under the Labour admission it received huge payouts to invest in galleries and theatres, a change in government resulted in a 29% cut in funding due to a parliamentary select committee deciding it was grossing wasting public money. Today ACE aren't commissioning any new galleries and have been forced to sell many of their contemporary art pieces to create extra funding. 

Art has all too often been considered an "idle pastime for idle moments" and while a country is suffering through it's age of austerity giving out tax payers money for new pretty pictures or theatre performances many would have you believe was a waste. But have the government actually asked the tax payers themselves if they want to continue funding the arts, in say a referendum? No, of course not.  

 The DIA - Detroit - source

But that is just what happened here in Detroit on August 7th. As Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties went to the polls for the primary elections a mileage was passed to create a tax to fund the Detroit Institute of Arts [DIA]. For the next ten years this tax will raise $23 million dollars annually will to keep the DIA's doors open to the public. What does this mean to the people living Detroit and the metro region? Well it's attached to the value of your home, so if you're home is worth $200,000 you'll be paying an extra $20 a year in property tax. 

The DIA itself is considered one of America's top museums in having one of the biggest collections of artworks in the country, housing works by O'Keeffe, Cezanne, Van Gogh, Picasso and even a Warhol. While I'm not sure of the state of art galleries else where in the US, here in Detroit the state and to a point the city wiped their hands clean of the DIA in the 1990s. Since then it's been almost run entirely as a private business. What little funding the DIA was receiving from the state was slashed a further 25% in 2009 and things were starting to fall apart, money needed to come from somewhere before the gallery had to start cutting hours, jobs and ultimately closing. Unlike ACE, the DIA couldn't just sell art because not only would it violate museum practices but would "isolate the DIA from the national and international museum community". 

Opposition was calling this tax an extra increase on the tax payer - why not merely increase the entrance fee but that was only providing 3% of the galleries income originally. [Yes this may be odd to residents of the UK and some US cities but the DIA charges entrance fees of $8]. The mileage under the "Art is for everyone" campaign was welcomed as one people would be willing to pay to keep the art gallery doors open and the future of the DIA is much more secure. Furthermore, residents of the three counties now get in for free [including us] and another local city - Ann Arbor is calling for a similar mileage to be passed for their galleries. In a city like Detroit the arts and their institutions are vital not only for future generations, but for us - the current residents. They can inspire change and hope which is so very important in a city that the media likes to write off. 

Diego Rivera's [the husband of Frida Kahlo] Detroit Industry [the north wall] again at the DIA. Source

What I hope this comes to show is that often people do want to keep the arts going and are willing to pay a little extra to keep them open for everyone. Times may be hard but they can see the importance of keeping their doors open and want their voices to be heard. Maybe if the UK government could be as brave in asking the public what they wanted to do with the arts it wouldn't be heading the way it unfortunately is.

What is your view, would you be willing to pay a little extra for the arts? Would you love to tell the government what you think about the arts and funding? Or do you think the arts need to be cut in harder times?

Giveaway plug.