“Yesterday we found 16,000 pieces of art in a copper mine.

It seems the Germans take

better care of their art than people.” - Frank Stokes, The Monuments Men. To what
extent should art be prioritized over social welfare? (40)

In the movie, The Monuments Men (2014), a group of museum directors and curators are
tasked to help Allied troops save works of art from the Nazis and Soviets. Some are found in
mines. Up to 800m underground, mines were bomb and weather-proof. They were cool,
dark and usually dry (1). Stashing art in mines was an example of care – care that was not
extended to people by the Nazis, whether Jews or ordinary Germans.

Stokes’ observation about people getting less priority than art would not seem out of place
in today’s world. Priority means resources and the basic denominator for resources is
money. A huge amount of resources is poured into the arts, from America to Zimbabwe.
Money comes from two primary sources, the government or philanthropists. This raises two
questions: To what extent should art be prioritized over social welfare and does this change
when seen from a governmental or philanthropic perspective?

The current reality is that for most governments, spending on the arts does not exceed 1%
of Gross Domestic Product (2) and in fact, is often much less than that. One example is
India, which in 2011 spent some US$217 million on supporting arts and heritage (3). While
this seems like a lot of money, there is hardly enough to go around. This amount goes to
cultural centres, theatre schools, museums, libraries and India’s archives. And even this
amount cannot be cut – India has very little private support for the arts. In contrast, India
spends some US$5 billion on public healthcare. Here, the priorities are obvious – social
welfare is more important than art. But it is just as clear that to keep the arts alive, some
funding is necessary, especially in a country with an artistic legacy as rich as India’s.

The situation is just as dire in Italy, which ‘claims to have the highest density of arts and
cultural treasures in Europe’ (4). While Italy’s arts budget is bigger than India’s at over 20
billion Euros, it is still less than 0.3% of Italy’s Gross Domestic Product. France has headline
attractions into which it has poured funds, such as the Louvre, but this has been at the
expense of other institutions and programmes not in tourist-rich Paris. France also has the
reputation of being the most generous European state in terms of social welfare (5),
handing out 34% of its GDP to the needy.

The principle is clear: art is important, but social welfare should have much greater priority.
This is particularly true for democratically-elected governments. People do have needs like
housing, food, education, unemployment benefits and healthcare. And far more people
experience these needs than those for whom a night at the opera or a stroll in the Louvre is
an urgent necessity. An elected government that hopes to return for another term in office
had better take care of these more pressing basic needs first. This is also the crux of the
problem – art is a higher order need, further up on Maslow’s Hierarchy. It can be put off
until all other more basic – and urgent – needs are met. Closer to home, the late former
Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, put it this way: “Poetry is a luxury we cannot
afford.” At least not until all other social needs have been taken care of.

If social welfare is best left to the government, might it not be better for art to be supported
by philanthropy? After all, philanthropy can never come up with a third of the French Gross
Domestic Product to help the poor. It would make more sense for private donors and
companies to support individual artists, collectives or institutions. Yet, the question does
not go away – are people or art more important? The answer really depends on whether the
donor is a private individual or a corporation with something to sell.

India reports that corporate donors are now increasingly diverting their money from art into
sport, perhaps because of its mass appeal and opportunities for product placement. Sport is
also less prone to the embarrassing controversies the arts can create. Apparently, the tax
breaks for corporate and private donors are also not enticing enough. Clearly here, the
primary motive for donation is not to help – it is to either buy brand recognition or get a tax
discount while looking good doing it.

However, it can be argued that so long as money, whether from the government, businesses
or individuals, goes into the economy, people are helped. This depends too much on how
and where that money is spent. Money that goes into industries in which participants are
profitably employed certainly helps, but it does not go where it is needed most urgently or
soonest. Social welfare, for all its faults and bureaucracy, can do it better and faster. Trickle
down wealth often never gets to the lowest levels where it is needed.

It would seem that social welfare should be the main concern and given the lasting effects
of the 2008 financial crisis, it would also seem wisest to prioritize social welfare over art
completely, especially in countries that are suffering greatly. But many countries have an
artistic heritage deserving of protection – things that can never be replaced if lost now. It is
perhaps such art that needs a share of the resources. Looking after the memories and
culture of a people is also a way of looking after their long-term welfare. Financing
community arts is also a way to enhance the well-being of people. These things, however,
mean nothing if people do not survive to enjoy them.

There is art, however, that no one would suffer from not having. Should state, corporations
or private donors be financing ‘cutting edge’ experimental art over shelters for the
homeless? Should they be paying for the expression of vain, insipid or profane whimsies of
self-proclaimed artists over legal protection for abused women? Art may no longer be a
luxury we cannot afford. But it should never be prioritized over social welfare. (1000 words)

Bibliography

1. www.aaa.si.edu/blog/2014/03/monuments-men-inside-the-mines
2. www.oecd.org
3. www.bbc.org
4. www.bbc.org
5. www.thelocal.fr/20161222/france-confirmed-as-european-champions-for-welfare-
spending