Theaters and Fine Arts Worth Subsidizing?

In Section 4 of his essay What is Seen and What is Not Seen, Theaters and Fine Arts, Bastiat and Lamartine argue over whether it is good or bad to subsidize the arts. Bastiat says no while Lamartine says yes.

Lamartine argues that the arts "broaden, elevate and poetize the soul of a nation" and defends that countries like France would lack their soul without the arts. He believes that without taxes and regulation, an institution is doomed to fail. He also claims that with subsidies, the arts can support wages of 80,000 workers. After all, the work of artists is just as useful as any other profession.

Bastiat takes the contrary position. At first he just talks about how theaters that support themselves have better profits and that the choice to support an institution should come from the people and not from legislation. He wants to protect the free development of activities "without keeping someone on the payroll at another's expense."

Finally, Bastiat looks at the debate by what we can and can't see. The subsidies and taxes come from somewhere. And if we take 1 franc from each taxpayer to pay for the arts, then that is 1 less franc people can use on other things. Since work of artisans is just as useful as others, why are we hurting the carpenters and blacksmiths who won't have that 1 franc spent on their goods? There is the mistake of public spending replacing private spending. This just reallocates wages.

I found Bastiat's arguments very intuitive and persuasive. People don't realize the hidden costs and where the money comes from. He definitely won the debate.

I am a theater kid so I am biased, but I will try to stay non-opinionated. We cannot afford the destruction of the arts; it is the soul of countries. But today, we saw failing Broadway musicals and other problems in the recession. People today just don't support the arts like they used to so shouldn't we subsidize the arts when people don't attend plays or museums? At a point like this don't we need public spending when there is NO private spending? Also, I know I shouldn't be following the money but look: if the we let the arts fail by not subsidizing, then they will have no money to spend at the tailor. This could cause a trickle effect. Isn't it better to take 1 franc away from the tailor (and everyone else) to support the arts and thereby not destroy an institution and let the money come back to the tailor by the artist. I feel like Bastiat doesn't even touch on this. Finally, the arts are tricky. This seems like one of the only industries where there is no trade and even looks mercantilistic. Is there a way that we can make the arts more of a trade? We need more over seas showcases and shows. We need Miss Saigon in Saigon! Then competition comes and then we stop or mercantilistic ways.

We read this too elaborate on the effects of what is seen and not seen. Through the Broken Window Fallacy we saw a little about this. In class we have learned not to follow the money but to look at the resources instead. This essay looks at yet another aspect of hidden costs.