Tim Hewitt-Coleman is wrong about funding of arts
GOING through the article (“#FeesMustFall, brass bells and the pain of the taxpayer”) by Tim Hewitt-Coleman reminded me of a zero-sum game.
Business Dictionary explains a zerosum game as follows: “In decision theory, situation where one or more participants’ gain (loss) equals the loss (gain) of other participants. Thus, a gain (loss) for one must result in a loss (gain) for one or more others.”
In the broader context of things, his opinion is that if students are not getting what they want, then arts, culture and heritage cannot be a priority. This premise is flawed in many respects. And here is why.
The Campanile renovation and its future use as a tourist attraction: The municipality has used XY amount of money to repair the Campanile for better appreciation by the public, which is prepared to pay whatever reasonable fee at all times they visit it. This over a period of time would have paid back whatever amount the state has spent on renovating the landmark.
The key question, to decision makers, about cultural or heritage landmarks is whether it should be renovated or not. A futile question, indeed, as the answer is obvious.
So where should the resources for renovation projects come from? Tim’s opinion that those who care for it should pay for the renovations is one way of solving the challenge of its restoration, with the government taking an initiative being the other. Obviously, the winning and truly logical one is that of the government taking the responsibility upon itself. For this, the municipality needs to be commended. And without doubt, it will recoup the investment.
Support of arts in general: It pains most of us when the role of the government in as far as arts is concerned is trivialised to only mean “funding”, when in all other aspects of society people refer to “investment”.
Second, we tend to argue the government away from its responsibility as a custodian and conscientious champion of culture and cultural development, promotion and preservation. Many of us who were groomed through imbibing the Freedom Charter are astounded by many who claim to embrace the same document and its principles when their actions speak differently.
Under the clause, “the doors of learning and of culture shall be opened”, the Freedom Charter states that: “The government shall discover, develop and encourage national talent for the enhancement of our cultural life.”
We may argue on the inference of talent when we define its meaning in this respect, a consequential product of “talent” qualifying as national heritage. Key to the clause though is “discovering”, which refers to scouting, auditioning, identification and provision of chance.
“Developing” points to a realisable action with clear outputs by those entrusted with responsibility to do so.
Many of us have since progressed from the Freedom Charter to Pan-African Charterism, which places prioritisation of self-determination, racial equality and personal dignity of Africans while living side by side in harmony with everyone. This issue should not be argued to mean aversion to what already comprises pride to others. Zero-sum game results in more antagonism and yields the opposite of the desired end.
Why should Hewitt-Coleman never again say what he said?
Politicians and the government’s Treasury officials are always waiting for arguments to cut the budget for arts, culture and heritage to the bare bones. They fish for any flimsy argument to engender satisfaction that gives credence to their condescension towards the arts.
This is not done a favour by the miseducation of many of those in power today about what the value of arts, culture and heritage is to society. This deprivation manifests itself through naïve pronouncements and shallow disputations in jibes about arts, culture and heritage.
Communists who would say “a revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery” are misled in this myopia by Mao Zedong – notwithstanding Mao’s fourth wife, Jiang Qing, who became the marshal of the cultural revolution in China. A period of intellectual, mental and cultural regimentation that becomes a hook for despising by those who are against the government funding of the arts.
On the other hand, many who look upon the United States of America as a source to shape their thinking, purport that the government should not support arts. Jodie Gummow in the article Culturally Impoverished: US NEA (National Endowment for Arts) Spends 1/40th of What Germany Doles Out for Arts Per Capita pales the contribution of the US in arts compared with 10 other countries within a neo-liberal world. According to Gummow, those include Germany, Northern Ireland, France, Sweden, Australia, England, etc. Even Uzbekistan values its role as custodian of arts, culture and heritage more than the so-called modern superpower.
Andy Horwitz, in the essay Who Should Pay for the Arts in America?, writes: “The arts aren’t dead, but the system by which they are funded is increasingly becoming as unequal as America itself.”
In its entirety, Hewitt-Coleman’s article is putting “a structure in place that keeps opportunity away from certain folks”.
In essence, he says if certain folks can’t afford to pay for the arts, they should be denied arts. This is a careless whisper to the powers that be.
In conclusion, artists in Nelson Mandela Bay have been denied a chance over a long period of time by careless whisperers. The legitimate demand of #FeesMustFall should not be trivialised by pitting it against deep gashes of decades of ignorance towards the support for arts, culture and heritage in the city. The outcry by students in their struggle to hammer sense into the nouveau riche in the annals of power should not be a chance by the incautious to bash arts, culture and heritage.
“Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.” Oscar Wilde said those words.
Mine is to say, Thetha Oscar, Thetha! Beve abeneendlebe. (Speak Oscar, Speak. Those with ears to hear).