1

THE BIGGER PICTURE: WHY THE ARTS SHOULD BENEFIT FROM TAXES
15 December 2014
Christine Gitau
I read Kwame Owinos article against public funding for the arts with
depressing familiarity- not because he was making a case against it, but because of
the reasons proffered. All over the world, the art fraternity is engaged in advocacy
campaigns aimed at getting governments to take notice and/or increase public
spending. All the while, responding to calls such as this one as to why it should not
be the case. [Read article here http://bit.ly/1wAlWlf]
The author argues that a possible outcome of subsidy would be supply dancing to
the tune [or in his words, biases] of often highly educated Kenyans. This, I am
afraid is the kind of thinking that has kept the masses away from partaking of the
arts. Art especially that subsidized by the government - should as much as possible
be for the benefit of the greater population. They are, after all the ones paying for it.
Public art is a good example of this. Consider the sculptures of Field Marshal Dedan
Kimathi and Tom Mboya on Kimathi Street and Moi Avenue respectively, publicly
funded to the tune of Kshs.25M. These art works are for the benefit and enjoyment
of all citizens economic, academic, tribe, age or sex affiliations notwithstanding.
This is precisely why they sit in public and open spaces: to tease and capture

collective imagination in aesthetic, content and character.

I also wish to dismantle the authors take on supply and demand. He asserts
that, If the demand has not swept up all that is produced today, why think that a
supply glut would generate that demand? The economic reasoning behind this
argument, he says, is backward.
No sir, it is your argument that is backward. This is why: First, is the primacy of supply
over demand. Demand for cultural goods is not explicitly expressed until after the
cultural product is made available on the market, a concept further expounded by
what Harvard professor Richard Caves calls the nobody knows principle. Art
practitioners often have to work with demand uncertainty- with consumer reaction to
a creative product neither known beforehand, nor easily understood afterward.
Second, unlike products in other parts of the economy, cultural goods and services
tend to increase the more they are consumed i.e. the demand for these goods has
increasing rather than decreasing marginal utility.

These market dynamics are what propels the creative economy and what results in
innovation and creativity becoming major drivers of the industry.
It is clear that the author places the burden of proof on the supply side.
However, is there a case to be made for public spending on the demand side? Do
consumers have a role in ensuring that what he terms as marginal (read poorer
quality) [sic] work of art is not the natural outcome of publicly funded art? As with
most lifestyle products, art is only as good as the audience demands it to be. This
consciousness and recognition of and for high quality creative offerings is as a result
of education and experience. Take art out of the education system and you have
individuals unable to distinguish between quality and hogwash. Public spending is
not only about the supply side. It is also about nurturing an audience that is actively
involved in influencing discourse within the various creative spaces.
Finally, I wish to address the issue of censorship. Freedom of expression has a
particularly special status within the creative world because it allows us to do what
we do. It embraces the sanctity of opinion, exchange of ideas and information, and
even the right to silence. In his article, the author asserts that subsidy may offer an
excuse for bureaucrats to censor works of art. Not true.
Censorship results from weak, repressive and undemocratic governments feeling
threatened by the exposure of the underbelly. Governments will censor anything and
anyone who attempts to renegotiate the status quo. It is neither caused by nor
necessarily an effect of, publicly funded art.
But even in instances where publicly funded art was censored, were there avenues for
recourse? In early 2013, the Ministry of Educations National Drama Committee
banned the play Shackles of Doom, because it would likely incite hatred and
threaten national security.
Political activist Okiya Omutatah took the matter to court and on April 16th 2013,
Justice Majanja delivered a ruling that was to mark a turning point in Kenyas artistic
freedom. He observed, "Artistic expression is not merely intended to gratify the soul.

It also stirs our conscience so that we can reflect on the difficult questions of the day.
The political and social history of our nation is replete with instances where plays
were banned for being seditious or subversive. This is the country of Ngugi wa
Thiongo, Micere Mugo, Francis Imbuga, Okoth Obonyo and other great playwrights
who through their writings contributed to the cause of freedom we now enjoy. Some
plays were banned because they went against the grain of the accepted political
thinking. Kenya has moved on and a ban, such as the one imposed by the Kenya

National Drama Festival must be justified as it constitutes a limitation of the freedom

of expression. I am not convinced that Kenya is such a weak democracy whose
foundation cannot withstand a play by high school students."
Still on the issue of rights, It is common perception [one held by the author as well]
that Kenya and by large Africa faces many pressing challenges- and the production
and consumption of art is not one of them.
Governments have three levels of obligation when it comes to human rights. [a] they
must refrain from interfering with the enjoyment of the said rights, [b] they must
prevent other parties from interfering with the enjoyment of these rights and [c] they
must take active steps to put in place, laws, policies, institutions and procedures,
including the allocation of resources, to enable people to enjoy all their rights.
To suggest that the government should meet its obligations towards one right while
relegating another is at best, simplistic. Furthermore, human rights are indivisible and

inter-dependent, meaning that in order to guarantee civil and political rights, the
government must ensure social, cultural as well as economic rights [and vice versa].
The indivisibility principle recognizes that all human rights have equal status, and can
therefore not be ranked or placed in hierarchical order.
As a parting shot, I would like to challenge the author on his contention that
consumers of cultural products should be the principal funders of art.
Is government not perhaps the biggest beneficiary of the arts in past, present and
future?
It is about time public investment in the creative and cultural industries or CCIs made
for mainstream economic, political and social conversation. Culture is a driver and
enabler of sustainable development the very reason we are calling for its inclusion
in the post 2015 Sustainable Development Goals.
In the meantime, the show is going on.

Christine Gitau is Co-founder at Craft Afrika, acting chair of ARTerial Network Kenya
and Artwatch Africa coordinator, Kenya. She is an Acumen East Africa Fellow 2014.