Government-sponsored art is worth encouraging

For the most part, my political views can be summarized by simply saying, “The less government, the better.” This applies to almost everything from education to health care, but a recent trip to Washington, D.C. may have caused a slight shift in that view.

I have mixed feelings about D.C. Having spent a considerable amount of time in France, I find the district’s history fascinating and unique among all other American cities. Designed by Frenchman Pierre Charles L’Enfant, after being appointed by George Washington himself in 1791, the city is one of the few in the U.S. that was carefully laid out before being built. The influence is impossible to ignore, with the same magnificent avenues and chaotic roundabouts as Paris. Situated on a river, populated with buildings no taller than 130 feet and home to the impressively powerful architecture that only massive governments can create, D.C. and Paris both give the impression of a city with purpose.

City design aside, I did not find myself falling in love with D.C.

Unlike Paris, D.C. lacks vibrant personality and creative energy. Politicians and lobbyists roam the streets alongside lost tourists, all walking uptight with a destination in mind. Nobody is seen loafing around in a park or resting by the river, such as in Paris. No, Washington, D.C. knows that it’s there for a specific reason: to run a country.

The exception, however, is the gift that is the National Gallery of Art.

It’s a bright and brisk day in December, and all I’m seeking is a place to get warm. I pass the Museum of American History, which has a Space Mountain-caliber line wrapping around it. Several blocks down, I see a museum with no line and learn it’s the National Gallery of Art. As I open the door, I begin to take out my wallet and look for the price for admission. Instead, I simply walk into a silent, almost empty, hallway lined with the works of Monet and Rembrandt.

I look around for a counter to pay but cannot find one. It takes about two minutes for me to realize that this wonderful museum is actually free.

Free.

For $0, I spent an entire afternoon enjoying the creativity of our species, lost in a labyrinth of canvases and sculptures.

“But who’s paying for this?” I wonder. My mind doesn’t want to admit that it is, in fact, the government paying for it, because the government only gets its money from taxpayers. Eventually, I reluctantly come to the realization that there are, in fact, a few things I would not mind the government “helping out” with. Art is one of them.

Creating art is not hard. Being able to sell good art and make a living off of it certainly is. The periods of artistic expansion and growth throughout history have occurred when it was accepted, encouraged and funded by the public. During the Renaissance, wealthy families paid artists to allow them to fully devote all of their time and energy toward their craft.

Nowadays, it is nearly impossible to create art full-time. I am not calling for the government to simply pay any artist who doesn’t want to work, but instead to just help with overall exposure to the arts. Public access to free museums is something nobody should take for granted and is a great way to both support artists and inspire new generations. Investing in an infrastructure and creating opportunities for artists to sell work will help, too, but overall, as the law teaches, if you encourage something, you will get more of it. If the government starts rewarding great artists and their works — and starts making said art more accessible — a wonderful positive feedback loop will be initiated.

No, this would not create thousands of jobs or reduce the deficit, but I believe the societal benefits of more art would far outweigh any of the costs. Who’s going to say no?

Andrew Hall is a UF management junior. His column appears on Fridays.