Govt support for culture

This more restricted definition will embrace the various art forms — literary, performing, musical, manual and others. Thus we include literature and poetry, theatre and drama, musical concerts and performances, painting and sculpture, festivals and street parades, religious observances and practices and a host of other cultural expressions.

When we observe this comprehensive range of endeavours by a people or groups of them, it may be difficult to identify a defining or overarching national culture even in an ethnically homogenous society. This difficulty will be compounded in a culturally diverse society such as Trinidad and Tobago.

Given the above observation, the question arises whether a government should or can financially support all facets of a nation’s culture.

If it does decide to provide assistance to certain elements of the culture, there is the further question as to what justifiable criteria a government would employ in deciding areas to accord priority and the respective quantum of funds to disburse.

A guiding principle could be that those activities which are popular and involve wide participation and patronage should be deemed financially self-sustaining and therefore entitled to the least amount of public funds.

In this regard, if Carnival is considered mass culture with wide popular appeal, then, if suitably organised and marketed, it should generate sufficient income to meet the expenses incurred. However, it would indeed be a courageous administration that would even contemplate such a prescription.

Another justification for huge government funding of Carnival, arguably in the total sum of $300 million, is that it represents the epitome of the national culture.

However, one may justifiably ask whether the essence of a culture can be defined by two days of revelry and its associated activities. Moreover, it is a matter of speculation whether a majority of the population do in fact participate, support or are indifferent to the festival.

Even with huge government financial support, there is the plaintive claim that Carnival is dying. Should scarce tax dollars therefore continue to be lavished on a moribund venture? Finally, a legitimate and relevant question would be: was the status of Carnival, steelband and calypso before the advent of State funding any less popular, attractive and lively? On the other hand, there are other art forms (literature, theatre, drama, music, painting, sculpture etc) which do not enjoy significant popular appeal and therefore may not be commercially viable. Nevertheless, they constitute vital expressions of cultural creativity and intellectual endeavour and therefore should attract much greater financial support from the Government if the purpose is to maintain the vitality of all the critical elements that comprise the gamut of societal cultural expression.

However, to address the issues involved with the above frame of reference would require the establishment of a transparent and fully discussed cultural policy which no administration has been able to formulate.

At present the allocation of Government’s funds appear to be dictated by political expediency, patronage and the calculation of electoral benefit.

Arguments which can be made against any substantial funding of Carnival can also be directed to State assistance for other elements of the culture, in particular Divali Nagar and the Chutney Monarch show.

They are both deemed to be highly popular judging by the attendance and therefore should be financially self-sustaining.

Moreover, Divali Nagar has att r a c t e d a host of substantial corp o r a t e sponsors and there is rental and other s ou r c e s of income.