Assessments of public funding for arts and contemporary dance

Public support for dance art was perceived essential by all the interviewees. Public funding for arts in general was regarded as one of the tasks of a civilised modern state, which according to its cultural political goals was obliged to ensure accessibility and availability to cultural activities around the country, regardless of whether its people live in rural, sparsely populated or populous, congested areas.

Contemporary dance was considered as “value per se, an equal and important part of the field of arts, important for humans’ mental and physical health and for the development of collective understanding” (ML).

108 Contemporary dance in Finland was described as a niche market in a small country, in which public funding for arts and dance needs to stay solid and significant – not only for supporting the small markets and wide availability of dance, but also for preserving own national cultural production. The Finnish model of public support for arts was estimated to be more equal for the artists than ‘the American model’.

Meaning, also less extravert and publicity seeking artists may receive funding based on the value of their art, rather than based on their abilities to sell their art.

Similarly, some of the interviewees doubted that the private sector would not have enough interest, professionalism nor understanding to get to know the dance field well enough to make reliable decisions about the funding of contemporary dance, compared to for example Taike.

Despite the unanimous support for ‘the Finnish model’ of stable public funding for arts, some suggestions for improvements were made. Some representatives of the VOS dance theatres stated that the public support had stagnated on an insufficient and unmovable level, compared to some other countries in Europe, and a discussion should be opened to find new commonly beneficial aspects to raise especially the municipal support. On the other hand, the VOS reform was appreciated as an overall improvement on national level, or at least as a chance for it.

Unlike VOS dance theatres, independent groups, which received operational subsidies from Taike, could not automatically ensure monthly salaries for their dancers, who partly worked with the aid of their personal grants. The dancers’ skills were valuated as a capital for the dance company, something that is difficult to hold on without possibilities for long-term employment. Some kind of guaranteed income for freelance artists, salary for artists to practise their work instead of short- term artist grants was wished, or a model of a combination of entrepreneurship, salary and grants, which had been presented in the public discussions (e.g., Tuovinen in Toijonen, 2021; Ylitalo, 2020; Hirvi-Ijäs et al., 2020):

“…I have been trying to solve the last ten years how can I hold on to this skilful artistic capital of the dancers…some kind of funding in a form of ‘artist salary’

(taitelijapalkka) would be needed to enable long-term commitments between freelance dancers and choreographers…and then the other parts could be funded

109 through co-operation with parties sharing common interests…or by forcing bigger theatres to co-operate, to include more performances from other groups into their programmes.”(JM)

The state’s legacy for steering public funds for arts was unquestioned, but the possibility of tax deductions for businesses or private persons for supporting art divided opinions strongly. The most critical view perceived donating to arts as a value judgement, which should be kept separated from the society’s other activities meant to be supported by taxes (such as health care) – meaning, people and businesses should have a possibility to voluntarily fund arts, but without receiving any tax deductions based on this value judgement they have made. The opposite view found tax deductions as a ‘great idea’ or an interesting possibility to show the business sector what all dance could be. Some of the interviewees found it difficult to estimate the effects of possible tax deductions on a wider scale: it might increase donating to dance, but according to experience, the wish to donate comes from genuine will to enable something special to happen rather than from a possibility for a tax deduction. Moreover, the share of gathered tax money for funding arts, evaluated by experts and contributed by the state, was felt somewhat more controlled and democratic way of supporting dance and arts in general.

According to this research, there is a strong trust to the state’s ability to make reliable decisions concerning funding of contemporary dance - through its cultural policy, legislation and experts. Public funding for contemporary dance was considered significant for all the studied dance companies also in the future. Despite its shortages of lacking solutions to enable long-term employment for increased number of freelance dance artists, or simply being not enough for all the artists, Finnish system of public funding for arts was evaluated as somewhat equal, transparent and predictable. The criterion for either Taike’s operational subsidies or state’s subsidies for VOS dance companies were known and published in good time.

110