WHO REALLY DEPENDS ON SUBSIDY?

 

Rethinking the Funding Narrative in South Africa’s Cultural and Creative Industries

One of the most persistent—and damaging—notions in South Africa’s cultural and creative industries is the idea that artists are “too dependent on funding.”

It is a phrase repeated casually in policy rooms, media commentary and even within the sector itself. But rarely is the same scrutiny applied across the entire cultural ecosystem.

This raises a fundamental question: who in this system truly depends on subsidy—and why is the burden of that label carried almost exclusively by artists and practitioners?

The Selective Critique of Dependency

Artists are often portrayed as reliant, fragile, or unsustainable when they apply for public funding. Applications are framed as handouts, support as charity, and dependence as failure. Yet, in the very same ecosystem, numerous government-funded cultural entities have existed for decades almost entirely on state subsidy.

National theatres, councils, academies, museums, orchestras, and agencies receive annual transfers from the fiscus to:

• Pay salaries

• Maintain buildings

• Deliver mandates

• Keep doors open

Without these subsidies, many would simply not survive.

So the question must be asked plainly:

Why is dependency framed as a problem only when it comes to artists?

Government Entities and the Reality of Subsidy

How many cultural entities in South Africa:

• Were established by the state

• Have depended on government transfers since inception

• Have not fully diversified income streams

• Would collapse without annual allocations

And yet, these entities are rarely shamed for “dependency.”

Instead, subsidy is understood—correctly—as part of a public service mandate. These institutions exist not because they are profitable, but because they serve a public good: heritage, access, education, nation-building and social cohesion.

If this logic holds for institutions, why does it suddenly fail when applied to individual practitioners and community-based organisations?

Artists Are Not Outsiders to the Economy

There is another uncomfortable truth often ignored in this debate:

Artists and cultural practitioners are taxpayers.

They pay:

• Income tax

• VAT

• PAYE when employed

• Municipal services

• Levies and compliance costs

They contribute to the same government coffers that fund public institutions.

When artists apply for public funding, they are not extracting from a system they do not belong to. They are citizens accessing a redistributive mechanism designed precisely to support public interest activities.

The narrative that positions artists as “burdens” quietly ignores this reciprocal relationship.

Dependency vs Obligation

Government itself depends on citizens to function. Taxes are not voluntary donations; they are obligations. In return, the state has constitutional obligations to:

• Promote access to culture

• Support artistic expression

• Redress historical exclusion

• Enable participation in the cultural life of the nation

Public funding is not charity. It is policy in action.

So perhaps the more honest question is not “Why do artists depend on funding?”

But rather:

“Is the funding system designed to enable sustainability, or to keep practitioners perpetually precarious?”

A Shared Learning Opportunity

There is, however, a constructive opportunity hidden in this comparison.

If government-funded entities have existed for decades, the sector should ask:

• What models have they used to survive?

• Where have they successfully diversified income?

• Where have they failed to do so—and why?

• What lessons can artists realistically learn from institutions with infrastructure, staff and guaranteed baseline funding?

Equally, entities must be asked:

• Why has diversification been slow?

• Why innovation is often expected from artists but not from institutions?

• Why accountability standards differ?

Leadership by example matters. If institutions are expected to model sustainability, transparency and innovation, they must demonstrate it consistently over time.

Towards an Honest Conversation

The real danger of the “artists are too dependent” narrative is that it:

• Individualises a systemic problem

• Shifts responsibility away from policy design

• Creates stigma instead of solutions

• Undermines trust between the state and practitioners

A mature cultural policy environment does not shame those who access public support. It interrogates how support is structured, who benefits, and whether the system enables long-term viability for all role players.

Questions We Can No Longer Avoid

As the sector continues to reflect, difficult questions must be asked—by everyone:

• Why is subsidy acceptable for institutions but suspect for practitioners?

• What sustainability benchmarks are applied, and to whom?

• Who defines “dependency,” and based on what evidence?

• Are funding models designed to transition artists into sustainability—or to manage scarcity?

• And ultimately: what kind of cultural economy is South Africa trying to build?

Until these questions are confronted honestly, the narrative will remain unfair—and the system incomplete.

The Creative Passport is an independent platform focused on Arts, Culture and the Creative Industries. Readers are encouraged to follow, comment and engage constructively.

HOW TO FOLLOW THE CREATIVE PASSPORT

RECEIVE POSTS BY EMAILS