Well, this is a complex question and I must say that I disagree wholeheartedly.

So I live in Poland and I’ve studied film production. We were thoroughly walked through how films are financed by our national film institute and from what I understand our system was modeled after everybody else in the EU, so it’s a good example. And other types of art are financed similarly albeit with differences.

The way it works is that the film institute is financed each year with a legally mandatory payment made by media companies. I’m talking cable tv channels and the like. However as of late also VOD platforms such as Netflix must chip in (this is not taxpayer money!!!). This ball of money is then split and directed towards strengthening film culture - independent cinemas, festivals, film productions.

Filmmaker-producers then petition for chunks of this money with applications in which they must demonstrate that they have found funding from other sources (usually half), as well as acquiring preliminary interest from distributors. The institute runs this process by employing veteran filmmakers, artists, as well as academia and curators - people who have a proven track record. These committees decide, in a transparent process of deliberation, which productions from the ones submitted, they believe, are the most promising artistically and are most feasible.

This creates an ecosystem in which artists and producers are incentivized to focus on impressing those who know something about art and on ideas which have real potential in winning festival awards, not just box-office results. It’s bureaucratic, yes, but it works.

The flip side is that when individuals are the only ones to decide what culture they value, only the most idiotic super-productions from abroad will win. And money spent on those will be literally siphoned off to California - this is the real reason why Hollywood became so strong after WWII - total domination of foreign film markets. Actually, for a period of time this allowed the U.S. to culturally colonize large parts of the world, and continues today with SV.

As you would imagine in a longer term this slowly strangles the local film environment. If everyone just wants to see Star Wars, producers back out of financing riskier local projects and cinema owners turn risk down for fear of upsetting Mickey.

Now, I agree with this idea of giving people a culture allowance - culture should absolutely not be only decided by crusty veterans and “experts”. And 19 year olds often might not normally have the money to vote at the box office. Being a cinema-goer is an identity, a habit, something that has to be fostered and encouraged to exist early on. And it positively affects people’s mental well-being. These kinds of incentives are great to hear about. But also France already has an incredibly strong ecosystem for financing art and a resilient culture of embracing domestic creators.

When I compare all this to the barren “free-market” corporate wasteland in the US I’m just saddened. An average family has to pay through the nose for an extremely limited selection, to then be bombarded with product advertising. It’s just monopoly power at it’s worst and it’s culturally debilitating.

And when you visit a European Fest, especially one of the big five it just blows your mind that in fact, literally thousands of amazing films are made, but they’re simply locked out of mainstream distribution.

The thing about art is that often you might not even know you will like it before being exposed to it. Customer doesn’t always know what’s best, and blindly following audience desires creates a shallow culture.