Much of the research and several of the projects have touched indirectly on the question of how to balance the relationship between cultural production and markets, businesses, and financial support in order to drive a more productive and sustainable relationship. A considerable part of this quest has been to explore a more productive relationship between the digital and physical, unseen forces and their manifestation in the physical world. Seeking this goal is particularly important at a time when the sustainability of many such institutions is being called into question. It is also important because of a broader shift in what cultural entities can be and how new generations of consumers relate to and support these cultural elements.

We believe, however, that such support should not just be an indirect effect of other projects, but that we need to actively codify a structure to sustain whatever progress these projects and products might represent. More specifically, this structure should come to play a defining role in how culture–very broadly speaking–is supported. This new entity should not just dole out funding, but should become a self-sustaining engine that can power cultural elements into the future. In this sense, it should combine for-profit investing, grant making, and forgivable loans. It should build capacity through investing in digital technology and physical spaces. It should aim to create valuable IP and extraordinary cultural elements that appreciate in value. It should also hold diversified investments across sectors of the economy. These should all come together to form a new version of an endowment.

Historically, much of this funding has come from taxpayers–with the level of support varying significantly based on country. We believe a variation of this funding model should be incorporated into the entity that we are designing in large part, because doing so allows for the general public to directly fund cultural elements that are broadly beneficial. It makes it possible for an individual to indirectly fund an artist without having to know that artist in advance and without having to negotiate some form of contractual arrangement. Moreover, it gives cultural producers the freedom to create without responding directly to market pressure and without having to present a finished work prior to funding. The system also purports to involve experts in the allocation of such funds.

We feel, however, that the current system of state sponsored culture is deeply flawed and in need of significant reform. In particular, allowing governments to decide how much of taxpayer dollars goes to arts and culture on an annual basis creates significant volatility for the industry while also giving politicians a tool to politicize cultural production and use it as leverage in ongoing culture wars. In addition, the elite administrators of government patronage work in a bubble that is often disconnected from the reality that many citizens live within and sometimes distant from the cultural elements they might most like their government to support. Finally, it is entirely focused on grant making and performing a philanthropic duty that sees the culture industry as charity rather than as a business. In doing so, it completely cuts off support for those organizations that attempt to produce culture profitably–movies, restaurants, theater productions, architecture, design, among others–even though many of these businesses operate with very slim margins. The result is a funding approach that is both unsustainable and disconnected from community needs.

In light of this critique, we propose ending all support for cultural elements administered by government entities and replacing this support process with a Culture Engine. Such a Culture Engine would be funded by taxpayer dollars, but would not be allocated by government officials and instead would be a fixed percent defined in the tax code. Businesses would also be required to contribute to this fund either via a culture tax or via a direct investment in the fund that would allow them to earn a return on their investment via dividends the fund might pay as it grows and develops valuable cultural products and IP. This Culture Engine would not be administered by government officials, but instead would be administered by a distributed largely autonomous platform that unites producers and consumers of culture–though would still likely make room for tastemakers, curators, and administrators. This platform would allow everyone who contributed to funding to directly participate in allocation while also seeing all the activity taking place in real time. It would allow communities to advocate for new restaurants and gallery space, artists to pitch new projects, and major cultural producers to receive significant funding amounts for projects that would impact large communities. 

Such a Culture Engine would ideally function as a catalyst and economic stabilizers across the culture industry. It would provide the continuity through economic cycles while also allowing cultural producers rooms to take risk and explore innovation. In doing so, it would not eliminate the need for broader investment from a range of individuals and organizations, but instead derisk those investments. While it would begin with funding from individuals and corporations, it would ideally become a self-sustaining entity through the cultural products and businesses that it invests in and that it would take an ownership stake of. This would ultimately lead to a Cultural Investment Trust that could power cultural production for decades to come while also enriching the lives and communities of all those who engage it.