Thursday, February 03, 2011
Political Mayhem Thursday II: Arts funding
As states across the nation deal with deficits (some of them extreme), one item often on the chopping block is funding for the arts. At the federal level, some in the new Congress strongly disagree with any federal funding for the arts.
Should taxpayer's money be spent to support the arts?
There are three basic ways we use tax money to support the arts:
1) At a most basic level, tax money is used to pay for teaching art in public schools. This may be the least controversial use of art funding, though some say it detracts from a focus on basic education.
2) Second, tax money goes to support art museums and other arts groups. Many, if not most, museums rely at least in part on state or federal funding for at least some of their programs.
3) Finally, state and federal funds go to support individual artists at times. These may be the most controversial of all, because it allows for such an honest evaluation of what the tax money is being used for, once we see the resulting work.
Should we spend any money on the arts? If so, on what?
Comments:
<< Home
I have no problem whatsoever spending money on the arts- a great nation deserves great art (I heard that somewhere). I also have no problem paying taxes because as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society."
Many of our small government friends will disagree with expenditures for the arts and so many other programs. To whom and to which I reiterate, if we want to slash the budget, then let's take a page from the Tories playbook and cut ALL expenditures and programs 25 percent.
Really, the military which we truly cannot afford accounts for approximately 20 percent of the federal budget. Medicare and Medicaid take another big chunk, as does Social Security; though Social Security is a soluble problem arithmetically if not politically.
Solving the military and entitlement problem would take care of most of it. Also, comprehensive tax, which ensures progressivity, is needed. As for corporate tax, we need to reform it as well to make us more competitive with other industrialized western nations. But I digress.
Many of our small government friends will disagree with expenditures for the arts and so many other programs. To whom and to which I reiterate, if we want to slash the budget, then let's take a page from the Tories playbook and cut ALL expenditures and programs 25 percent.
Really, the military which we truly cannot afford accounts for approximately 20 percent of the federal budget. Medicare and Medicaid take another big chunk, as does Social Security; though Social Security is a soluble problem arithmetically if not politically.
Solving the military and entitlement problem would take care of most of it. Also, comprehensive tax, which ensures progressivity, is needed. As for corporate tax, we need to reform it as well to make us more competitive with other industrialized western nations. But I digress.
"To whom and to which I reiterate, if we want to slash the budget, then let's take a page from the Tories playbook and cut ALL expenditures and programs 25 percent."
Well let me say again, Oh please Scott Davis, whatever you do, please don't throw me into the briar patch.
I am a big believer in funding for arts in public schools, though most if not all of that funding comes at a state and local level and not through federally funded mandates. I am much less interested in funding museums or individual artists.
However, this argument is always a red herring, and it is one propogated by conservatives. They find some objectionable piece of art funded by government (usually something with Christ involved) and then use it as an example of wasteful government spending. The reality is that the NEA's budget is tiny compared to the overal federal budget pricetag of around $3.5 trillion. And if we want to get serious about cutting spending it wont be through cutting the arts.
Well let me say again, Oh please Scott Davis, whatever you do, please don't throw me into the briar patch.
I am a big believer in funding for arts in public schools, though most if not all of that funding comes at a state and local level and not through federally funded mandates. I am much less interested in funding museums or individual artists.
However, this argument is always a red herring, and it is one propogated by conservatives. They find some objectionable piece of art funded by government (usually something with Christ involved) and then use it as an example of wasteful government spending. The reality is that the NEA's budget is tiny compared to the overal federal budget pricetag of around $3.5 trillion. And if we want to get serious about cutting spending it wont be through cutting the arts.
# posted by 
: 9:42 AM
: 9:42 AM
I feel like there are two separate questions here: 1) Are the Arts valuable? Do they contribute to a healthy democracy? and 2) Should there be public funding for the Arts?
1) If we think that a steady critique of power is good, then the answer to #1 has to be yes. The Arts ask its practitioners (from the 6 year old to the NEA funded artist) to use media to express issues, questions, concepts, and by re-framing them in distinct form, force us to re-think them. This is crucial for a healthy democracy.
2) Publicly funded Arts (and though off topic, I'd throw in media broady here, i.e. NPR) are critical because the government is, paradoxically, a less constraining force than the private sector. With the exception of rare wealthy patrons who fund arts of art's sake, private donors exercise infinitely more control over artistic license because they can. The government's interest is to protect free speech and artistic expression because it believes in #1 about.
1) If we think that a steady critique of power is good, then the answer to #1 has to be yes. The Arts ask its practitioners (from the 6 year old to the NEA funded artist) to use media to express issues, questions, concepts, and by re-framing them in distinct form, force us to re-think them. This is crucial for a healthy democracy.
2) Publicly funded Arts (and though off topic, I'd throw in media broady here, i.e. NPR) are critical because the government is, paradoxically, a less constraining force than the private sector. With the exception of rare wealthy patrons who fund arts of art's sake, private donors exercise infinitely more control over artistic license because they can. The government's interest is to protect free speech and artistic expression because it believes in #1 about.
# posted by : 11:21 AM
: 11:21 AM
We are entering an era in which we will need to do more with less. I recommend slashing our arts appropriations proportionate to our cuts in defense spending. Obviously, the money we spend on funding art is a drop in the bucket--but it is symbolic. To "win the future" all of us will need to feel the inconvenience of not getting all of what we want.
Are you suggesting bloggers aren't already doing a great job at that IPLG???? Because [off-camera belch] I think it is already a mature art form...
So very many times, I have been asked, "What VALUE do the arts have, beyond 'feel-good'?" I will recount a story from my little CT town...
In mid-decade, the Westport Playhouse (then run by the late Joanne Woodward) did a major renovation. Looking for a suitable alternative for its summer season, the Westport Playhouse chose the one in my town, some 15 miles to the northwest.
They were in my town for five weeks, putting on their summer subscription series of two different plays. There were six performances a week.
Guess what? This active, nightly subscription series drew full houses. The people coming into my town needed to eat, before the shows. Many arrived early enough to shop on Main Street. Many others stayed after the performance, and had a beverage.
Business boomed that summer, because there was live theater six nights a week. This was totally unexpected - there were actually letters to the local paper by people asking why downtown seemed so much more crowded than usual - but it should not have been.
Yes, supporting the arts, and arts education, is incredibly important. But the point of my comment is, the benefits are not just "feel good," they are economic, too.
In mid-decade, the Westport Playhouse (then run by the late Joanne Woodward) did a major renovation. Looking for a suitable alternative for its summer season, the Westport Playhouse chose the one in my town, some 15 miles to the northwest.
They were in my town for five weeks, putting on their summer subscription series of two different plays. There were six performances a week.
Guess what? This active, nightly subscription series drew full houses. The people coming into my town needed to eat, before the shows. Many arrived early enough to shop on Main Street. Many others stayed after the performance, and had a beverage.
Business boomed that summer, because there was live theater six nights a week. This was totally unexpected - there were actually letters to the local paper by people asking why downtown seemed so much more crowded than usual - but it should not have been.
Yes, supporting the arts, and arts education, is incredibly important. But the point of my comment is, the benefits are not just "feel good," they are economic, too.
# posted by : 7:09 PM
: 7:09 PM
"When Winston Churchill was asked to cut arts funding in favour of the war effort, he simply replied, 'Then what are we fighting for?'"
Post a Comment
# posted by : 6:01 AM
: 6:01 AM << Home
