State
of Arts in America
A Missed Opportunity
Since
the middle of the 20th Century, the American philanthropic
community has helped build some of the best cultural institutions
in the world right here in the United States. America’s
philanthropists, however, have not built a similarly dynamic,
powerful support structure for American artists. This missed
opportunity would have strengthened American creativity, strengthened
American communities, strengthened American diversity and therefore,
strengthened America’s democracy!
Currently,
America’s non-profit arts industry generates
a $134 billion economic impact. That’s impressive! It’s
quite understandable, then, that with on-going support of cultural
institutions and new support of individual creative artists,
art can be the source of even more social, political and economic
capital in the 21st Century.
Deficits and Cutbacks
Today,
however, America’s cultural institutions
as well as national, state, and local budgets face serious
deficits. Arts programs have been drastically impacted with
major cutbacks and even total elimination of state arts councils.
Some of the reasons can be attributed to the following: a slow
economy; unbudgeted costs imposed by a post 9/11 world; misallocation
of funds; misguided funding priorities; underestimating the
power of culture as a force for democracy and human dignity;
and, ideological opposition to public funding of the arts.
(See Below; Trouble in River City.)
In March 2003, while over 9 million visitors attended Denver
area cultural venues in 2001 compared to 7.5 million visitors
to ski resorts and 5.3 million to sports events, Colorado voted
to eliminate all its arts council funding. (Source: Los Angeles
Times, March 2003)
In spite
of its powerful ability to impact the world with its cultural
products, California is a frequent leader in slashing arts
funding. The California Arts Council’s
budget will in fact drop by nearly $20 million from $30.7 million
in 2000-01 to a low of $11.5 million in 2003-04. Similarly,
at least 42 of all 50 states have significantly cut funding
for arts programs with more cuts likely by 2003-04 in all the
50 states. (Source: Los
Angeles Times, March 26, 2003)
Misallocation of Arts Funds
To
further complicate the issue and compromise what arts funding
there is available in California, in 2002-03, nearly $2 million
in Arts Council funds were allocated by the government and legislature
to underwrite a program called “Tools for Tolerance” that
trains teachers and police on diversity issues. The program
has nothing whatsoever to do with the arts and should not have
come from state arts funds. This misallocation of funds reflects
a negative perception of the arts and their value to the cultural
well-being of California. (Source: Los Angeles Times,
March 26, 2003)
The priority
of state arts councils should be to directly support the creation
and presentation of works of art. That means, of course, awarding
grants and funds to individual creative artists and worthy
non-profit venues and arts organizations. In
California, however, arts production accounted for less than
4% of the 2000-01 budget, arts presentation received a little
more than 11% of the budget and 85% of the same 2000-01 budget
went to support the large institutional bureaucracy. (Source: Los
Angeles Times, March 26, 2003.)
NEA Favors Institutional Support Over Individual
Artists
During
the last two decades, the National Endowment for the Arts has
experienced drastic budget cuts and been targeted for elimination
by elements in Congress who believed the NEA supported “obscene” works
of art that had been created by recipients of NEA grants. Throughout
the 1990’s, the funding of art and the funding of arts
education became a very controversial issue and Congress responded
by virtually eliminating most grants to individual creative
artists in favor of funding arts institutions and programs.
While the NEA
may remain suspect to some of the general public, over the past
five years, NEA Chairman, Dana Gioia, has labored diligently and
intelligently to improve the agency's image. Upon becoming the new
chief in 2003, Dana presented his agenda by stating, "I plan
to serve (the NEA) by building a huge new consensus to support
the arts. I am not going to do that by dividing people, by polarizing
people. Arts education is not a left or right issue, a Democrat
or Republican issue. It's good civic common sense." (Source: Los Angeles Times, April 4, 2003)
Some time ago, Chairman Dana Gioia
announced that there was a new NEA. He and his team had successfully
brought the agency out of years of controversy and into a new consensus.
As a result, NEA appropriations from the federal budget were up
to $124 million from a low of $99.4 million with $128.4 million
requested for the year 2008. (Source: CNN)
Trouble
in River City
Over forty
years ago, in 1964, Congress declared that the encouragement and
support of the arts, while primarily a matter of private and local
initiative, was also an appropriate matter of concern for the federal
government. But, to carry out this obligation to support the arts
is a task as challenging today as it was then.
According
to Nina Totenberg’s April 2003 radio broadcast
on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition, the
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as well as National Public
Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) are all
in danger of being eliminated by the current Administration.
If the Supreme Court supports Congress, it may, in effect, be
the end of them all. “In spite of major cutbacks in funding
and efforts to reduce costs and streamline services, government
officials believe that the funding currently going to these programs
is too large for something which is seen as not worthwhile!”
Crucial Time for Public Support of Individual
Artists
The
multicultural, kaleidoscopic nature of America continues to
grow so rapidly that as the 21st Century evolves, the arts will
reflect a society that cannot yet be defined. Since government
funding remains political and volatile, public support for the
arts will be at the core of America’s
artistic growth as the needs of individual artists are more
fully addressed. In
recognizing the importance of creativity to society, it is
apparent that there is an interdependency between artists and
institutions. Creative artists are the mainstay of cultural
life and the people on whom cultural institutions depend for
their own existence and vitality. If creative artists are the
people whose efforts will shape America’s cultural identity and provide America’s
legacy, surely it’s time to build a powerful support structure
for creative artists. By doing so, American creativity, American
communities, American diversity and, therefore, America’s
democracy will all be strengthened!
|