I feel as though Joe Patti threw up a pass with his post Preserving the Moldy Old Arts. So I thought I would catch the ball and run with it for a while. I believe that the way the arts are funded by many agencies is deeply flawed in that the money goes towards supporting the arts groups and artists over the people they serve. Remember the famous bridge to nowhere in Alaska? I think the NEA realized that they did not want to cross that bridge!….
Funding for the arts will continue to remain at an insignificant level if it’s not re-purposed. In the end it’s the people who decide if works of art or programs survive or fail. They ultimately have the power to make the argument for arts funding in a much more profound way than those who need the money to make a living from the arts. After all, constituents get the politicians elected, so we need to work for them so they can be our lobbyists for more funding!
It’s my guess that not too many Representatives or Senators get calls from their constituents to ask for funding for a public sculpture or any kind of arts program. We are left to make the argument that the arts are important and good for everybody, to which the reply might be….we have a symphony?
In addition, the idea of an artist not creating because a government check didn’t come goes against creativity itself. So many artists have created through only inspiration and desire, and I think of all the great works of art that had no dollars attached before they were created that are now priceless!
In the future I am hoping more arts funding will go towards the people paying for it in the form of access. In other words instead of paying an artist 30K to create something (or an orchestra to put on a concert etc..), why not have the 30K to buy the tickets for people to see or hear the creation? The artist or arts group still receives the money for their work, but it comes through the people, the taxpayers who helped fund the grant in the first place. If it fails to ignite or to survive then at least it was given a chance, and was seen by many, instead of just invited guests!
I am not a fan of the handing out of money with no strings attached by many arts funding bodies. Instead, how about working out a collaborative program that might suit the needs of a community? Here we receive about 1 to 2% of our budget through the Missouri Arts Council in the form of a check, no real strings attached. I would much rather have dedicated funding to specific projects, so that instead of funding 1to 2% of our budget, we can actually say they helped fund something specific that benefited our community. It will be the same amount of money, but will have accountable results that can be shown to have made a difference. It’s hard to justify more arts funding just by saying we need it. It’s more likely to be increased if we are be able to say sincerely, that the people we serve need it, and for the results to be able to back us up. If the arts becomes more of a need in a community, then there is a chance more money for more projects will follow!
To the cry…Well, what about operating costs? It’s my belief that when an arts group creates numerous programs that truly benefit a community, then the thought of living without those programs will be what motivates people to step up with the support the group needs to keep operating.
With arts funding, re purposing it to reflect the needs of a community will in my view help to make it a necessity, and thus more likely to increase. It is not about the art form is, but the effect it has. Eventually there might even be money for innovation because the benefit of the arts will have been proven more profoundly.
One smart thing the NEA has done is to fund a program in all 435 congressional districts, not a bad house majority to work with to increase arts funding! In fact last year in congress they didn’t even hold a formal vote, it was just an I and Nay vote! In each year of our current Republican administration no less, the NEA has received an increase in funding …coincidence?…I think not, it is just that every district received some of that money. It then makes it hard to vote against arts funding when the arts are in fact a bridge to somewhere!
I don’t think the arts change the world, it’s people who change the world, but it’s the arts that can change people, so let’s put them in the equation. That in my view would be true innovation.