It is up to state and national representatives to fix this problem, lest the US loses its place as the #1 economy in the world and the value of the dollar plunges even more. Unfortunately for most industries, this means the government is going to start shedding money from vital projects and departments in an effort to slow spending and decrease our debt. And the arts are not immune to this.
States
Already, three state governments on the move to eliminate state-supported arts agencies. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback has already completed his mission of taking the arts out of the state, abolishing the Kansas Art Commission and practically bypassing the entire state legislature. While the Kansans fight that uphill battle, Texas Gov. Rick Perry is proposing for his state (which is $15 billion in the hole) to cut their state agency for the arts as well as arts education programs already in place. Meanwhile, right here in my backyard, newly elected Gov. Nikki Haley surprised many when she specifically mentioned her intentions of completely eliminating the SC Arts Commission and SC ETV in FY2012's budget.
The odd and infuriating side to these cuts being made by state governments is the lack of knowledge and understanding of the role these agencies play in their own home state. For instance, the SC Arts Commission was allotted $2.4 million by the state for this fiscal year - a mere .0001% of the state's entire budget. But in return the monies granted to local organizations by the SCAC translated into over $90 million in matching funds by either local foundations, corporations and private individuals from the previous year's grants ($2.2 million). This does not include the over $2.5 billion in economic impact that the cultural industry creates in the state.
The point being that cutting these agencies has a real impact - a negative one - on all state economies. The arts create jobs, grow tourism, require the exchange of goods and services over county/state/national borders and helps with the tax base. Not to mention the beauty that the arts bring to a community.
The argument here, as I see it, though isn't about the money. This isn't to say that those of us who work in the arts industry wouldn't love a budgetary increase to these agencies, we'd love it. But more so it is about the visible support from a state entity to acknowledge the role the industry plays locally. That support, no matter what size, demonstrates that the state government cares about things such as quality of life, community identity, economic growth, and to the hundreds of thousands of artists who live within state lines. It means they care about whether a child can glue macaroni into a coherent form of an owl instead of a snowglobe of elbow noodles. It means they understand that the root of everything is art - from design to construction to technology, everything is rooted in a creative idea.
NATION
On another front, the National Endowment of the Arts [NEA] is getting hit with a double whammy. Just yesterday (2/17/11) the House of Representatives voted to cut the NEA's current budget by an additional $20 million, on top of a cut from the beginning of the fiscal year of $23 million, bringing total cuts to NEA before the end of this fiscal year to $43 million. The NEA is now allotted $124 million, down from $167 million back in July, levels it has not seen since 2007. The same philosophy mentioned above about states applies here, but in a much more drastic sense. The federal government has only directly supported the arts (white house to theatre house) once - back in the 1930s during the WPA when the government created, among other projects, the Federal Theatre Project, the Federal Music Project and Federal Writing Project, all aimed at employing out-of-work artists. From those programs came the NEA which is sort of the middle man. This way the government can't be held responsible for funding failed or controversial works. Money comes from Washington to the NEA which then grants it out to organizations, artists and also state agencies.
Although these are just cuts and not elimination, the fact of the matter is this: when you cut funds to a program or industry that has a return on the dollar of 7:1 in matching funds and has an economic impact of over $160 BILLION (with a 'b') the return on that original investment reflects those cuts. When you cut let's say $10 from a pot of $100, the return is now $630 instead of a $700 return with the original amount. Less matching funds, less economic impact, less jobs, less taxes paid. Truth is, the arts industry is one of the most efficient industries out there.
BUT....
There's another side to this story, one which I understand and somewhat agree to. We're in a budget crisis - at the local, state and federal level. Stuff is going to get cut. The question is, how much and why.
With the arts, it's never really about the money. You're always given constraints in this business - budgetary, material, talent, geographical and patron base constraints. But the great thing about the arts is that out of those limits comes the best work. As Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, said during one of his recent shows, "Creativity comes from limits, not from freedom." Imagine going into a production meeting and the producer says, "You have all the money you want...no limits." What would you do? Probably cry - it would be a miracle. But really, what would the reaction be?
As artists, these limits stir up our creative juices. We're given a box (or an organization) and told that this all we got, there is nothing else. In fact there's probably less than the box, but we'll hope. Ah, now we know what to do, roll up our sleeves and get working. It's a similar effect with these budget cuts. We would go out of our tiny little minds trying to spend money that never ended. Truthfully, artistic integrity would suffer - the spectacle would be amazing, the ability to create an atmosphere would be amazing, but the end product would just be a flash (case in point: Spider Man musical).
This is not to say the arts industry does not need money at all to operate. We need a box, we can't build that ourselves. There has to be an investment from the public and from the government that says "We believe in this project/organization/program/industry. We believe in its capability to produce a commodity for our community and to enhance our daily lives." But that support has got to be there.
There are a few senators who are pushing for the elimination of the NEA. You want to talk about taking away a box? The NEA stands for much more than grants. Their pure existence tells the young child wishing to play the trombone in a youth orchestra, funded in part by the NEA, that their government leaders care about their future. That their dream is not a shameful waste of time and government resources. That their future is bright and they can be whoever they want to be.
I ask all artists and arts leaders and everyone to support the efforts of the arts community - no matter what political affiliation. And to everyone in the arts industry - I ask you to remember that it does take federal money to pave the roads to your gallery's front door, and that this budget year is going to be painful. Cuts are inevitable, but remember also to not let our government take away our box.
No comments:
Post a Comment