But to be honest, it wasn't just being around art-minded people that made it enjoyable. What made it more enjoyable was not being around art-engulfed people. People who live and die for the beauty of solely art. People who have only one argument for the arts, "Because it is art" -- I call them "artsy fartsy folks". The people in attendance at this event had more than one argument for the arts. Don't get me wrong, it takes all kinds to make this thing called life work, but when looking at the arts and defending their purpose and place in the livelihood of our nation and our community, an arsenal of objective arguments is better than a water gun of a subjective one.
I didn't get into the arts because I thought they were "pretty". I didn't get into the arts industry for the "money" (note the quotations...). When I was starting out in college, people would ask me why I was steering my life into the administration side of the arts. My answer was simple. "I want to slap artists in the face with reality and I want to slap reality in the face with art." I still hold true to that statement today. I didn't start working in this field because I wanted to "put on a show", I started working in this industry to impact the community by giving them access to a creative outlet. To give them an opportunity to expand their creativity, not so they could create something beautiful or learn how to draw, but rather to enable them to see that the creative and creating aspect of art is not something confined to a studio.
For those of you unfamiliar with Arts Advocacy Day (AAD), it is a national event/conference held annually that gives supporters of the arts from around the country the opportunity to speak to their respective House and Senate members of Congress and defend the arts. It is an event full of meetings (some only 12 minutes long in a hallway), networking, discussion, statistics and excitement. You move from building to building, office to office, meeting to meeting on Capitol Hill and you get to actually talk to your Senator or Representative (or staff, they're busy folks up there) and bend their ear on the importance of your industry (aka "lobbying"). Very few people really get to do that. It's also very serious business.
There is a growing need to prove to Washington that the arts are something which the government cannot afford to ignore - both with attention and funding. The biggest indicator of non-verbal government support is the funding level of the National Endowment for the Arts - the government agency which grants matching funds to nonprofits or government entities for artistic programming that provides better access and quality. As you may know, the atmosphere in Washington this year is pretty, well, tight and suffocating. There is not much room to move when you're in debt $14 trillion. But this year's budget crisis (for the current fiscal year nonetheless) was of particular importance because a large number of House members were proposing a second cut to the NEA during this year - to a level not seen in over 10 years.
Now how do you argue to a group of over 600 law makers that the arts need to saved? Trust me, you don't say, "But Jackson Pollock's piece in our local museum is just so moving." Instead the record number of AAD attendees used many of these common, true and powerful arguments:
- The arts stimulate the economy ($166 billion)
- Create job growth (5.7 million)
- Enhance quality of life (a major factor in measuring GDP and in attracting major corporations to a city)
- Create community identity (which any citizen will tell you is important)
- Play an increasing role in education
- and of course beautify our cities and our lives
Over time the argument has shifted from creation of artwork to more objective qualities. Indeed, the thing that draws us to learning how to playing an instrument in band is no longer the same thing that justifies the band program's existence. Now it is about higher SAT scores, lower drop out rates and the impact of the local arts festival.
I love and agree with every one of the above arguments, and they are currently the strongest arguments we have for the arts when you look at things from a political point. The new (and old) Republican party members love statistics. They love cold hard objective facts. If you can't prove it on paper, then you can't prove it. The Democrats love passion and are open to any passion so long as it does not interfere with anyone else's passion (which is pretty much impossible, and then everyone gets angry). The above arguments have both. Perfect right? Why didn't I stop writing now? Well, there was something missing from all of the arguments that day in DC - an objective view on the arts.
We all have to understand the (important) role the arts play in our country, as a whole. The politicians are aware of the impact the arts have on their community typically - the reports are available and are on their desks. But when dealing with lawmakers, us in the arts industry have to understand that we are only a portion of things that make this country tick. The IRS for example - quite possibly the furthest thing from art and creativity - is the reason the NEA gets any money. Infrastructure programs not only create jobs, but also build the roads that lead to our gallery's front door.
I do not look at "art for the sake of art" as the reason my local government includes my organization in their budget every year. I look at the arts as a civic tool, a part of complex and heavy tool belt used by our society to better our lives. When used correctly and at the right stage, this tool helps build a new theatre space which builds a new job, which builds a new house, which builds a new school, which builds a new mayor who builds a better community.
Creativity is the root of all innovation.
No comments:
Post a Comment