As noted by Culture Jock on Friday, Americans for the Arts announced some good news at the end of last week: “The House of Representatives voted 246 to 183 to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The bill includes $50 million in direct support for arts jobs through the National Endowment for the Arts and language that would have prevented museums, theaters, and arts centers from receiving stimulus funds was removed.”
Here at Culture Shock, the knicker-twisting over federal arts funding left our knicker-covered parts raw. Nothing a little balm won’t soothe, but the chafing makes its presence known. Those of us toiling in the lettuce patches of culture were rightfully perturbed to have our work trivialized – as if we’re not doing “real jobs.” Next thing you know, some crazy politician will be claiming we’re not “real Americans!”
Here at Culture Shock, the knicker-twisting over federal arts funding left our knicker-covered parts raw. Nothing a little balm won’t soothe, but the chafing makes its presence known. Those of us toiling in the lettuce patches of culture were rightfully perturbed to have our work trivialized – as if we’re not doing “real jobs.” Next thing you know, some crazy politician will be claiming we’re not “real Americans!”
While the immediate question of $50 million worth of stimulation may be settled, we must continue to gird up our loins with the belt of truth in defense of art and arts funding. So let’s get back to the question of advocacy.
In a recent post, Culture Shock contributor, Cynseattle, pointed readers toward a Chicago Tribune opinion piece in which Chris Jones states, “Too little attention has been paid to making the long-term political case that culture is important and accessible to ordinary people and thus worthy of financial support.”
The case for culture’s contribution to social, economic and personal well-being is well documented and has been artfully argued. Our friend, Tim DuRoche, for example, recently wrote a compelling case for the economic value of the arts; more than a dry case statement, Tim transforms statistical abstractions into examples from real life. You can read Tim’s letter to Senator John McCain over here at Art Scatter.
Thus, we have this argument:
Whereas culture is important in many ways; and,
Whereas culture is not as elitist as you think;
Therefore: Culture is worthy of financial support.
Whereas culture is not as elitist as you think;
Therefore: Culture is worthy of financial support.
Sure, we need to keep pressing the need-based and value-based arguments, but is the problem that we haven’t shouted our case loudly enough? Do we need to strop our dulled campaign slogans to a keener edge? Should we be investing in more billboards, or filling the airwaves with our adjurations? Refrigerator magnets?
Here’s what I think: Arts advocacy has fallen short because we keep pressing a case that many of our political adversaries aren’t quibbling about.
Many or most of our opponents will concede that arts and culture are good for us, individually and collectively. Believe it or not, some stalwart fiscal conservatives don’t sneer at culture and spit on artists; they go to the opera, wander museum galleries, and know their derrières from their arrières when attending the ballet. Some of them even sit on the boards of arts organizations and foundations that make generous grants in support of culture. They agree that the arts can contribute to building a citizenry comprised of wise and nimble team-players who are ready to innovate our way into the global economy.
BUT (and I like big buts), that’s not their issue. Their problem with arts funding is that they don’t believe that government has a role in supporting the arts. That argument is based in one or more of the following beliefs:
1) The limits of government responsibility do not encompass cultural affairs.
2) Art happens – it always has and it always will, even without government support.
3) Art needs support, but that’s what the private sector is for.
4) Government intervention will hurt or hinder the arts.
For many conservatives, you can replace the word “art” in the preceding list with education, health care, nutrition programs, or any of a long list of public goods; after all, the desire for limited government is a huge part of what defines a conservative. (Some of our readers will say that I left out “pure evil” as part of that definition, but I’m trying to seem rational).
In the arts world, we might argue about which makes the strongest case for culture: That the arts have inherent value, or that they have utilitarian benefits. Put another way, should we support the arts because the arts are: (1) inherently sweet and delicious; or (2) packed full of fortifying nutrition? We rarely make the case for why an investment in all that yummy goodness should be a function of government—local, state or federal.
Perhaps it is time to stop declaiming the goodness of art and pay more attention to making the case for why government should (or must) have a role in supporting it. And let’s be careful to avoid tautologies: e.g., “Government should support the arts because … well, just because that’s what the government should do.”
We should try to explicate the unique role government can play in the arts economy. What can government do for the arts that the private sector either can’t or won’t?
Part of the answer may be that we need government to invest in activities that produce public goods which the private sector either can’t or won’t support; for example, ensuring broad access to culture for citizens who would otherwise not be able to afford to participate. An analogy might be the federal government’s investment in public education or rural electrification.
Another part of the answer may involve bricks and mortar—investing in our cultural infrastructure. Similar to building roads, levees and schools, perhaps the public sector is the only one that can muster the capital needed to build the physical infrastructure needed for cultural activities that serve the public. The government may also be the only sector that is able or willing to assume the risks involved in big cultural construction projects. Portland Center Stage’s Armory project, for example, was made possible by loan guarantees and tax breaks from the public sector (though it’s a shame that our local, state and federal governments couldn’t just hand over cash for that urban asset). If Portland had a “shovel ready” performance venue in the works right now, might that be a better use of economic stimulus funding than doling out a little bit of extra grant money to lots of arts organizations this year?
One more unique government role could be to serve as an arts incubator; for example, project grants from our own Regional Arts and Culture Council are often the first grant funding that emerging artists and organizations are able to secure, thus helping to leverage giving from private donors. Another government role could be cultural diplomacy--something I think we'll be seeing more of under an Obama administration.
Perhaps our readers will jump in with other suggestions, or point us to folks who have already presented the case for government’s unique role in the arts. (Sorry to keep highlighting “unique,” but that’s the concept I’m looking for).
I’ll close with a radical thought that may be a kick to the hornet’s nest: What if we combined our request for MORE government funding with an agreement to NARROW how that funding will be used? For example, what if we stipulate that federal funds will be directed toward subsidizing the construction of cultural facilities (libraries, arts centers, performing arts venues) only? If the federales were to underwrite more of a building’s construction, arts organizations could focus on raising private money for operations or endowments rather than capital.
For many conservatives, you can replace the word “art” in the preceding list with education, health care, nutrition programs, or any of a long list of public goods; after all, the desire for limited government is a huge part of what defines a conservative. (Some of our readers will say that I left out “pure evil” as part of that definition, but I’m trying to seem rational).
In the arts world, we might argue about which makes the strongest case for culture: That the arts have inherent value, or that they have utilitarian benefits. Put another way, should we support the arts because the arts are: (1) inherently sweet and delicious; or (2) packed full of fortifying nutrition? We rarely make the case for why an investment in all that yummy goodness should be a function of government—local, state or federal.
Perhaps it is time to stop declaiming the goodness of art and pay more attention to making the case for why government should (or must) have a role in supporting it. And let’s be careful to avoid tautologies: e.g., “Government should support the arts because … well, just because that’s what the government should do.”
We should try to explicate the unique role government can play in the arts economy. What can government do for the arts that the private sector either can’t or won’t?
Part of the answer may be that we need government to invest in activities that produce public goods which the private sector either can’t or won’t support; for example, ensuring broad access to culture for citizens who would otherwise not be able to afford to participate. An analogy might be the federal government’s investment in public education or rural electrification.
Another part of the answer may involve bricks and mortar—investing in our cultural infrastructure. Similar to building roads, levees and schools, perhaps the public sector is the only one that can muster the capital needed to build the physical infrastructure needed for cultural activities that serve the public. The government may also be the only sector that is able or willing to assume the risks involved in big cultural construction projects. Portland Center Stage’s Armory project, for example, was made possible by loan guarantees and tax breaks from the public sector (though it’s a shame that our local, state and federal governments couldn’t just hand over cash for that urban asset). If Portland had a “shovel ready” performance venue in the works right now, might that be a better use of economic stimulus funding than doling out a little bit of extra grant money to lots of arts organizations this year?
One more unique government role could be to serve as an arts incubator; for example, project grants from our own Regional Arts and Culture Council are often the first grant funding that emerging artists and organizations are able to secure, thus helping to leverage giving from private donors. Another government role could be cultural diplomacy--something I think we'll be seeing more of under an Obama administration.
Perhaps our readers will jump in with other suggestions, or point us to folks who have already presented the case for government’s unique role in the arts. (Sorry to keep highlighting “unique,” but that’s the concept I’m looking for).
I’ll close with a radical thought that may be a kick to the hornet’s nest: What if we combined our request for MORE government funding with an agreement to NARROW how that funding will be used? For example, what if we stipulate that federal funds will be directed toward subsidizing the construction of cultural facilities (libraries, arts centers, performing arts venues) only? If the federales were to underwrite more of a building’s construction, arts organizations could focus on raising private money for operations or endowments rather than capital.
Or is it time to fight against any compromises?
Posts
