Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Stimulus package - "arts: bonbons for a leftist elite"

I'm back home in Michigan to visit my parents for a bit. I was without internet for a bit, then traveling across Michigan to see friends for another bit, and I am behind on my posting. So back to it.

On Feb 6, the Senate voted to eliminate funding from the stimulus package to help "...museums, theaters and arts centers...." Apparently, some conservatives denounced the arts as "bonbons for a leftist elite." In the final package approved this week, however, $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts was included, after supporters argued for the economic impact of the arts.

This raises one of our most common questions in arts admin; should the arts get public funding, and why? And to complicate it, during an economic crisis? And to complicate it FURTHER, with the justification of economic impact?

I won't ever agree that the arts are "bonbons" of frivolity to our functioning in society. But in the face of crisis, I understand that perception. If the stimulus package were giving money only to the basics to get things up and running again, I'd say leave the arts out (though I make myself an enemy of my field in doing so). To argue for the economic impact of arts to keep them on the bill, too, has its flaws. The arts rarely cover costs independently; they rely on generous donations and grants. Yes, they employ a lot of people and generate tourism and spending, but so do restaurants, so do athletics. I'm trained to think you can't fund the arts based on their economic impact, because they're then expected to play by those rules that says what makes money deserves to stay, and the arts have always rendered their value outside of economics.

Am I happy I'm going to be paying through the nose for this bill until I'm 80? No. But as long as everything else got money (and there are pork projects on there more frivolous than arts) I guess I'm glad the arts weren't left behind. Though justifying funding the arts through economics is treading on wobbly ground.

NYTimes article on it here:
Saving Federal Arts Funds: Selling Culture as an Economic Force

No comments: