Reason.com: Last year, Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic Party's Senate majority leader from Nevada, attacked a self-evidently heartless budget proposed by the Republican Party which trimmed $61 billion out of annual spending of nearly $4 trillion. He complained that such "draconian" cuts would eliminate federal arts funding and mean the certain death of "an annual cowboy poetry festival" that draws "tens of thousands" of people to his home state of Nevada every year.
11 comments:
To play Devil's Advocate here; it does seem that there are a lot of institutions and artistic groups expecting government funding when perhaps they could (and should at least TRY) to get on without them. This article is correct about one thing, in any case, no government has any money these days. It will be the enterprising theatre companies that take the initiative and look now for other sources of revenue. Perhaps we've become complacent; perhaps the tax-exempt statuses of non-profit theatre companies isn't enough anymore. Perhaps there are other ways for the Feds to help Art besides a check.
Look, of course I want Art to continue and I want there to be jobs for us all when we leave CMU; but government funding isn't the ONLY basket from which we can take our bread from and perhaps it is time we started searching for other means of paying for our work. Even Shakespeare had to sell out on occasion and write plays that made his patrons happy; maybe - MAYBE - we do too.
I first want to say that I agree with Jake. The problem I am having is looking at this on the broad since of the issue. Just to say lets cut funding and make organization work a little harder is ok with me. My concern is about schooling. How do you handle arts funding in school. First being exposed to theatre in high school where is the line drawn. There is so much money in this country outside of the government there has to be other ways. If we as a culture want the cowboy poetry and other small pieces of culture to continue then we need to find other baskets to take our bread. MAYBE Jake is right, MAYBE we should do some art to appease the massive, so we can do art to express ourselves.
Yes, yes, and yes...I agree with the points that Jake and Adam make. It seems that all too often these days we're hearing that schools are loosing some or all of the funding for arts programs. And this is happening in both middle/high schools and colleges. Some of it is attributed to numbers, arts programs tend to draw the numbers that business and teaching programs do so establishments sometimes pick and choose and then trim the fat. And then we get into the big debate that everyone wants to start, well the football team almost went to states and the science department needs new microscopes, so lets get new equipment for them but the theatre and band can wait till next year because they can just do 'A Christmas Carol' again. Take it for what you will, I'm stereotyping...
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think it's more valuable to save and redirect funding to arts educational rather than supporting professional companies in their endeavors. Not that professional companies are less important, but maybe with better and more valuable opportunities in their educations those students can be more successful and lead less dependent companies in the future.
If companies are making bank doing what they do best in producing art, then they should be able to fund for themselves and keep themselves up and running. That's why Hollywood's been so successful. I agree with the above statements. Funding the arts in educational programs allows for equal opportunity options for students in all school subjects. Then schools could produce more people who can go into these successful art-producing companies and create a living for themselves that they'll enjoy rather than getting shoved into a dead-end cubicle.
It seems perfectly legitimate to me that the government would cut or lower funding for events such as poetry reading. I would be less accepting of cutting funding for art in education. The argument that the author makes is that we should as a people have to pay for things which we will not take advantage of, if applied to art in education this is silly. Public schools are there to provide at least a basic education in any field that the children desire. But not everyone sends their kids to public school, not everyone even has kids. It is not a system that everyone uses but it is something that everyone pays for, and society is better for it. Giving children the opportunity to succeed include giving them that same chance in artistic fields.
It does seem fair that the government does not directly fund the producing of all forms of art. Artists have, for generations beyond count, survived by proving their worth. It is a whole subculture within the art world that you get what you're good enough to earn, it is part of what defines artists. But how could artists ever learn to be what they are and make the world a more beautiful place if it weren't for education? Arts education MUST be government funded. Art has a huge impact on our daily lives whether we realize it or not, and it is a necessary part of every person's education. Not necessarily to create it, but at least to appreciate what it does for society.
Are you fucking kidding me?
After one opinion piece everyone is all of the sudden is, "Oh you know what maybe governement should cut funding for the arts?" "Maybe they should direct that funding to schools instead." Here's a wakeup call people - the government wants to cut funding to both arts and education. If one goes, they both go. There's no common ground. But even if that wasn't the case, what good does it do to continue to supply funding for education and training if there is no industry for those students to enter? We have now introduced even more individuals crippled by student loans into an economy that can't support them and they can't support their debt?
I can't understand how someone can justify a death sentence to the arts (there are a lot of theaters who depend on the NEA to stay afloat) just because their government has a problem prioritizing expenses. Did no one think that just maybe, if are country was so addicted to war than maybe the government wouldn't have such hard time paying its bills? No that's okay, I'm okay with killing Afgahni citizens even if that means I'm going to work at Walmart for the rest of my life. It's okay though because I can watch TV when I need the arts.
Maybe we should look at the root of the problem - the government itself. Why should we compromise our lifestyle and interests? We have the power to the change the government, to align ourselves with fiscal policy that benefits our interests. Doesn't it make sense that we start there?
I think the government should absolutely fund the arts but where specifically the money goes is up for debate. The government should fund the arts in schools but public arts funding in cities and towns should come from the people of the respective areas. Its important to instill creativity and a love for the arts in children so that they have that love later on in life. But if a community is not interested in theater as a whole then there's no good reason to put it on in the first place.
I feel that it's not necessary the job of the government to fund all of our artistic ventures...
But I do think they do owe it to make resources available and allocate funding at least to the arts in general, making the artists liable to seek out such funding.
Art is apart of the livelihood of this country and I feel that the government is supposed to be acting in the best interest of the people.
For the people, and by the people correct?
BUT art in education should be completely non negotiable in terms of public education anyways.
Aside the fact that educational support from this country is in shambles, a creative outlet is something that is vital to the success of students.
And it is the obligation of the government to make sure that such programs are available.
I love this article, for the simple reason that it asks we who work in the arts to question what I think most of us simply assume: art is valuable. Who doesn't like art? Doesn't everyone benefit from the creative expression of ideas? And if so, shouldn't our government provide funding towards this benefit? My answer to these questions is complicated. I believe strongly that all human beings deserve access to art, both as spectators and practitioners. I think traditionally far too much importance has been placed on the artist in our culture, leaving the audience to fend for itself. In that vein, I believe that the government should really only be in the business of providing resources to access art for communities and constituencies who otherwise would have no such access. I don't give a damn about the quality or relevance of the fruits of those resources, as long as the opportunity for expression has been provided. The "shit in a can" reference means nothing out of context, and means something very different depending on from whom the contents emanated, and to what end. That being said, it is almost impossible for a group like the NEA to vet and track all the people to whom they give grants, and even more impossible to evaluate the effectiveness of that funding. But is it any less difficult for the Pentagon to gauge the effectiveness on our national security of a war in a Iraq, or for the State Department to gauge the effectiveness of Clinton's trip to Iceland? The simple fact is that arts funding is singled out as the poster child for poorly spent public dollars because it is politically convenient. It's easy to claim that, since the majority of "fine art" consumers are weirdos who think shit in a can is art, then no one really gets hurt when funding is cut, right? I think when tough times hit, we should just cut everything across the board instead of singling out the parts of our government that the majority at the time doesn't like.
I agree with other people on how government is not for a funding of individual. Also, it would be great if a government can afford to fund arts annually and be at least supportive to artists and performances. However, like how the article says, government those days does not really have any extra money to put in. Therefore, I believe a company has to find the other way to support itself such as through sponsor. For example, I was always sad to see how art class in my high school ran out of money so my teacher could not afford to get new art supplies. Because the school had less support from the government than last year, the only way was to cut funding of art class. However, my teacher managed to find a way to operate and gain some new art supply by getting donations from students. I think this should apply to institution and other art company although it is sad to see these situations.
Post a Comment