Saturday, January 22, 2011
House Republicans unveil plan to end federal arts and humanities agencies and aid to public broadcasting
Culture Monster | Los Angeles Times: "Any way you want to describe it, the Republican Study Committee, made up of about 165 GOP members of the House of Representatives, on Thursday announced a budget-cutting plan aimed at slashing federal spending, and it calls for the elimination of the nation's two leading makers of government arts grants: the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Also on the chopping block is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
While I understand that we are in an economic crisis, I don't understand why arts are one of the first to get cut. Also it is outrageous if any part of the reason they are cutting spending is that the NEA sponsors things that the government deems "offensive". Isn't that just another form of censorship? Also by cutting arts funding you are cutting people's outlet to being creative, meaning that civilization cannot progress because no one is creatively pushing it forward. Artists are the ones that are moving things forward. Also they have done studies that prove that when kids have arts in their schools they both; do better in school and are less likely to get into bad things because they are focusing on arts http://www.edutopia.org/arts-music-curriculum-child-development. As sculptor Magdalena Abakanowicz says "Art does not solve problems, but makes us aware of their existence". So if the house republicans want all of our children to grow up without access to the arts (something that is vital to our society) then go right a head and cut funding. But I think that with out funding for the arts we will lose anything that gives us culture.
I completely agree with Zoe. In addition to all the enrichment we would lose by cutting arts programs, people (particularly those voting in favor of these cuts) seem to forget that art does create jobs. On a larger scale, there may only be a handful of people in the world making a living as artists, but they are out there. Every new show creates jobs, every new exhibit, every performance (Mr. Boehm cites data stating that the NEA helps sustain 5.7 million jobs in the nonprofit arts sector). For example, when Law and Order finally ended its 20-year-long run, it had created millions of jobs for actors, stagehands, and others. That should be something our government supports, especially in this time of still high unemployment rates.
I agree with Zoe and Becca. Why would you want to cut something that does such great things? One of the articles from last week plays in perfectly for this...
“The performing arts benefit from the same prevailing trends as cinema, in that they are perceived as a way of escaping from the tyranny of value, cutting back and saving. As long as they continue to offer good perceived value for money, there is no reason why they cannot continue to trade successfully throughout difficult economic times while other sectors struggle.” - 'Theatres trump restaurants and pubs in recession, says market research'
But this only holds true if the arts are supported. Also, as Zoe said, the spending that is cut because it is deemed offensive is censorship, which is then going into the issue of the first amendment with the freedom of speech.
While I'm completely and thoroughly as outraged as the rest of you for this looming arts fund cut, I hesitate to call it censorship. A bit fascist, yes, but I wouldn't say it's stepping on anyone's first amendment rights. They aren't preventing anyone from speaking or creating offensive art, so much as not helping them along with funding. I realize to many people, that amounts to the same thing, especially when tax money is concerned. Taxes are collected from the whole and so should be spent to the needs of the whole, not just one elitist powerful and highly opinionated group (which is, sort of, what's happening). But I have a hard time actually saying that prevents people from making these potentially "offensive" works of art or discourse.
I also think the greater travesty comes where children and education are concerned. Arts education, and indeed all education, takes too heavy of a financial blow because of how un-immediate the benefits seem. If you can't see it, or at least quantify it tangibly, it's so hard to convince people to support.
Okay... I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that, though I loathe the idea of using Arts funding to pay for another bomber, Art doesn't really need the GOP's pity. Whilst I know that the elimination of the NEA, the NEH and Public Broadcasting will leave a gap in all our lives (and I mean, ALL our lives, not just us artsy folk...), I wonder if this might, somehow, be a good thing for Art. Every culture of us human beings has NEEDED to make art, in one form or another, in the entirety of its existence. From the first cave painting to the latest war memorial sculpture; there are those amoung us that have HAVE to make it. Some need, some soul-fueled requirement has driven us to create, even in the face of destruction. Art has always been regarded as something cute and cuddly that doesn't really DO anything for the people, doesn't really contribute anything to society; especially by those who run it. You and I know this is a load of fear-driven trash only the smallest step above censorship - and my heart weeps at the idea of eradicating all the necessary funding for the Arts; especially on some ignorant pretense that it is to save or better our country - but by no means does that mean we'll stop making it. I know it's not that simple, there are a LOT of politics involved; but maybe, once the GOP (or whomever has the power at the next moment) realizes we're not going to just pack up our paint brushes and stop doing stuff that might offend them when they cut the funding; well, maybe they'll realize it doesn't matter if they fund it or not. Art's everywhere, whether you like it or not.
Honestly, although everyone wants to complain about cuts towards arts funding, I'd rather the government cut funding for the arts than cut Social Security or Medicare. Sure, it isn't helping me in finding a job, but ultimately, it probably is one of the more "expendable" areas of government spending (and this is coming from someone who would really struggle to live without the world of entertainment). Also, a lot of the truly "escapist" entertainment, light fare that anyone can enjoy, is not entertainment I would consider the most emotionally stimulating, so this argument also has its share of flaws.
Joe, you have a good point. Cutting Social Security or Medicare would be objectionable. But to completely eliminate the NEA, the NEH, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? That's a travesty! You say that entertainment is one of the more "expendable" areas of government spending, and I could see some cutting back on the arts to focus on other priorities like health, or the environment. But why do they want to eliminate funding for the arts? So they can spend more on defense and corporate health care? The arts are extremely important to our culture, and these organizations have played a large role in creating an American arts community and awareness. They enrich our lives, and it would be a shame to see them go.
Post a Comment