Huffington Post: Billions of dollars in arts funding is serving a mostly wealthy, white audience that is shrinking while only a small chunk of money goes to emerging art groups that serve poorer communities that are more ethnically diverse, according to a report being released Monday.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Arts Funding Is Supporting A Wealthy, White Audience: Report
Huffington Post: Billions of dollars in arts funding is serving a mostly wealthy, white audience that is shrinking while only a small chunk of money goes to emerging art groups that serve poorer communities that are more ethnically diverse, according to a report being released Monday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'm not really sure of what to think about after reading this article. It seems apparent that we should be giving more money to the struggling art shows. It just feels like this is the millionth time this conversation has come up. People continue to write about the dis-advantantages and the inequality of the arts but that's the way it's always been and will be until someone does something. We will always have a neighborhood with a less than adequate arts education and there will always be a less than outstanding teacher. If we could find a way to help these places out than all the better. I just can't help but notice that articles similar to this are just whining about the same cause instead of dealing with it. They say what SHOULD be done without creating a viable solution others can support.
I agree that it does seem like there has always been an inequality with the amount of money that is given to diverse groups in the arts. but then again it is not like philanthropists are giving gobs of money to the elite white folks making art either, they give them enough money to be elite. The arts just don't get tons of money in general and the people that would probably donate it are going to donate to places that benefit them. I am making the assumption that the philanthropists that are donating money are rich white people.
This being said, I would argue that giving money to all kinds of art is very important and makes art that is only seen by a very select number of people better, so all in all it benefits everyone. Without a diversity of idea's there can not be good art. On the other hand I wonder if the people that don't have money gained money would their art change? Would it become something different then it is now and so the majority of people that attend it would like it less? How do we reconsider this economic divide so that people retain their art but have the means to do what they need? I think everyone agrees that reaching the most people is the goal. So using money to this would be beneficial.
What it looks to me like the article is saying is that the organizations that have a large budget already are the ones that get more money. WHen I think about that it seems like they'd also be the ones which would have staff members dedicated to grant writing and other fundraising, if there's a professional around to do that then I'd expect they would be the ones to receive the money, other organizations have to rely on someone taking time away from their other tasks to fill out a form. The funding organizations don't tend to go out scouting for groups to give to, they wait for the groups to ask for money so they see the paperwork more than the product.
While I agree with Tom's assessment of the situation, you do not have to be a large institution to have a full time grant writer. If you have a good enough grant writer they can bring in more money than ticket sales. I worked at one small theatre that had a great grant writer and it allowed a whole lot of work in the community and renovations to the space in a short time after hiring the grant writer.
There should definitely be a movement towards giving under-funded and under-represented arts organizations more money than organizations that already have large budgets and the means of interacting with their communities. Theater and other art forms are important because they educate and contribute to the culture to individual communities, and it simply does not make sense to consider wealthier communities more deserving of that opportunity.
Post a Comment