Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Sunday, November 27, 2011
"Community conversations" to impact City cultural plan
WBEZ: The Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events (DCASE) will conduct “many community conversations” in early 2012 as the department begins the process of crafting a long-term, comprehensive cultural plan for the City of Chicago.
While I don't know a lot of the backstory to this article, it seems like the City of Chicago is looking for ways to beef up its arts funding. This is one of the responses to the NEA's failings, move the primary government arts funding from a national to a local level. In some ways, this lets the people of the community get what they want. I have no idea if this is economically possible, but it seems like a reasonable suggestion. One of the problems I can see with it is the distribution of money. Is it a problem that a state like NH or VT will have much less money to give to the arts than a state like NY or CA? There are less people, but does fewer people mean that they should have less access to theater? I don't know.
I agree that this move could be a move to decentralize the arts funding in this country. While that might get cities and states the arts that they want, I think that the majority of state and municipal governments would cut all funding for the arts at the first sign of economic turmoil. I also think that if the national arts funding dries up we will see a dramatic loss of arts and culture companies. The states are typically less likely to fund arts and culture than the federal government. It could help certain cities but I think it would be overwhelmingly detrimental to decentralize arts funding. This is great news though for Chicago. I love the fact that arts funding was part of the Mayor's platform when running for office.
I was very impressed when I was in Chicago with the quantity and quality of parks and recreation activity. The recreation opportunities definitely added a lot of vitality to the city and also increased use of outdoor space substantially. I felt that nearly every weekend there was something interesting to do outdoors for free, which really made me feel better about the city. I hope that their updated plan maintains the quality and vibrancy of the program.
I'm encouraged that the city of Chicago is working towards a "long term comprehensive cultural plan" as opposed to cutting funding to the arts. With the current economic state of things people are looking to cut costs and the arts are usually first on the chopping block. While I don't know the full economic and artistic implications of Chicago's plan it seems as though they are headed in the right direction. I'm glad that they realize that the arts are an indispensable part of life and that they are planning accordingly. I hope that their plan satisfies the city's needs and not just the pocket books of their partners.
4 comments:
While I don't know a lot of the backstory to this article, it seems like the City of Chicago is looking for ways to beef up its arts funding. This is one of the responses to the NEA's failings, move the primary government arts funding from a national to a local level. In some ways, this lets the people of the community get what they want. I have no idea if this is economically possible, but it seems like a reasonable suggestion. One of the problems I can see with it is the distribution of money. Is it a problem that a state like NH or VT will have much less money to give to the arts than a state like NY or CA? There are less people, but does fewer people mean that they should have less access to theater? I don't know.
I agree that this move could be a move to decentralize the arts funding in this country. While that might get cities and states the arts that they want, I think that the majority of state and municipal governments would cut all funding for the arts at the first sign of economic turmoil. I also think that if the national arts funding dries up we will see a dramatic loss of arts and culture companies. The states are typically less likely to fund arts and culture than the federal government. It could help certain cities but I think it would be overwhelmingly detrimental to decentralize arts funding. This is great news though for Chicago. I love the fact that arts funding was part of the Mayor's platform when running for office.
I was very impressed when I was in Chicago with the quantity and quality of parks and recreation activity. The recreation opportunities definitely added a lot of vitality to the city and also increased use of outdoor space substantially. I felt that nearly every weekend there was something interesting to do outdoors for free, which really made me feel better about the city. I hope that their updated plan maintains the quality and vibrancy of the program.
I'm encouraged that the city of Chicago is working towards a "long term comprehensive cultural plan" as opposed to cutting funding to the arts. With the current economic state of things people are looking to cut costs and the arts are usually first on the chopping block. While I don't know the full economic and artistic implications of Chicago's plan it seems as though they are headed in the right direction. I'm glad that they realize that the arts are an indispensable part of life and that they are planning accordingly. I hope that their plan satisfies the city's needs and not just the pocket books of their partners.
Post a Comment