Creators: In the span of half a century, the National Endowment for the Arts has supported some of the most fundamental arts and cultural movements and individuals in this country's history, from funding Pulitzer Prize-winner Alice Walker's first novel to providing seed money to a young Robert Redford towards what is now the Sundance Institute. The organization ensures the presence of art in some of the country's most underserved areas.
11 comments:
Oh, I have so many thoughts sparked from this article. Again and again the American public has been told that we need to “trim the fat” off of American spending. When Trump was elected one of his first cuts was to the National Endowment for the Arts, a decision that many agreed with, and now that real numbers are made public, cutting the arts doesn’t really seem like the best way to trim the fat. The NEA supports thousands of artists around the nation, including theatre makers and theatres. Many theatres supplement their employee’s salaries with funding from the NEA. Without the NEA I may not be making enough money to support myself, all so that the everyman can pay for half a can of soda. And to be told that my livelihood and wellbeing is less important than 50 cents (per person) is a slap in the face. How can the American public be so cruel to want to condemn artists for less than a dollar? I have lost hope that this “democracy” has ever cared for my wellbeing, past present or future.
This is absolutely absurd, and complete bullshit by the Trump administration. I'm with him in some ways--there definitely needs to be some cuts or changes to the Fed in order to account for our tremendous national debt. But the place for that, in my opinion, is not at all in the arts. In the grand scheme of things, as this article described, what the NEA costs the Fed and the people of America is pennies, compared to some of the spending elsewhere. And if this is cut, our military and defense spending will stay exactly the same, and knowing this administration it will increase. Don't get me wrong, I think defense spending is very important, and defense of our nation isn't a waste of money. But we spend more money on defense than any nation in the world--596 billion, in fact, followed by China's 215 billion. Compared to 146 mil for the NEA, that's pennies to the dollar. Cutting the NEA would do practically nothing to help us out of debt--and it would affect arts groups, students, and artists nationwide in a major way.
Sure, not every American can reap the benefits of the NEA, but the importance that it gives to the Arts and to the economy as a whole far out weights the 50 cents that each American pays. With the national deficit continuing to grow I understand the need to cut back on spending but completely cutting funding to such an organization is certainly not the answer the American people were looking for. Obviously, it is hard to decide what gets funding and what does not but at the end of the day, I can assure you people don’t understand what cutting fund to the NEA will to do to artists around the country. More people than you would think to rely on the support of this organization and without it much of the art movements around the country will begin to vanish. I completely agree with Alex’s on his comment on defense spending, the fact that this country rings nearly 570 billion dollars out of taxpayer dollars for the military is absurd. So maybe a reevaluation of funds would be good for the fed and the country.
While we don’t often think of the National Endowment for the Arts as a life- saving, human-rights organization, I think it is definitely as valuable as one, if not literally life- saving. The fact that Trump is planning on defunding the NEA for a few measly cents of tax dollars just goes to show how anti-education and anti-art Trump’s campaign is continuing to be. It’s so sad to think of high-poverty areas losing their access to art completely because it isn’t considered a necessity by our newly appointed government. How many of us became who we are today because of the community/ educational art programs and communities, whether that be theater or painting or dance or music? Art has such a power to allow the disadvantaged to have a voice, as well as to allow the privileged to elevate the voices of those we are too often blocked from due to prejudice and hatred. We have such a long way to go, and while the defunding of this organization must seem like just a few more stacks in their pockets to go to the military, for so many living in areas in which independent art communities aren’t guaranteed, this could mean an entirely artless, spiritless generation of people disadvantaged by Trump.
On its face the argument that the federal government would want to cut exspenses when trying to curtail its budget is a reasonable one. And on face value the idea of spend money on supporting the arts seems like a frivolous exspense when one is focusing on trying to bring manufacturering jobs back to the US. The problem with this line of thinking in its simplest form is two fold first economically speaking entertainment and the arts are more likely to be the future of economic growth in our country more so than trying to produce steel and cars when other countries have a large comparative advantage over us. Add into that fact that the arts Is responsible for $700 billion in our economy all for the simple cost of a government subsidy of approximately $150 million. It would be asinine to devest ones self from an asset that preformance that well especially when the per person cost of said fund is $.46. The second problem with this argument even if you ignore the economic one is that of social one. Arts tends to help define our societies by highlighting both the things we wish to change and those things we feel are of importance in our society. You gut that and you gut ingenuity in America.
The arts are extremely important — I know that statement is unnecessary in this context; however, I think it is very true and I would say that the article agrees with me. There really isn’t much to write about this because I believe that it is so clear that this is a center productive idea in all senses of the term. It is far from a good — or even neutral — business decision. It’s just a straight up bad one. I haven’t heard about this issue in a few weeks, which either means that the new administration is letting it slide under the table and covering it up with larger and more controversial movements, or they have dropped the idea. While I sincerely hope it is the latter, I think it would far match the movements of this administration to have the former in mind. Hopefully — if anything happens — things will go so far downhill that it will return.
I hate Donald Trump. As Chris said I understand that not everyone is involved in the arts. However, everyone goes to see movies, have been to an art museum etc. Most people have benefited from arts. Trump taking this away will affected so many children in high poverty areas. The NEA gives a lot of grants to programs in those types of areas. If not for them, the children would not have an exposure to the arts. Trump needs to not cut this budget. I know it seems to save the government a lot of money, but its only $.46 per person. Cutting this program could have so many consequences. "The nation which disdains the mission of art invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having 'nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope.'" JFK said this quote and I believe in this so much. Let hope the NEA does not get cut.
Every day I find yet another reason to hate Donald Trump, and today is no different. The fact that he believes that it's worth to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts over simply 46 cents is quite honestly mind boggling to me. It's such a small amount per person, and is extremely small compared to the amount that we spend on other areas of the government. Like Sasha said, he has once again proved that he is going to be extremely anti-art. Take my 46 cents, in fact, take even more if it will support developing artists and art education. Obviously this effects our community more than a lot of other people, but art touches everyone and everything. The reason that the NEA was initially crated was to "embrace the arts and culture in the United States". Does the Trump administration really want a nation with no self-expression and culture? If so, I am honestly terrified for the next four years.
Biologically, altruism is an important evolutionary characteristic where organisms support one another without the expectation of an immediate mutually beneficial relationship. It just so happened that animals which cared for their sick and helped their young led longer lives and yielded more fertile offspring. It’s a concept that has sort of become the framework of humanity. We help each other out, even in the worst of times, without needing to reap the benefit. It’s our obligation as human beings to contribute to our society, and to help those who need it. It is what makes us a part of society. So whenever people are upset that they have to pay taxes, or that their tax dollars are going to programs that they do not benefit from, all I can assume is that these people have regressed. They’ve become so isolated that they function at the same level as pre-historic mammals who have not yet learned the power of community. You are not in this world alone. You have to look out for your community. So if 46 cents is the price I have to pay to make sure a child living in a low income neighborhood learns to love art, then I’ll gladly give it.
Oh yay! I can save another 46 cents on my taxes. I can't wait. Remember when we were all up in a huff in 2012 when Mitt Romney purposed cutting PBS in order to stop overspending and Big Bird tweeted about how that was useless and that PBS really gets nothing from the government while it vastly improves the lives of so many people (where would we be without "Downton Abbey"?). And remember when, every year for the past decade or so, arts programs at public highs schools have been shrinking or cut completely in order to save money for the budget? It seems like the arts are always the first thing to be tossed under the bus when it comes time to cut expenses because then it will look like you’re doing something. But in reality, arts are such a small fraction of our spending that it doesn’t really make any difference – all it does is worsen the lives of people with little access to art. Maybe cut some of the military’s funding instead? Or pay congressmen less (not going to happen because they determine their own wages). Or maybe Melania can move to the white house so the secret service isn’t being paid to guard her in New York? All of these would be more effective, and better for communities in America, than cutting the NEA.
I really just don't understand this purely from a voter perspective. Look I hate Trump and that no secret, and I am not trying to hide it, I never will, I will do every comment for the rest of my time here and never put the word president in front of his name because I think it's disrespectful to the men that came before him, but as a voter I can not understand how you could be so blind to the facts that effect you every day. It is actually crazy that people vote for these policies that do not help them at all. I think if I were to ever quit theater I would devote my life to studying the middle or lower class republican voter, because they are voting against their best interest, and I refuse to believe 50% of the population is just too stupid to understand the government or what their representatives are doing to them. There has to be another reason that people want to spend a ton of money to build a wall but can't lose 46 cents to the arts. I wish I didn't think that reason was racism or sexism or homophobia, but unfortunately history supports my hunch.
Post a Comment