Making art without the big budgets

My point, Jeff, is that the government is supporting those $15 million homes via mortgage interest deductions, due to the strength of the real estate lobby, the construction lobby and the rich folks' lobby, while people like yourself shout "mealy-mouthed entitlement mentality" when the arts ask for a slice of the pie. Funny thing, but Nature in her wisdom gives young birds in the nest the innate wisdom to "jostle and squeak" so they'll be fed. In fact, as the proud dad of a young budding ornithologist, I can tell you that in some species the nestling who is too weak to "jostle and squeak" vigorously enough ends up dying in the nest, or worse, being scorned and tossed out. It's a cruel world out there, and for the arts to thrive, there need to be jostlers and squeakers doing their jostling and squeaking on any front, public or private, where they think it can do them some good. Dignified (or is it merely fearful) reticence gets you nothing. Except maybe deep-down disrespect and dismissal from the hard-headed folks who pride themselves on running things in our society via their accumulation of money and power. Political powers and business powers need to be smacked upside those hard heads repeatedly with "jostling and squeaking" and maybe voter information campaigns that ask why they favor favors for millionaires' private advantage, but not for the symphony or theater company that's seeking grant money for a program that helps kids spend some productive time after school out of trouble and harm's way - while maybe discovering a lifelong passion. Or money that simply supports the creation of worthwhile art. Even many people who don't spring for a ticket to see that art will value it because it gives them a sense of civic pride to live in a community that fosters excellence across the board.

Thanks for the civics lesson, but I wasn't referencing government entitlements. I was referencing a mentality or sentiment that suggests because people have $15 million dollar homes, that others deserve money for their art. Regardless of whether one is an artist, day laborer or an accountant, there is no obligation to promote or encourage them. The obligation falls to the individual or organization to build the relationships and community of support that enables them to express their creative voice or build their career. Would I like to see more people supporting the arts? Absolutely. Is excessive consumerism crass? Most definitely. But raising our voices in expectant supplication to the government coffers is naive at best. Creation of something compelling and working to bring it to the public will in the long run result in funding for those that respect the donors and their generosity. It will also build respect for the art. Simply jostling and squeaking like young birds in the nest doesn't constitute building a relationship by the way.

Yo Jeff, it's always a shame when a little information pops up to spoil a nice tidy misconception, but here goes: Arts grants are not given as "entitlements." Medicare is an entitlement; Social Security is an entitlement; if you're 65, you're in. Ditto for public education if you're the right age for K-12. But support for the arts is no entitlement. Responsible foundations and government granting agencies require detailed proposals and run them by panels made up of supposedly knowledgeable people. I'm not saying that every granting decision is ironclad, or immune from faddish or sloppy thinking, but there are no freebies for yokels off the street with their hands out, saying, "love me, I'm an artist." Those who can't make a case for their art based on current ideas and past performance don't get funded. No quasi-responsible grantmaker is going to underwrite a writer's research trip to Thailand or even the next town over without a solid game plan and evidence that the writer can deliver. I'm curious why you would assume that arts grants would be doled out to generic entitled "artists" who pick a number and line up at some trough, as opposed to people who have earned some sort of reputation for their work and can show some sort of useful plan for spending the money.

Certainly if your writer friends would like to convince a benefactor of the value to send them to Thailand, then have at it. Patrons of the arts have always existed and the artist needed to always show the glimmer of something that would capture their imagination and their financing. I am not adverse to spending money on an artistic endevour, but I'm vehemently against a mealy mouthed entitlement mentality. To call ones self an artist doesn't inherently mean that you are paid to be such; or that there is an inherent obligation on the community to support that effort. While it is sad to see excess, it isn't the government's responsibility to offset an individual's gauche obsession with the trappings of wealth with guilt money for the arts.

If you artist friends can't bring a glimpse of their genius to a potential funder on a smaller scale to secure financing, then they are far less creative than you give them credit for.

Funny you should mention roads. There's a huge issue in downtown Lansing right now because no one can get through anywhere because of all the construction. The last time I tried to get to BoarsHead to see "Mrs. Warren's Profession," I had to take a very confusing detour (thankfully I knew the area) to get to the theater because all the roads around it were blocked off. The bus station across the street had to be moved because of the sinkholes that recently appeared in the roads.

It's also interesting that you bring up "Faust" as this same director has staged a futuristic production of Marlowe's Faustus with a great deal of special effects on an incredibly minuscule budget.

I find the argument fascinating even though I fall far more in the camp of taxes should be used to promote the communal good. Life would be boring if I only heard things I agreed with. I find the viewpoint challenging and one that I like to spend time with for that reason.

Pretty narrow vision your artistic director friend has. And pretty self-absorbed to think that his minimalist approach should apply as a one-(very small)-size-fits-all for all artists. It's perfect for him, but what about the sculptor who needs a ton of steel, blowtorches and cutting tools, an engineering consultant, and a truck to move it all around? What about the artistic director across town who's just had a huge inspiration for how to stage "The Odyssey," or "Faust," and needs some good special effects to pull it off? Or, god forbid, someone wants to bring the good folk of Lansing a diet of plays that require royalty payments. What about the Lansing writer who needs to finance a year in Thailand, or Timbuktu, or wherever, to write a very worthwhile book?

The biggest nonprofit theater company on the West Coast has an annual budget of less than $50 million. High-end houses in LA are selling for $15 million, and I have to stop myself from laughing at the numbers whenever I do an arts-finance story. The cost of that house is more than a tenth of the NEA's budget, and it's triple the budget of California's state arts-granting agency. Why shouldn't the arts get to keep a finger in the pie when the billionaire who buys that $15 million pad as his fifth vacation home gets to write off the mortgage on the backs of you, me, and Mr. "I pay my own way" Theater Director there in Lansing? Yeah, independence and self reliance are laudable, until something ambitious or difficult needs doing -- like building and maintaining the road system that lets the public attend those bare-bones shows in Lansing. I think Gen Xers (and anyone else) who buys into the hardcore Libertarian shtick need to start reading less theory and more newspapers, so they can learn how the real world works and start acting accordingly.