Making Choices

Ms. Redman:

Remember the Depression and the WPA? With almost no money, the government paid artists to work.

Regina Hackett

Shall we allow some specifics to inform this discussion rather than vague generalities?

There isn't a state in the union that is spending more than a nickel or a dime, relative to its overall budget, on the arts - single or low-double digit millions for most large states, often less than a million for the smallest or most benighted (California, by the way, is last in the nation, by far, in per-capita state arts funding - $5 million smackers a year, $1 million of which comes from the feds, $2 million from a voluntary (i.e. privately donated) extra license plate registration fee, and only about $2 million directly from state coffers).

The lesson is that if politicians aren't forced to pay a price for cutting funding for the arts, they'll do it every time, with impunity. Why are arts people afraid to seem selfish? Why would anyone buy into the either-or argument (social welfare and public safety or the arts), when there are all manner of other activities funded by states and municipalities that the arts might be lumped with, rather than health and safety? If you believe that something is important and there's a role for the government in providing it, you speak up publicly and twist arms behind the scenes as effectively as you can, year in and year out, finding the most effective and savvy point persons you can to carry the fight.

The best example I know is the New Jersey state budget crisis of 2003, which swung from utter disaster to triumph for the arts community, thanks to unabashed, unashamed public demonstrations and lobbying:

This is from artsblogNewJersey:

"For decades, New Jersey has been setting aside money for the arts in an erratic fashion. For example, in 2003 there was a $5 billion shortfall in the general budget, and former Gov. James E. McGreevey nearly eliminated all funding for the arts. The protests were loud and effective. They demonstrated how much residents value local theater, art exhibits and concerts.
In reaction to the public outcry, $16 million was scraped together and a 7 percent state hotel and motel occupancy tax was adopted. It was supposed to provide a permanent source of money for the arts with funding leveling off at about $20 million.
In 2005, arts funding reached its highest level ever: $22.3 million.
The following year arts funding was imperiled when newly elected Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine had a dispute with members of his own party, which controls both houses of the Legislature.
Readers will recall that political fighting grew so intense in the summer of 2006 that state government was shut down for a week.
When a deal was finally reached, the sales tax was increased from 6 percent to 7 percent.....To balance the budget, a portion of the lodging tax was used. Arts funding fell to $16 million....Finding a permanent source of revenue for the arts amid such fiscal problems and burdens might seem insignificant or undoable. Yet, as the 2003 outcry showed, many people want our state to fund a diverse group of high-quality arts organizations. That's why the funding should be stabilized and not reduced to a game of chance each year.
The hotel and motel sales tax was supposed to provide permanent funding for the arts. But like every other pot of money in the state, it now gets tapped to close budget gaps.
This should not happen. Music, dance and theater are important enough to New Jersey that they should have a regular revenue stream."

So the victory wasn't as final and complete as initially hoped. Yes, the NJ pols raided what they'd previously said would be a cookie jar just for the arts. But having been singed by rallies and extreme pressure in 2003, it will likely be a long time before NJ officials venture to utterly decimate arts funding, as commonly happens elsewhere. They know what the consequences are likely to be -- the kinds of outcry and hassles that no politician wants.

Although I wish there were more public money available for the arts, I think there is something to be said about current methods of funding.

For one thing, many arts groups must build genuine ties to their communities in order to survive. In Peoria, for instance, the local symphony is able to exist because it has managed through the years to gain support from a cross-section of the city and region: businesses, local foundations, wealthy individuals. Moreover, they sell lots of tickets for their concerts.

They do receive state and federal money, but it amounts to less than 10 percent of their budget. In other words, government money is going to an institution that is supported and well-attended. I think this is a good thing.

I don't believe that organizations must already be established if they want NEA/state money. But I do think they should demonstrate in some way that the people in their respective communities want and value what they have to offer.