If you’re not watching the current debate about the proposed Federal economic stimulus package, especially as it relates to arts and culture, you’re missing an important bit of theater. Most will know that the initial proposal includes a $50 million allocation to the National Endowment for the Arts, which has brought arts and culture into the conversation about what activities stimulate economic activity, and what activities are just along for the ride.
Says Bob Lynch at Americans for the Arts:
”The arts are a prime vehicle for job creation and a valued economic
distribution mechanism. The country’s more than 4,000 local and state
arts agencies have nearly 50 years of proven history as good stewards
of our tax dollars and can ensure speedy disbursement to local
projects, along with the excellent direct distribution track record of
the NEA itself.”
Says Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common
Sense in this L.A. Times article:
“I’m sure the arts have been hit hard by the
downturn of the economy…. But it is hard to make the argument that it is stimulative. The
raw politics is that the arts spending provides a bull’s eye for
critics to ridicule and criticize the entire package.”
The National Endowment for the Arts has posted links to studies and resources that suggest how artists are part of the workforce, arts organizations provide some of the spending that supports local economies, and how the NEA is positioned to distribute stimulus funds effectively.
Barry Hessenius works to bring the question to a point in his recent blog, as well.
The ultimate question in play is: What does arts and cultural activity DO for us as a society, as a collective, and as a nation? And what type of a lever does it provide, when measured up against many other levers, when we are deep in economic (and social) crisis?
Now would be a good time to form an opinion, or expose your existing opinion to the open air.
UPDATE: If you want to follow other blog chatter on the NEA and the economic stimulus (on all sides of the argument), try this Google Blogsearch.
We might remember that the 50 million for the NEA is only 1/16,000th of the 800 billion recovery bill. In that sense, the politicians have already made a statement about how much they think arts funding affects the economy. What’s 1/16,000th of a pie chart look like?
As for my own view, I think investing in our creative potential is advantageous, both socially and economically. To put it in very simple terms, almost without exception the cities that draw the most gifted entrepreneurs, and thus the most capital, are also those that have the most cultural offerings. A city that invests in the arts is a city that attracts money and the moneyed. The old formula was: time = money. In the world we live in today the formula is: creativity = money.
I wish the Americans for the Arts were blogging on ArtsJournal. They could argue some important points here. Mr. Lynch, why not put someone on your staff to work blogging here? Give it some thought, please. I’m sure Doug McLennan (the AJ’s owner) would like the idea.
I must disagree with Mr. Osborne’s comment. First off to marginalize something just because it is a small portion of a whole is never a valid point. If the fifty million dollars was going to a time travel fund we would all think it is a tremendous waste of money, despite the size. Moreover if the doubled the art budget, it would seem substantial.
Secondly his point on artist cities drawing the most entrepreneurs is a classic example of confusing cause and effect.
Although cities with high art cultures have high rates of economic growth it does not necessarily mean the two coincide. It is far more likely that urban areas with high concentrations of people have both highly artistic and highly entrepreneurial people.
Just wanted to point out to Mr. Osborne and other readers that Americans for the Arts has a blog on their site – blog.artsusa.org. Mr. Lynch posts entries there fairly often.
While ArtsJournal might have more traffic (I am merely making an assumption) and is a known forum for conversation on a wide variety of issue and would make a good forum for Americans for the Arts, I think they are better served if people got in the habit of visiting their site.
I don’t think ArtsJournal would suffer from me pointing this out. I certain haven’t visited less frequently having discovered their site. And of course it would be foolish to ignore ArtsJournal!
Personally I don’t think the extent to which arts organizations contribute to the economy is a relevant fact at this moment in time. Just because something has a positive impact on the economy does not mean it needs stimulus money.
It is my belief that the stimulus should be used to remedy the areas of the economy that have caused the meltdown. The arts were not a major factor in this current meltdown, so in my eyes they do not need the federal government’s stimulus. I love the arts, but if every single special interest group tries to force their agenda into the bailout it does not help in the long run. It only makes the stimulus bill take longer to be passed. And it only puts us deeper into debt.
When we talk about government funding the NEA is the center of attention but as many point out, $50 million is only a small portion of the “bail out” and a very small amount of the total government funding for the arts – there are the indirect tax benefits not to mention tax forgiveness for sales and real estate that account for more government funding. There could be other, more significant, government programs that would help the arts. Those of us old enough, remember the CETA program of the mid-seventies that provided jobs (at $7,500 per annum plus health) for artists to teach and practice their craft. A number of extant companies were started by individuals through CETA programs and many artists, including myself, were sustained through CETA. The other significant potential form of government funding for the arts is through the State Department USAID. What better way to improve the US image abroad than to fund tours of performing arts companies and traveling exhibitions? Who better to represent the US, its values and its capability than, say, the Alvin Ailey Dance Company?
The best argument I’ve seen, which is from the Atlantic Monthly’s website, is that arts funding is “shovel ready.” Fund the arts, and arts organizations immediately hire people as techs, box office, performers, musicians, etc. Give money to visual artists and they spend it on supplies, rent gallery spaces, etc. Give it to small publishers and they publish books, hiring printers, typesetters, etc, and paying writers. It’s money that goes quickly into the economy.
None of which has anything to do with why arts are important, but why this funding is “stimulative” economically.
In the midst of this national discussion about “giving” the $50 mil to the NEA, we should recognise the part that personal (and political) perception plays here. All the artists and creative people I know are also business owners either as sole proprietors or as employers. All try to sell their wares or services (art and performances) in the marketplace next to mega mart and mega plex.
Rather than producing nothing, like the poor or unemployed, they add to the GDP in real terms yet are perceived as less a part of a “stimulus package”. This argument is more about political position, your pork vs my necessity, and old, outdated perceptions of the artist as someone who is a slacker, who doesn’t do hard work (the “I love my MTV – money for nothin’ syndrome”) and less about reality.
Those against funding the NEA $50 mill seem to see no problem with throwing more dollars at those whose greed caused some of this mess. Harrumph!
Once the point gets raised, all the age old arguments also rise to the top. And they can be debated ad infinitum without much resolution (although the debate is certainly healthy outside of its ability to raise blood pressures). What we really need to do is find ways to train arts groups and artists to access whatever stimulus funding becomes available whether it’s through the NEA or through state, county and local stimulus efforts that will fund job training, recreation, education, transportation enhancements, etc. Our advocates have spent considerable time trying to affect positive change in these areas as well and partnership building with sectors outside of the arts might result in immediate and longer term financial (and other beneficial) results.
Bob Lynch’s statement that the arts are a vehicle for job creation could be made by a representative of any economic sector. My city built a baseball stadium for a minor league team on the grounds that it would create jobs and generate income.
Three things that people tend to forget/overlook in this stimulus package debate are 1) the assumption that when taxpayers spend money it doesn’t stimulate the economy but when the government takes our dollars and spends them, that does stimulate the economy; 2) when taxpayers and businesses spend money, they seek out the best value for their dollar ie the business with the best quality for the price is rewarded whereas when the government spends money, that money tends to go to those businesses that are politically connected – thus rewarding businesses not for how good they are but for who they know and whose campaigns they contributed to – being an Illinoian I am unfortunately all too familiar with this practice; 3) taxpayers are ultimately responsible for paying the tab for all this stimulation. What happens to our ability as individuals to pay our own bills when the government comes knocking to collect the money to pay its bills?