Fear and trembling I have. Yes.
Talk of public funding for the arts. Happy no one will be.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Image credits below
Some time ago, Kelly Kleiman wrote a blog post for the Stanford Social Innovation Review that I only recently discovered: Second (and Third) Thoughts about Public Funding for the Arts. It has the entertainment value of presenting some pretty controversial (in the arts community) ideas, and it has the benefit of saying some things about which we need to think deeply. Ms. Kleiman also nails the unhelpful nature of much public discourse on the subject:
The conversation about public funding for the arts has for 30 years been a clash between the Jets of “We’re artists! Art is important so if you challenge the value of anything we create you’re a boob and a censor and a miser!” and the Sharks of “We’re ordinary people! We don’t want our tax money spent on things we don’t grasp or approve of so that over-educated sissies can avoid getting jobs!” Needless to say, this has not been a very productive debate, unless by “productive” you mean “of hysteria and hostility.”
A fairly astute (and, again, entertaining) assessment.
The central premise of the post is as follows: “[B]rethren in the arts community: stop talking about public funding for the arts as if the point were for the public to support YOU. No one cares about you. What we care about as a society is US, and how exposure to what you do will improve us.” Not a word minced there, eh? If I might be permitted to translate a bit, her point is that the public is demanding to be shown the public value that justifies public funding of the arts. It is a demand based on the fact that, by and large, they don’t see it. If that’s the case, and it’s hard to argue to the contrary, it’s not an unreasonable request. (For the record, there are several items of her analysis with which I would quarrel but those are not at issue here.)
It should come as no surprise whatsoever to anyone who has read even one of my posts that my solution to this situation is for the arts world to get serious about engaging with communities and create value in people’s lives that makes them plea for more. I believe any other approach is doomed to fail or doomed to minuscule success. Others believe to the contrary. I understand that. But here’s my reasoning. (And forgive me, but I’m going to be quoting myself. You know, the book . . . .)
There are elements of the public policy realm that are referred to as the “third rail,” meaning that no politician can threaten them without fear of instantaneous political death. For the last half century, Social Security has been one such inviolable institution. In contrast, public support of the arts has been a “first rail,” one that is among the easiest and first attacked in the political arena. . . .
Arts delivery systems in the U.S. have reflected the separation between the arts community and the broad population found in those systems’ European roots. As a result, the perceived public value of the arts (as viewed by the electorate) has been minimal. There is therefore little motivation to initiate or expand support for the arts. . . .
Inside the arts world, there is a tendency to see the lack of political viability as a simple marketing problem: people are insufficiently aware of the public value of the arts; if communication strategies were more robust, the problem would be solved. There is, no doubt, a germ of truth in that assessment. However, the problem runs deeper. There is no conspiracy afoot to hide the arts’ value from the populace. The simple truth is that in general, with significant and glorious exceptions, average citizens are aware of little direct personal benefit from the reflective arts.
Limited public funding of the arts in the U.S. is a factor of the country’s social, economic, and political history. It’s not simply that arts funding today is a forgotten category that might be expanded if it had greater support from a few key decision-makers, from the top down. Opposing such funding has proven to be an invaluable “issue of first resort” for politicians wanting to hone their populist credentials. In other words, the political infrastructure is not neutral. It’s currently stacked against the arts. Without large numbers of people having newly transformative experiences with the arts, the political capital available is insufficient to support significant improvement in public funding or, more generally, public policy for the arts. Such change has got to come from the grassroots up. And it is the arts community’s job (who else is going to take it on?) to make it happen if it is to happen. The arts world must commit itself to making public value tangible in the lives of many. To me, belief in any other path to broad public support is the result of magical thinking. That doesn’t mean there is no other way. I simply cannot see it.
There. That’s what I believe. It feels good to have that off my chest. I’m not arrogant enough (despite what some might think) to believe that what I believe is True. It’s simply what I believe.
I will now climb in to bed, pull the covers up over my head, and try not to take the responses too personally. By the way, since I’ve exhausted myself with this, we are foregoing a cool example this time.
Engage!
Doug
‘The Bluestar sorcerer image was made by Thomas Abrahamsson’
http://thomas.elfwood.com/Bluestar-the-sorcerer.3284411.html 
You are a lot of fun to talk to, but it’s a bit unseemly when you are hiding under your covers. Anyway, I think there are a few problems with the a priori assumptions you and Kelly Kleiman make about public arts funding.
1. The vast majority of artists are not making selfish claims for funding for their own financial benefit. (In fact, that argument is so reductive it’s insulting.) The reasoning of artists is generally far more altruistic. They feel the arts should be funded for the many benefits the arts bring to human identity and society as a whole.
2. We should not fall into the simplistic and reductive trap of trying to define something that by nature is ineffable. All of the great human civilizations have produced great art, and yet not one of them was ever able to define art or effectively categorize its benefits. When we try to define arts funding in terms of capitalist pragmatism or an Ayn Randian objectivism, we merely demonstrate the sadly limiting characteristics of the American mindset. In fact, it is that very mindset that shows why Americans are in such bad need of more culture.
3. Kleiman’s argument that only private foundations should fund progressive art that might fail is ridiculous. It’s the very possibility that art might fail, or might not be fully understood, that makes it exciting. Kleiman’s argument is like saying the public should only fund the building of stadiums if their team always wins.
4. We should avoid reductive arguments about cultural evolution. More engagement creates more political momentum for public funding, but more funding also helps finance programs that create engagement. In other words, it is not a first step/second step linear progression, but a cycle of behavior in which both approaches evolve hand in hand.
5. History illustrates that great art moves in cycles that incorporate both populism and elite leadership. To emphasize one at the expense of the other harms cultural evolution. We need leaders to stress the value of the arts, and we need educational systems that create broad communal support for artistic expression. Both are essential parts in the cycles of cultural development.
OK. I’ll climb out long enough to make a couple of points. First, and most importantly, the assumptions Ms. Kleiman makes in her article are not my own. As I said in my post, there is much she said in the full post with which I strongly disagree. The elements from her article you cite are precisely some of the ones with which I most disagree. (In particular, please remember that my blog is primarily concerned with arts organizations, not individual artists.)
Second, I’ve never said that government *should* not fund the arts in large amounts. I wish it would. My point is in large measure a pragmatic one. Given U.S. history as well as current political and economic realities it *will* not. There is not enough political motivation or political capital to make it happen. My conjecture is that the only way to change that is for the arts establishment to enter into activities that generate broad perception of the public value of the arts. And my prescription is broad-based engagement.
Finally, for the record, when I was 16 (and that was a *long* time ago) I had my Ayn Rand phase. I got over it quickly and have put that far, far, far behind me.
I understand the differences between Kleiman’s views and yours, though for brevity I conflated them in my post with the goal of simply addressing the ideas themselves. I hope it wasn’t too confusing. Our private funding system obviously doesn’t work very well, so we need to begin the long and arduous task of moving to a public funding system like all other developed countries already have. In short, our goal is not to simply be given a public funding system, but to slowly build it with our own community engagement.