I’m stuck on this topic (former blog). I can’t help but think that we would have been, and would be better off without any government funding at all. Why would I say this, especially perhaps when I have been at the trough myself, and done pretty well at it.
Yes, there is the pressure on artistic expression. Note the recent withdrawal of the Wojnarowicz work from the National Portrait Gallery because of pressure from the Catholic League. This is blatant, but generally the pressure is subtle, even unrecognized by those who practice artistic programming. The possibility of loss of governmental funding and its consequences are so great that decisions are affected. (With the gradual and consistent loss of corporate dollars, governmental funding assumes a greater percentage of budget in many arts organizations)
I think what bothers me more is the enormous support for large projects and organizations: not actually that these entities have received money, but the effect on those who did not. My teaching at Drexel has made me much more aware of the quests of individual creative artists.
Despite America’s distain for its governmental agencies and its politicians, when money is allocated for projects, a perceived valid imprimatur is placed. Since the 1960’s, large performing arts centers, orchestras, opera and ballet companies, large arts museums, etc. have received hundreds of millions of dollars for capital projects and for operational expenses. In the public’s (general) mind, these entities are the arts, and as such, are deserving. One might argue that if this money had not gone to these entities, no money would have flowed at all, so pragmatism should be observed. And furthermore, with this imprimatur, individuals and foundations follow. I’m not so sure that this pragmatic argument holds value.
I would argue that we’re starving artistically, and one reason is this focus of government funding of the arts on large arts entities. What would the artistic landscape look like if all government funding of the arts would cease?
If every time a man wanted to profess his love for a woman, he had to first fill out a bunch of forms & get funding approval, how many men would profess their love at all?
If every time a child wanted to dance outside in a garden barefoot, she had to first get a grant from her local government arts council, how many children would dance barefoot in gardens?
The wild & free impulses are the ones that get suppressed…The studied & often tedious ideas are the ones that might have the staying power to sort through piles of red tape…
If governments got out of the art business, art would be better…If artists got out of the government business, government would be better…Taking money out of government hands would just put it back in the hands of the artist & collector, where it should be…Governments have a huge history of censoring art, why should we ignore that? Also, hopw can we have art that questions the government if the art is paid for by that same entity?
Governments have one big problem: They concentrate on saving banks from going down, they finance senseless military conflicts – but they forget the souls of the people that will have a vote on them a few years later, and these people’s souls are highly influenced by… trada: ARTS.