Support for the Arts

[jonny]

How much government support and tax-payer money should be funneled to support arts organizations like museums, theaters, orchestras, dance, etc? Do you believe this is a good use of tax payer money, or should the money be used to support other programs?

From my perspective (and I work in the arts, so I am biased), most of these organizations couldn't and wouldn't survive without funding from the government. To pull their funding, something I've heard many people want to do, would result in lower quality or the organizations disappearing. I believe these organizations improve the quality of life of the communities they are in, so they are a good use of tax-payer money.

 

[3.14]

wel my highschool teacher even bragged how he and 3 other teachers were leaching on the art support so my view is much more control,
i mean i can make my 5 year old niece roll out 5 paintings a year just to get art support with art who can tell the diffrence

 

[jonny]

I wasn't really talking about supporting individual artists, although I suppose the concept to be extended to that. I was talking about supporting organizations that promote and present art to make it available to the community.

 

[PureX]

I wasn't really talking about supporting individual artists, although I suppose the concept to be extended to that. I was talking about supporting organizations that promote and present art to make it available to the community.

Why should the money go to the "organizers" instead of directly to the artists?

 

[PureX]

The practice of art is one of the very few ways that a society can get an honest look at itself. As such it's incredibly important, socially, and this is why fascist governments HATE the free expression of art, and why one of the first things they do when they gain power in a society is to take complete control of all artistic expression. They then try to use artifice as a propaganda tool to try to plug the empty hole that the loss of free expression leaves behind.

Look to those among us who most loudly disparage the arts, and you'll be seeing those among you who are most sympathetic to fascism. And that's the honest truth.

Sadly, what has happened here in America is different. Instead of banning the free expression of artists, we simply burry it under mountains of useless consumer junk.

 

[jonny]

Why should the money go to the "organizers" instead of directly to the artists?

It goes indirectly to the artists because they receive money from the organizations that are presenting it. The reason I think it should go to the organization rather than the artists is because it is the organizations that make the art available for the community.

 

[Alceste]

This recently came up in Canada - Harper (a fascist at heart) cut 45 million dollars worth of arts programs from the federal budget. Margaret Atwood did a great opinion piece on the issue which I agree with from beginning to end.

Some Quebec artists have pointed out that every dollar invested in the arts brings 11 dollars in direct and indirect returns to the economy. The arts also employ as many people in Canada as "agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, oil & gas and utilities combined", and government sees no problem giving these non-creative industries the occasional hand-up in the name of job creation. The idea that money spent on the arts is a form of charity or welfare is a myth. Creativity is a giant economic engine that brings huge returns for minimal investments. There is no limit to the human desire to be entertained or inspired, and to pay for the privilege.

Public griping about funding for the arts is coming from an irrational place, imo. It's rooted in envy, not cool-headed fiscal restraint. People like Stephen Harper who have had their creativity stamped out and feel contempt toward those who have not. He feels they should be punished and taught some "common sense" about the "childishness" of creativity. Anything his parents or religion inflicted upon him to snuff out his creative spark, he wishes to inflict on the rest of us.

 

[Watchmen]

I'm all for the arts and government/tax-payer support of such.

 

[jonny]

Creativity is a giant economic engine that brings huge returns for minimal investments.

I'm guessing that by returns you don't mean money to the organization, because there is no way most arts groups could survive without a non-profit status and donations from corporations, individuals, and the government.

Also, related to your post it makes me sad that arts funding is pulled out of so many public schools. Children need to learn to be creative as much as they need to learn to add and subtract.

 

[Alceste]

I'm guessing that by returns you don't mean money to the organization, because there is no way most arts groups could survive without a non-profit status and donations from corporations, individuals, and the government.

Also, related to your post it makes me sad that arts funding is pulled out of so many public schools. Children need to learn to be creative as much as they need to learn to add and subtract.

I mean money sloshing around in the economy because of the arts. The taxi fare, the nice dinner with wine before the show, the money spent at the gift shop, ice cream for the kids, the money spent renting the space for the show, money paid to employees and exhibitors, cast and crew, the bump in tourism etc.

In the case of folk festivals, for example, the government (and foreign governments) often contribute a large portion of air fares and accommodation for bands from abroad. This might seem expensive at first glance, but the festival itself (if well-attended) is a money-printing machine. Beer, snacks, ticket prices, t-shirts, CDs, local artisans and small traders, tourism, hotels, taxis, dozens of jobs... Non-profit status doesn't mean these festivals don't make a profit, but that the profits are poured back into the economy or the running of the festival, instead of pocketed by the "owners" of the festival.

In the case of film productions, governments offer tax breaks to draw projects to the location, but once they arrive, each film employs hundreds of people, most of whom are paid well. A studio production pumps tens of millions of dollars into the local economy - not just employees, but hardware stores, local suppliers, hotels, office space, studio and location rentals, costumes, landscaping, etc. Without the tax break it wouldn't come at all.

I know the thread is more geared toward museums and such, but they're a relatively small slice of the arts funding pie. (Also, all my personal experience of arts funding is with the examples above).

 

[PureX]

It goes indirectly to the artists because they receive money from the organizations that are presenting it. The reason I think it should go to the organization rather than the artists is because it is the organizations that make the art available for the community.

That's like saying that the money should go to the grocery store instead of the farmers.

 

[Alceste]

That's like saying that the money should go to the grocery store instead of the farmers.

In terms of the arts, money goes to the artists and the organizations that make it possible for them to work / sell / play or otherwise exhibit their artistic talents. Not many musicians I know would argue for cutting off music festival funding in favour of direct deposits into musicians' accounts, because then there would be nowhere to work. They would be playing in their living rooms. That's satisfying in the short term but not very profitable. Also, not many artists I know would argue against funding for museums or publishers that might exhibit their work. If not for galleries and museums, it would simply be hanging on their own walls, visible to family and friends.

It is important to provide encouragement to individual artists in the form of project grants or travel subsidies, but it's arguably more important to ensure they have the opportunities to work that arts organisations (festivals, museums, exhibitions, theatres, etc) provide. An artist will work no matter what, but she can't earn a living without venues to put her work on display for public consumption.

 

[jonny]

In the case of folk festivals, for example, the government (and foreign governments) often contribute a large portion of air fares and accommodation for bands from abroad. This might seem expensive at first glance, but the festival itself (if well-attended) is a money-printing machine. Beer, snacks, ticket prices, t-shirts, CDs, local artisans and small traders, tourism, hotels, taxis, dozens of jobs... Non-profit status doesn't mean these festivals don't make a profit, but that the profits are poured back into the economy or the running of the festival, instead of pocketed by the "owners" of the festival.

I'm in the marketing department for a fairly large music festival during the summer. We don't make a profit. In fact, we're lucky if ticket sales cover 20% of our operating costs. If we sold out every single performance (which doesn't happen), we'd probably cover about 30% of our operating costs - and the tickets aren't cheap. Most of our money comes from donations and sponsorships.

That being said, the festival is a huge money-maker for the city it is in. We're bringing thousands of people to the city every weekend, and most of them are going out to dinner, going shopping, etc. Some even fly in from out of town and stay the night in hotels. The reason the local businesses are willing to support the festival through donations is because of the boost it brings their economy.

 

[PureX]

In terms of the arts, money goes to the artists and the organizations that make it possible for them to work / sell / play or otherwise exhibit their artistic talents. Not many musicians I know would argue for cutting off music festival funding in favour of direct deposits into musicians' accounts, because then there would be nowhere to work. They would be playing in their living rooms. That's satisfying in the short term but not very profitable. Also, not many artists I know would argue against funding for museums or publishers that might exhibit their work. If not for galleries and museums, it would simply be hanging on their own walls, visible to family and friends.

It is important to provide encouragement to individual artists in the form of project grants or travel subsidies, but it's arguably more important to ensure they have the opportunities to work that arts organisations (festivals, museums, exhibitions, theatres, etc) provide. An artist will work no matter what, but she can't earn a living without venues to put her work on display for public consumption.

I think we need to distinguish between art and entertainment.

Entertainment doesn't need funding. And it isn't art. People will pay to be entertained, and entertainers will always be able to find an audience. So I think we should leave entertainment out of it.

I realize that art does occasionally entertain, but that is not it's central purpose, and is often not it's nature, either. And this is why artistic endeavors need to be externally supported. Art cannot survive in a world where money measures all value. And we will be in serious trouble if we try to live without it.

 

[Storm]

I'm not sure you can separate art from entertainment like that.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not sure you can separate art from entertainment like that.

Why not? Just curious.

 

[Storm]

Well, art IS a form of entertainment.

 

[Alceste]

I think we need to distinguish between art and entertainment.

Entertainment doesn't need funding. And it isn't art. People will pay to be entertained, and entertainers will always be able to find an audience. So I think we should leave entertainment out of it.

I realize that art does occasionally entertain, but that is not it's central purpose, and is often not it's nature, either. And this is why artistic endeavors need to be externally supported. Art cannot survive in a world where money measures all value. And we will be in serious trouble if we try to live without it.

I agree to some extent, but I am an artist, and so are many of my friends and family. None of us produce art / music / theatre only to entertain, but we all earn (to varying degrees) our living because others find the art we produce entertaining in some way.

"Entertainment" in this context does not mean a purely diversionary, mind-numbing distraction from the daily grind. I also include effects that are thought-provoking, inspiring, moving, gripping, challenging, etc. It's clear to me that many people are "entertained" by these effects as well. That is what they pay for, that's what puts bread on the table. And as an artist, it's much more satisfying to be sought out (and paid) by the public because our work engages others than it is to be "funded" just because we happen to be making something.

You are right that we can not exist without funding, though. The typical story of my full-time "artist" friends is that they obtain funding to produce, market, or print a CD - which they could never do on their own - but earn a living after the CD is produced by playing live (at funded festivals), teaching and selling the CD to the public. And they are very satisfied with that arrangement. No artist I know begrudges public interest in their work, especially when there is money changing hands. The tax-funded investment is seed capital, as it would be for any other venture.

Of course, sometimes the CD is funded but the band or musician still fails because there is no public interest in their work. Many other businesses (like banks) also fail despite an investment of tax dollars.

I don't mean to say art is purely business, but artists are happiest when their profits are the direct result of public demand for their work.

 

[jonny]

I'm not sure you can separate art from entertainment like that.

I agree. A lot of entertainment is art. The difference is the size of the audience.

 

[PureX]

Well, art IS a form of entertainment.

Art can be entertaining, but that's not it's fundamental purpose. Entertainment, on the other hand, has no other purpose.