|
 Ministry of Culture Panelists: Arthur C. Brooks, Bill Ivey, Rt. Hon. Lord Smith of Finsbury (Chris Smith) and James Allen Smith Moderated by Christopher Lydon The following white paper is drawn from the remarks of the panelists and moderator for this session, along with the questions and responses from members of the audience. This document is intended to reflect the variety of viewpoints offered during the discussion, and to frame broadly the issues discussed; it should not be taken as a formal statement of opinion by the panelists. The rate of growth of the arts in the United States in the last century has been nothing less than dramatic, and the last twenty-five years have seen an incredible boom in the creation of new institutions large and small, and new ideas that push the boundaries of what constitutes "the arts." Throughout this expansion, however, one constant has been the scope of government support for the arts—and it has been consistently low. Depending on one's perspective, U.S. governmental support for the arts is good, bad, or irrelevant. When measured in relation to the relatively generous funding provided by many foreign nations, which view support of culture as a prerequisite of responsible governance, U.S. funding is definitely paltry. But is this a bad thing? Honi soit qui mal y pense There may have been growth in the U.S. arts scene, but there has also been an even stronger and more dramatic expansion of another aspect of our culture: a shift toward the market, which often pushes the non-profit world to the side. When people are paying to access "culture" through market-driven mechanisms that offer next-day home delivery or promise instant gratification rather than education, a legitimate question is raised about the need for non-profits and the arts. In tandem with any discussion about government funding must be some review of whether there is a public commitment to the arts and culture that would make such funding necessary. Do the people demand it? No; it is usually considered heretical to say it, but "the people" may not demand government funding for the arts after all. If that funding—in some form—is there nonetheless, what model should be applied to assess its value and relevance? From an economic perspective, one approach would be to look at the "supply side" economics of government funding, in which cultural policy is based around the desires of artists and arts institutions: they need financial assistance, and as constituents of the government, they have made a case for that support. In many ways, that is the situation abroad, with other countries (especially, but not limited to, western Europe) funding the arts as the arts need funding. A famous current example of this is the three, state-funded opera houses in Berlin, which arguably provide more opera than the population needs, but are supported because the artists, and city tradition, demand it. The danger of this "supply side" model is that it excludes the "demand side" desires of the audience for the resulting art. That may sound like a minor detail, and in times of prosperity it might be; when there is enough money to go around, it is easier to be generous, even to artists. But when there is a need for financial belt-tightening, the "supply side" model means that the arts can be the first to go, because the funds may not correlate to community needs. That happened (or was threatened) across the US in the acceleration of the recession following the September 11th attacks—and is happening in Berlin, where the bankrupt government has been pushing for consolidation in the opera houses. Who's Giving, And Who Should Give Perhaps the government's role as arts supporter should be viewed differently. Historically, most of this nation's innovative programming has come through the vision and knowledge of individual arts philanthropists; the last thing any arts-interested person would want to do is discourage private donors from giving. Yet there is some evidence to show that this is exactly what government support does: according to one study, every dollar in government spending displaces twenty-five to fifty cents of private philanthropy. Moreover, the position of arts organizations in the U.S. is unique relative to most of its peer nations. For one thing, American arts organizations depend heavily on earned income: on average, any given American arts organization takes in approximately 50% of its revenue at the door (closer to 65% for the performing arts), only 7–8% from the government, while approximately 40% derives from private philanthropy. Among this latter component, 13% comes from foundations, 7% from corporations, and 20% from individuals. That contrasts sharply with European arts organizations, which have moved slowly to establish new sources of income as their governments have found ways to cut back on their support. Consider this proposition then: the government should not be the venture capitalist-style investor, helping to launch new programs or sustain new artists. Nor should it be the funder-of-last-resort, propping up that which would otherwise fail. Instead, perhaps government funding should be supplementary, helping communities (and their philanthropists) achieve their goals, recognizing the importance of the arts while deferring to local interests and needs. Answers, Actually Of course, that sidesteps the deeply held opinion of almost every artist and arts professional: the arts are not optional. From the art world, then, maybe the following best summarizes the ideal approach for U.S. government support—a three-point plan for U.S. support for the arts and culture.
For citation, please reference: http://berkshireconference.org/content/2006-ministry.cfm
|
