Arts funding

Okay, I know I run the risk of coming off like a spokesperson for the N.Y. Times, but I also wanted to mention (and link to) a really interesting article about arts funding that was in today's Arts section.

The arts is an area of all this economic and stimulus package talk that often gets ignored, and the reality is that I hadn't even heard about this section of the bill before today (though I have generally bypassed many articles on the economy because how many of those can you really read?), so maybe it was my own ignorance. However, I think it's a facet of an important issue that deserves attention, and I'm happy to say that after a close call, the final version of the recovery package does indeed include $50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts.

It is just disturbing to me to read about people in positions of power and government not recognizing the importance of art on a country's culture, well-being, and cultural and economic prosperity. And there seems to be a lot of ignorance floating around when you have a Representative (Republican Jack Kingston of Georgia) saying things like this:

“I just think putting people to work is more important than putting more art on the wall of some New York City gallery frequented by the elite art community...call me a sucker for the working man."

Is Jack not aware that many (or most) artists make less than say, an electrician or plumber? I have pay stubs if he needs to see the proof. By the way, Jack, many people who would fit into your championed group of "working men" are employed in artistic fields: electricians and grips on film sets, construction/woodworkers, set builders, lighting technicians, audio technicians, builders/electricians/plumbers/accountants for art galleries, ticket takers, garment workers, and arts writers (or maybe they don't get dirty enough to qualify as the rough and tumble "working man"). There are too numerous to continue on with this list, but you get the picture and those are only examples of the directly employed...think about those who benefit economically indirectly, for example, the restaurant next to the Broadway theatre, etc.).

I hope we can move towards a more holistic understanding of the arts and its role in society and not have preconceived notions of who "artists" are and who enjoys art. There are people of every race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status who are artists, who try to make a living doing something that relates to art, and who enjoy art in some way.

Why would there be a stigma attached to giving money to people that try to make a living making/supporting/disseminating art or involved in preserving art or educating about art when there is no stigma attached to giving money to people who try to make a living making cars, through investments or the stock market?

Anyway, I think it's an important article to read, especially if you're in the arts, have friends and family in the arts, or care about the arts. If you don't follow into any of these categories, I probably don't know you personally, but I recommend it anyway.

I could go on, but I'll stop myself...here's the article: Saving Federal Arts Funds: Selling Culture as an Economic Force.