Stimulate the Arts and Keep American Strong
In these times of economic crisis, it seems only rational that we should look back at our history to review what works if we want to create jobs and secure a strong economic legacy for future generations.
When faced with a collapsing economy, President Franklin Roosevelt tried to put Americans in all lines of work back on the job. Instead of singling out artists as somehow frivolous and unimportant to our nation's economy, he instituted a host of programs designed to put federal funds into the arts, employing America's creative talent and leaving a cultural legacy that endures still today.
The highpoint of this commitment was the Works Progress Administration's Federal One program, which put thousands of Americans to work in the arts. The government program was a lifeline for Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, Orson Welles, Burt Lancaster, Sidney Lumet, Ralph Ellison, Richard Wright, Studs Terkel, John Cheever, Saul Bellow, and thousands of other artists across the country.
These programs created much-needed jobs in the immediate term, but they did much more. They fostered great talents that otherwise may have been lost. The work of the many great artists supported by the government in the 1930s still benefits us today. Their contributions to our culture endure, and their successful careers resulted in employment for many others in the years that followed.
Today, however, many of our leaders apparently have forgotten this lesson of our not-so-distant history. Faced with an economic downturn of staggering proportions, some attack any help for the arts as waste, ignoring the millions of Americans who earn their livings and support their families through their artistic endeavors and arts-related enterprises.
The economic stimulus bill currently under consideration on Capitol Hill shouldn't neglect these Americans. The version of the bill passed by the House of Representatives contains $50 million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, which provides critical support for America's not-for-profit arts institutions. This provision has been attacked as "pork" by some, while the Senate bill currently provides nothing for the NEA. To make matters worse, this week Senators stripped out a provision intended to provide the same job creating benefits for the film industry as the bill provides for other industries.
Why is it so hard for some to realize that jobs in the arts support millions of Americans and are no less worthy than any other job that puts food on the table? Economic studies indicate that 2.98 million Americans are employed in the arts or in arts-centric businesses. Each dollar allocated to the arts not only supports those individuals; the benefits flow outward to their communities and to other businesses. Movie production doesn't require only actors and directors. Stay for the credits after a film ends and you can't help but notice the incredible army of workers required to bring a story to the screen. In turn, each of those individuals and businesses spends money and pays taxes in their communities. The economic returns and stimulative effects are clear.
Beyond the finances, though, investing in the arts during these tough times can ensure that America doesn't lose a generation of creative talent to our temporary economic woes. Somewhere in America today, there are individuals with the potential of Orson Welles and the artistic gifts of Mark Rothko. It is foolhardy to attempt to save our economy by ignoring our talent.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
i think this is a good idea,if we give lots of money to the hollywood studios wouldnt that mean that the ceo's of the movie studios recieving funds would not be able to earn more than 500,000 per year?take that speilberg,katzzenberg,geffin and the rest of the hollywood elite
It could only apply to film on a per project joint venture basis between production studios and the government. Seeing as funds would apply to spur growth in the "independent" sector of story-telling this would only involve "the big three" on one level.
"The Creative arts can and will be the new business tool for the "idea" - marketplace economy. A transparent and forthright government has the ability to create and foster a new marketplace of ideas and execute the implementation of those ideas into reality.
While bricks, mortar and infrastructure will create jobs in one sector of society it is easy to overlook the possibilities that are created when a public entity fosters and shows a clear path of of growth for the creative arts.
The creative arts steeped in centuries of Western thought has expanded to include computer sciences, design and the visual language. Think how we the people, with the help of government can quantify the emergence of new Googles, YouTubes and Facebooks in rapid fashion. Surely a time when entrepreneurs must not waste months, even years to put their ideas into motion will be a quantifiable benefit to a new economy.
Much of the creative arts and creative business are left only to the haphazard possibilities of the private sector. Governement under and Obama administration can compliment the private sector by fostering this generation and the next with the tools and means to rebuild our economy.
In a post industrial society it is more important then ever to create a new system for the creative arts to flourish and the benefits to reach the greater American society."
CulturalDiplomat.com
The US has no arts tradition. This nation does not even acknowledge the art that was created on its shores. Here it is about the culture of circuses. A freak show.
Instead, let's stimulate and support industries that actually produce wealth.
Service industries, like the arts, do not increase the wealth of our nation.
Concentrate on developing the competitive industrial capabilities of America that account for the great share of good-paying middle-income jobs.
Concentrate on the basics that can make our country a net producer, instead of a nature of consumers once again.
The trouble with that attitude is that "Industries that actually produce wealth" do very little to contribute to civilization. It is the arts that make a society civilized. Wealth only industires results in a society of Morlocks. We need both.
"Instead, let's stimulate and support industries that actually produce wealth"
Well art produces much wealth and is an industry with purpose. Your analogy only refers to perhaps your viewpoint of "fine art" a painter and a brush which is only part of the equation.
Almost everything you see here on this page was built by "artists" - from the advertising,design layout, and interaction of the Huffpost itself. Your computer monitor that you are staring at right now -artist, the mobile phone you just laid down, - artist - the car you drove to last night - designed by an artist, the movie you just saw - artist(s), the house you are living in artist-
Yes artists-creatives are leading the way in the American and World economy and have been for many years. Just because you can't "see" it does not mean it does not exist.
Nonprofit arts organizations and their audiences generate $166.2 billion in economic activity every year, support 5.7 million jobs, and return nearly $30 billion in government revenue every year. Plus, every $1 billion spent by these organizations" and their audiences " results in almost 70,000 full-time-equivalent jobs.
The conservatives oppose supporting art because it challenges the status quo and because it makes people think, both of which are things that terrify them. Those who question authority and those who are capable of thinking don't vote Republican.
From Dr Rex Dexter,
With a burgeoning internet, there is no reason a talented Writer, Musician, Band, Artist, Craftsman, Designer, etc. could not build a self-sustaining business-if Big Corporate World would just back off. A few years back, as a cast member on the internationally syndicated radio show: "Independent Nation", we were busy exposing the works of hundreds of International 'Indie' Artists, Writers, etc. Playing their songs and driving traffic to their Web Sites stimulated increasing sales of THEIR CD's. (Yep..They owned it, so they kept the lion's share of the money, enabling acheiving sales of two to three hundred units of three plus titles sufficient to equal most of their "day jobs")
But the Corporations were losing control of the market and came up with an ingenious scheme to get some control back. They decided to "protect" the Artists by collecting royalties for any airplay the Artists had not given direct written authorization to. It sounded good for the Artist, but they forgot to mention needing to collct $100K before any monies would pass to the Artist, who lost the airplay they would need to sell CDs at any volume, leaving the Artists needing the Industry to be the Agency to open the gates to the Market Place.
This helped Major Labels and Broadcast Corps.-NOT 'Indie' Artists, many of whom simply got lost in shuffle.
Getting the Artist to the Public?..Pull the Corporations out.
The NEA supports mostly midsize to large organizations, not so much individual artists or independent or local work. And a lot of NEA funding goes to organizational support for administrators. There are a lot of other ways to support art making than giving buckets of money to big shots like the NEA. Like HEALTH INSURANCE FOR EVERYBODY for starters.
How about at least just streamlining he application process.
Not everyone can afford a professional grant writer.
this post made me laugh! so true!
The small, nonprofit Workshop where I am employed has a staff of only 8 people, and we have been a frequent receiver of NEA grant funds for "master-apprenticeships." These monies go directly to pay for a one-year internship...an artist's training for a year. Without such an investment early in my own career, I never would have been able to get a foot in the door. As a result, I've had a quite successful career...in the arts, thank ya very much!
If the US were to push the arts, I would sign up immediately. My camera is at your disposal Mr Obama.
"My camera is at your disposal Mr Obama."
At your disposal... hmmmm.....
Exactly what's wrong with state sponsored art: it produces servile artists and flacc.id art.
That's why Britain has no " official Poet."
But there's a need of more EASY TO GET grant money for small non-profit art organizations with some proven track record of performances and success.
And considerably more funds for arts in schools: music appreciation, drawing, dance, creative writing. This where many creative artists should be doing their national service: teaching Americans the miracle of artistic creativity.
What the British could use are a few more Irish poets.
"That's why Britain has no 'official Poet'."
Really? Better tell Andrew Motion that. He'll be surprised.
Also, regarding "Exactly what's wrong with state sponsored art: it produces servile artists and flacc.id art." ..... That Shakespeare chap did pretty well serving two monarchs.
" We need art lest we all perish from the Truth.."
Nietzsche
Art and its miracle-like creation can provide substitute for the collapse of traditional illusions, like belief in universal narratives:infallibility of religion, progress and science.
Check out this study:
http://www.artsrochester.org/artisttools/Innovation%20Conference/EIS%20-%20National%20Study%20for%20web.pdf
Arts & Economic Prosperity III is our third study of the
nonprofit arts and culture industry’s impact on the nation’s
economy. Because of their rigor and reliability, results
from the 1994 and 2002 studies have become the most
frequently used statistics to demonstrate the value of arts
and culture locally, statewide, and nationally. This new
study is our largest ever, featuring findings from 156
study regions (116 cities and counties, 35 multicounty
regions, and five states). Data was collected from an
impressive 6,080 nonprofit arts and culture organizations
and 94,478 of their attendees across all 50 states
and the District of Columbia.
By every measure, the results are impressive! Nationally,
the nonprofit arts and culture industry generates $166.2
billion in economic activity annually—a 24 percent increase
in just the past five years. That amount is greater than
the Gross Domestic Product of most countries. This
spending supports 5.7 million full-time jobs right here
in the United States—an increase of 850,000 jobs since
our 2002 study. What’s more, because arts and culture
organizations are strongly rooted in their communities,
these are jobs that necessarily remain local and cannot
be shipped overseas.
Our industry also generates nearly $30 billion in revenue
to local, state, and federal governments every year. By
comparison, the three levels of government collectively
spend less than $4 billion annually to support arts
and culture—a spectacular 7:1 return...
Arts and culture organizations—businesses
in their own right—leverage additional event-related spending
by their audiences that pump vital revenue into restaurants,
hotels, retail stores, and other local businesses. When patrons
attend a performing arts event, for example, they may park
their car in a toll garage, purchase dinner at a restaurant,
and eat dessert after the show. Valuable commerce is
generated for local merchants. This study shows that
the typical attendee spends $27.79 per person, per event,
in addition to the cost of admission. When a community
attracts cultural tourists, it harnesses even greater economic
rewards. Nonlocal audiences spend twice as much as their
local counterparts ($40.19 vs. $19.53). Arts and culture
are magnets for tourists, and tourism research repeatedly
shows that cultural travelers stay longer and spend more.
Whether serving the local community or out-of-town
visitors, a vibrant arts and culture industry helps local
businesses thrive.
Right now, cities around the world are competing to attract
new businesses as well as our brightest young professionals.
International studies show that the winners will be
communities that offer an abundance of arts and culture
opportunities. As the arts flourish, so will creativity and
innovation—the fuel that drives our global economy.
At the very least, I would appreciate it if some kind person or government institution with deep pockets would pay to rebuild the art galleries in Galveston which were ruined by Hurricane Ike so we can get back to at least trying to make a living by selling our art over here. That is all that we would really need to stimulate the arts scene here.
Bringing back people to buy the art is another concern, but one that largely falls upon us as a community.
I agree, the arts are the nerve center of a culture. It is important for our country to respect the field as much as others. I understand why a lot of republicans and conservatives boorishly bash the arts: because they like to keep their minds closed.
Let them eat art.
Stimulate the arts? I can't stop laughing at this. Really.
Agreed, how do you stimulate the gallery industry that sells pretty pictures to people for their pleasure? How do you bring back the interior designers who need art for their new office or housing projects? Do you support artists like Kinkade, who do pretty pictures but have no historical value or do you support the modernist throwing paint on a canvas and calling themselves the next Pollock?
Support the performing arts and art education in the schools, but it is impossible to support the gallery industry without pure give-a-ways. What artists need are customers, so supporting jobs for the masses is what will save the artist who are out in the field trying to survive. If you give money directly to individual artists, who decides who's art and what art is worthy? One man's art is another man's pile of crap when it comes to the modern era of art.
All too true.
For an artist, you are awfully negative about art.
Being an artist is like being a athlete, would you use tax dollars to support everyone who decided to call themselves athletes? Art is a competitive sport, you have to be better than the next guy so when someone walks into a gallery, it is your art they buy. As an artist, we compete against each other for that art dollar, and we compete with history. Subsidizing the visual arts and you get Denmark, a place where they have warehouses full of art, yet that same mountain is not good enough for the gallery industry so Denmark will be spending million on storage with no value to gain in return. It is the market that sets the value on an artist's contribution to the profession and weeds out the crap. Who in government has the qualifications to say what art is good and what is bad, what has value and what does not? That is the job of society and histories contemplated assessment. So, if my tax dollars are used for stimulus, then let it be for the development of jobs for the masses, not for the individual on a personal quest for artistic expression and individual worth. Support art education, but not the work of an individual artist. Even if their work is worthy, it will not lead to more jobs and a better economy. What we as artist need is buyers.
Yes! Except I don't ever feel I'm in compitition with you or history when I'm hanging. All that was lost in the "act". The pain of the process if it's authentic dis-abuses one of any ego notions. That's my take on it anyway. Thanks for the good points, though.
Yes! Except I don't ever feel I'm in competition with you or history when I'm han.ging. All that was lost in the "act". The pain of the process if it's authentic dis.abuses one of any ego notions. That's my take on it anyway. Thanks for the good points, though.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
