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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Not everyone can afford a professional grant writer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bringing back people to buy the art is another concern, but one that largely falls upon us as a community.
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.