Undoubtedly, you have felt the recent blast of heat that has swept the nation this summer. The heat wave has claimed several victims and forced millions more indoors to seek refuge. So, what to do on such a day? Well, you could do the obvious thing and go for a nice long swim, but lets be honest, that refreshing feeling only lasts for so long, and you cant swim for eternity. So what else is there to do to keep out of the heat? Well, many residents across the nation have flocked to public museums, art galleries, and the like.
According to the Associated Press, The New York Metropolitan Museum of Art has recorded record attendance for the fiscal year, which ended June 30th, with 5.6 millions visitors. That's almost a half million head count increase from the year prior.
With no end to the jobs crisis in sight, incomes for those with jobs being down, and high inflation in food and energy prices, museums and other publicly funded entities that have no or low cost are essential in keeping the minds of our citizens engaged and stimulated. While the heat may be bad,
sitting indoors all day with your ass on the couch and eyes glued to the t.v. screen is worse.
The problem, however, is that these opportunities to expand our knowledge and perceptions are slowly shrinking. From the Federal Government to State and local municipalities, arts funding is under attack. Invoking the recession and declining revenues, elected officials in states like Kansas and Wisconsin have slashed funding across the board for arts funding. In my home state of Wisconsin, the budget slashed 66% of the funding for the Wisconsin Arts Board. Even more discouraging are the specific cuts to arts funding for minorities, who we all know have been affected more egregiously during the economic downturn of the last few years.
In Kansas, Governor Brownback failed to appropriate money to the Kansas Arts Commission, and instead called on the private sector to fill the void. This has also led the group Americans For the Arts to draft a letter advocating for stripping any federal dollars given from the National Endowment For The Arts to Kansas. While it would seem like the antithesis to what an art lover would advocate, CEO and President of Americans For The Arts explains it like this:
"In 1965 the National Endowment for the Arts was founded to uphold excellence in the arts, bring the arts to all Americans and provide leadership in arts education. A core belief that both the NEA and Americans for the Arts have upheld since their respective inceptions is that state governments should invest in the arts. And since the NEA’s founding nearly 50 years ago, state funded arts agencies have been one of the NEA’s primary partners in serving the American people through the arts. It is a partnership that has a proven track record of working and working well.
Further, providing the Kansas Arts Foundation with federal dollars could suggest that all states might be alleviated of their duty to financially support the arts by tacitly granting them permission to follow Kansas’ shortsighted example. Without state dollars and state legislative oversight, a private organization does not have the same level of financial and programmatic
accountability for delivering arts funding to all corners of Kansas that a public agency does.
While we at Americans for the Arts are in favor of new private-public sector models of funding, it should not be done at the expense of public dollars. Experience shows that relying solely on the private sector to fund the arts—as Kansas plans to do—is a nearly impossible construct for either building or sustaining the arts. In America the success model for arts support has been a three-way partnership, comprising public support, private support and earned income. For example, in the coming year alone, the new Kansas Arts Foundation will need to raise nearly $2 million in private philanthropic dollars. More importantly these dollars will need to be new dollars to ensure that the new Kansas Arts Foundation will not be simply shifting already existing funds to its coffers and competing with the fundraising efforts of the very constituents for whom it is raising support money.
And that’s just this year. To provide true, sustainable support for the arts in Kansas, for example, the Kansas Arts Foundation will need to either raise $2 million or more every year or build a trust that will provide steady, permanent income—in the form of interest—in perpetuity. However, a trust of over $40 million would be required just this year to allow the Kansas Arts Foundation to distribute the $2 million necessary to account for the absent government funding.
But where will these new charitable funds come from? Studies show that, at present, fewer U.S. companies are making philanthropic contributions to the arts. Our most recent Triennial Survey shows that from 2006-2009 alone, the number of businesses providing charitable support for the arts fell 15 percent—from 43 percent to 28 percent. Further, when state arts agencies distribute grant money, it is often for the sort of nuts-and-bolts needs which private donors find unattractive."
Of course, there will be some who will step up to the plate and support the arts, but at a time when discretionary income is relatively low and corporate donations are declining, I find it hard to believe that massive cuts aren't on the horizon in Kansas. Many also fear that even if some private donors are found, only those programs that are extremely popular and/or profitable will be saved, and the rest to fall through the cracks, never to be seen again.
Naturally, this is only one side of the argument. One could argue that this frees artists and those facilities receiving donations from the volatility that comes with changing political regimes. One could also argue that is also allows for a more free expression without as many limitations, or forced requirements. However, I don't think these arguments hold much water, and I can imagine you would agree.
The fact is this: Arts help a community flourish, expand economies, and enrich the lives and minds of those who partake as artists or patrons. If we take away the arts, we are taking a step toward the sort of nation that values nothing creative. Think China. The only "artists" they have bred as of late are those who have been building fake Apple stores. Take action and contact your Reps. and let them know this will not stand!
Vote Bauer