Classical Music Forum banner

Proposed elimination of arts funding

45K views 466 replies 39 participants last post by  jegreenwood 
#1 ·
Pres. Trump's 2019 budget proposal put forth today includes eliminating federal funding for 22 agencies, grant programs, and institutes. There's a full list in the referenced article. Of likely interest around here:

- The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds public television and radio stations including PBS and NPR.

- The National Endowment for the Arts, which funds American artists and projects with grants.

Thoughts?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...rams-trumps-budget-would-eliminate/ar-BBJ2Odf
 
#25 ·
Having seen some of the "art" produced thanks to the National Endowment, I would say it's no great loss if it got eliminated. On the other hand, it's not like it is a huge drain on the budget either. as savings go, it's not going to make much of a difference to the deficit. The U.S. tax situation is in any event so crazy that arts funding is the least of the problems. :)
 
#26 · (Edited)
IMO, contributing to the Arts is, in a sense, contributing to the heart of the country just as contributions to education contributes to the mind. Canada is a great example. It has a smaller population than the state of California, but the government strongly supports all forms of the Arts and the results from their rich programs is out of proportion to the size of the population.

Unfortunately, on average, it is harder to make a living income from the Arts, but the importance to the self-esteem of a country that derives from a strong output from the Arts makes government/tax-payer support worthwhile.
 
#27 ·
but the importance to the self-esteem of a country that derives from a strong output from the Arts makes government/tax-payer support worthwhile.
Can you tell me what this means? If you go by the masses, the self-esteem of this country is in beer, sex and sports. They couldn't care less about the arts.
 
#35 ·
A: The arts can pretty much NOT support themseles financially. 90% of what civilization has of lasting value was financed by governments, the Church, or rich people.

B: A certain percentage of works of art are offensive to SOMEONE. Can't be helped. The Marriage of Figaro. Ulysses. Rodin's Balzac. Lady MacBeth of Minsk. Just have to suck it up.

C: MOST art (95%+) is bad. But we need the 95% to get the five percent.
 
#36 ·
It gets harder and harder to justify even paltry spending on superfluities when more than half of American don't even pay federal taxes and the ultra-rich are mostly tax cheats. Doubly harder when over half of all spending is on wars the middle and upper-middle classes neither want nor benefit from. But that's probably why it's more fun to argue about.
 
#38 ·
There should be NO federal funding for the arts. Zip. Nada. Zero. Funding for the arts should be a local decision. If a city wants to contribute and fund arts organizations, fine. Where I live the city council is quite enlightened and supportive of the arts. They provide a lot of money to run a symphony (granted, it's a community orchestra and not the Philadelphia Orchestra), a community band, some art museums, a couple of performance venues, several arts events during the year, etc. Maybe a state decision, too.

I couldn't care less if NPR and CPB and PBS don't get a dime. They tell me that without my support they can't operate. Now the story changes - without gov't money they can't. Our classical station is run by the local community college district and a state university. I can't stand their playlist, but a lot of people love it and write checks for it every year. The PBS station is awful IMO - almost no classical programming like concerts, etc. Lots of bad programming. But here's the thing: why should we support these entities and not help companies like Clear Channel and Cumulus which are struggling? Why should their stockholders have to support non-profit TV and radio which arguably has better programming (it doesn't!)? There are people who look to England and the BBC for a model - but do the research. The Beeb has been struggling, dumping programming, eliminating orchestras just like Germany has had to do.

TIme and again the free market is the best way to get things done. It's too bad the public at large doesn't value the arts anymore. But that's the fault of the artists, our crappy educational system, the mass media...
 
#40 ·
It's too bad the public at large doesn't value the arts anymore. But that's the fault of the artists, our crappy educational system, the mass media...
Given the strong evidence that arts education for children has a positive impact on their ability to learn, our crappy educational system is partly the result of eliminating arts education.
 
#39 · (Edited)
Question for those who don't want central government supporting the arts, esp. in the US: Should contributions be tax-deductible? Right now if you send a check to your local orchestra, it's usually a deduction from income for tax purposes, reducing tax receipts. The reduction has to be made up by the people in general through higher taxes. Is that good policy?
 
#42 · (Edited)
I am for at least some, even token Federal funding of the arts as a statement of national priorities other than its obscene spending on defense programs, especially compared to other countries, and then the promotion of CULTURAL EXCHANGE PROGRAMS with hostile nations such as North Korea, rather than continue to excite hostilities with belligerent rhetoric and adolescent behavior by our emotionally immature leaders. Maybe we'd eventually get leadership who have actually benefited from hearing a Mozart symphony at least once in their lifetime. We have apparently become a nation of cultural illiterates at the Federal level.

Some give no power to the arts to promote peace and conciliation. Or maybe we should rely on our smaller communities such Mayberry, USA, and the descendants of Andy Griffith to seed our cultural exchange programs with North Korea. There needs to something that makes a statement of peace and culture on the Federal level that can be communicated around the world.

In the meantime, it's apparent that the arts have failed in the USA. It's a matter of not only defense priorities but the encouragement of a positive quality of life for American citizens that could be fueled in the arts with the reduction of one or two less billion dollars jets that might be of limited use in a nuclear war. The focus should be more on prevention of hostilities and the promotion of cultural exchanges as well as on wise defense spending.

In Arizona, there's a lot of community affairs programming that might not be heard any other way other than on PBS, and some of the programs are arts-related. If its existence is threatened in any way then it deserves continual funding. Not only that but there are certain programs from the BBC and elsewhere that are available and promote the feeling of being part of a larger global community. It costs pennies compared to some of the wasteful gov't spendings that evidently have no limits ever placed on it. It's the "road less traveled."

fw
 
#49 · (Edited)
Thread temporarily closed - Politics in main forum - while we decide what to do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A number of posts have been removed. The thread has been moved to Politics and Religion in Classical Music area.

Please concentrate on the musical or artistic aspects of funding rather than the politics. If you wish to discuss politics, please use the social groups.
 
#70 · (Edited)
A number of posts have been removed. The thread has been moved to Politics and Religion in Classical Music area.

Please concentrate on the musical or artistic aspects of funding rather than the politics. If you wish to discuss politics, please use the social groups.


That is patently ridiculous. The topic is arts and funding which, ipso facto, is about politics. There is no way that you can discuss the issue as it relates to cutting arts funding without the politics. I would say a few blunter things but they certainly would not be appreciated.
 
#57 · (Edited)
I'm sure that happens, especially if the orchestra depends heavily on a large contributor. And legally it can happen.

I believe most orchestras, though, program according to their business objectives which may be many. One key objective, of course, is always to stay afloat financially, which means putting bums in seats consistently and at a decent price. That introduces its own bias into programming, of course.

Added: Most US orchestras depend on private contributions for well over half their costs. They are particularly solicitous of their annual season subscribers and will do just about anything to avoid offending them. Since a good portion of these folks are business people or their surviving spouses, it's likely their musical tastes may be "less refined" than those often found in this forum. Sad but true!
 
#59 · (Edited)
I read that little article you sent to me a couple of posts ago, KenOC, and had my suspicions confirmed: it'd be Christian conservatives having a tantrum and implementing that tantrum in policy. We don't have Christian fundamentalists having a say in our Arts funding, unlike the US, nor other kinds of partisan dogmatists of any other ideology trying to censor everything. Sure, we have our annoying politically correct folk like the rest of the western world, but they're dealt with fairly swiftly: take the recent affair in Manchester Art Gallery, when a curator removed a Pre-Raphaelite masterpiece from display because she thought its depiction of the female nude was 'problematic', or some other cliched cultural studies argument. There was a public outlash and so the painting was put up again within a few days. And that was just a curator. Our galleries are public anyway, but as a result, the public has a right to be outraged when censorship occurs from up on high and it is resolved.
Maybe art funding = control over in America, but only because it's a raging cultural battlefield just like almost every other corner of American life as I see it from across the pond. Please convince me I'm wrong.
 
#62 · (Edited)
...Maybe art funding = control over in America, but only because it's a raging cultural battlefield just like almost every other corner of American life as I see it from across the pond. Please convince me I'm wrong.
You're not far wrong, and we like it that way! But two points though:

First, those evil "Christian conservatives" have votes just like everybody else. Our budgets are set by elected representatives of all the people, Christians and atheists included.

Second, direct government support of classical music, composers and performers alike, has been and is almost nonexistent. There is some indirect support in that most orchestras are established as non-profit entities and qualify for tax-exempt status, meaning that contributions are deductible from the contributors' income for tax purposes. And that's about it.
 
G
#61 ·
To fund or not to fund is a political issue, so I'm impressed this thread is re-opened! The arts, taxes, government, nukes, Trump and North Korea: all in one handy thread! Some Americans just seem to love to mush it all up into one seamless mess :devil:
 
#69 · (Edited)
I would not have moved this thread to Politics and Religion but to Arts and Culture. To do otherwise only incites debate about religion and politics as if they were the original thrust of the thread. The thread is about the health and support of the Arts and society’s obligation or no obligation to support or keep them alive as a possible benefit to society as a whole, including on only a community level or a national level.

So I protest the placement of this thread that opens the door to all kinds of typical abuses of discussions on politics and religion. Political decisions are of course related to some arts programs, but that’s secondary to whether the Arts still have any importance to society overall.

I’d like to see more cultural exchange programs with hostile countries no matter what the cost to facilitate a greater understanding between different countries rather than focusing entirely on defense spending of gazillions of dollars every year.

If people who love the Arts think they haven’t any benefit to society, then what does the political or religious side of it have to do with anything? It doesn’t. It doesn’t even figure into the picture. Lost in this whole picture are the priorities that all governments have to make, and the Arts, at least in the US, are pretty low on the totem pole.

Both PBS and NPR have supported the Arts. If they go down from a lack of funding or support, then I would consider that a great loss. But more numbers are needed, such as how much funding do those two entities receive now from the government. The thing that I consider important about NPR and PBS is that the crass commercial interests in American society do not come before a genuine interest in non-commercial community affairs and the Arts, and the programs are mostly commercial free without interruptions. They are supposed to be a refuge from crass commercialism.
 
#73 · (Edited)
...Both PBS and NPR have supported the Arts. If they go down from a lack of funding or support, then I would consider that a great loss. But more numbers are needed, such as how much funding do those two entities receive now from the government. The thing that I consider important about NPR and PBS is that the crass commercial interests in American society do not come before a genuine interest in non-commercial community affairs and the Arts, and the programs are mostly commercial free without interruptions. They are supposed to be a refuge from crass commercialism.
About 11% of NPR's funding comes from federal sources. Anybody who thinks they don't have commercials hasn't listened lately. I'm very weary of hearing how much our local cancer centers care about me.

Somewhat less than half of PBS funding is from the government, not sure how much. Interesting if not surprising: "In 1999 at least three public television stations were caught selling or trading their mailing lists with the Democratic National Committee."

The generic term for those who listen to or watch mostly to these "public" stations is The NPR Faithful. Not a Republican or conservative in sight I guess, except maybe one.

And "crass commercialism"? The endless propaganda fed to us by the Ernst Stavro Blofelds of our civilization, who have brought us our cars, computers, smart phones, digital cameras, the dishes we cook with and set on our table, our toothpaste, our indoor-outdoor thermometers, the insulation we use in our homes, the food we eat, in fact most everything we have. What rotters they are! Far better to depend on the government for that stuff! Oh…it's been tried? Well, never mind.

 
#71 · (Edited)
Support of the Arts is primarily a cultural consideration and not a political one. If the Arts are worth supporting at a national level, then the politics will fall in line—in that order. If the Arts aren’t worth supporting, especially related to cultural exchange programs, then the politics don’t matter. Period. It’s necessary for the cultural debate to come first and not the political one. If the Arts are deemed of no cultural benefit to society, they’ll never receive political support.
 
#72 ·
Support of the Arts is primarily a cultural consideration and not a political one. If the arts are worth supporting at a national level, then the politics will fall in line-in that order. If the arts aren't worth supporting, especially related to cultural exchange programs, then the politics don't matter. Period.
That is idealistic, the current reality, and for a long time now, is anything but non-political.
 
#76 ·
Many arguments have been used in the past to try to justify subsidy to the Arts. These have varied between countries to some extent. Fundamentally most (but not all) have boiled down to whether or not there are any "external benefits", i.e. benefits enjoyed indirectly by third parties who are not party to a transaction, and if so their size. If these "external benefits" are deemed to be large then the argument runs that it is in a Society's interests for a relevant government body to provide a subsidy to that Art, to be provided for out of general taxation.

I'm fully aware that other types of argument have been used to try to justify subsidy to the Arts, e.g. "public good" and various non-economic arguments, but I'm going to ignore them as they're not very convincing. The following are the chief "externality" types of argument that I recall seeing:

  1. A fairly frequent argument is that subsidy is required in order that the Arts may continue to benefit future generations. This argument assumes that the tastes of consumers in the future may differ from those of today, such that works that now may be destroyed in the absence of subsidy, or may not produced at all, would have a value in the future. This sounds dubious and would only have any validity if it can be shown that some types of artistic works have temporarily gone out of fashion right now but can be expected to become popular again the future. It is difficult to think of how any such evaluation might be convincing. In any case, it cannot justify the creation of works that have not been produced (e.g. new music).
  2. Another is that the Arts (especially museums, music festivals etc) attract tourists, and this is a benefit to the wider economy. For sure, increasing the number of tourists by subsiding these activities may well increase the profits of the organisation running the event and those of some local businesses and increase the incomes of their employees, but it would not necessarily increase national income (i.e. the economy as a whole). Even if a subsidy diverted tourists from other countries, the outcome in terms of effect on national income would depend on the relative efficiency of the activities that declined because of the increase in taxation required to finance the subsidy, compared with that of the activities that gained from the subsidy.
  3. The Arts assist education. Since there are sometimes "external benefits" arising from education, which can justify subsidy, then similarly the Arts may justify receipt of subsidy. However, this is valid only if the particular educational activities that the Arts support are considered important, and if the supply of the relevant Arts are unlikely to be adequate if they remain unsubsidised. This type of calculation contains so many uncertainties that it takes into the realm of speculation and guesswork.
  4. The Arts support national pride, in that many people like to think they are living in a cultured society, even if they themselves may not patronise the activities in question. In the UK at least, especially over the period of "austerity" since late 2008, my impression is that the public would be far more inclined to see greater support for things like health, transport, education, law enforcement, housing, than the Arts if budgets are severely constrained. To this extent, the "external benefit" may not be that significant.
  5. Greater exposure to the Arts may increase the social responsibility of citizens, e.g. by making the more volatile elements of society less likely to commit offences, etc, and thus improve general welfare of society by reducing crime and reduce policing and prison costs and such like. This one seems to be especially dubious. All that can we can be confident in saying is that, depending how the subsidies are allocated, they may augment the quantity of books, or musical compositions, or whatever the money is spent on. However, whether or nor any of the new material brought into existence by subsidy is likely to be worthwhile the cost is highly debateable since it implies that the current stock of Art is inadequate and more needs to be created.

I conclude that some subsidy to some types of Art may be justified on the grounds that "external benefits" could exist, but vast-scale subsidy seems like a waste of money, as not all of the various arguments that have typically been used to subsidise the Arts are convincing.
 
#77 · (Edited)
Contributions to the Arts contributes to the Spirit and Pride of a nation when there's the official acknowledgment of them at the highest possible level of leadership. Its value cannot be overestimated. The benefits are the intangibles that cannot possibly be measured in the same way that dollars are to donuts. There are no commercial benefits to a unified Olympic Korean Hockey team made up of both North and South Koreans, as has now happened, but the Spirit of Unity and Humanity, the intangible benefits that can result from that, can be an incredible force for good that could eventually have direct political and economic benefits down the line. The support and funding of the Arts in and of itself, not just as a materialistic means to an ends, is a similar opportunity for national leadership to affirm the best in humanity spiritually that sets the tone for the quality of life rather than a nation that cynically reduces everything down to material goals-commercial and military spending only. If nothing is ever allocated related to inspiring the spirit and pride of a nation, it is one of spiritual and material poverty without having a sense of priorities that rewards the peacemakers and artists, who help keep society in balance, as well as the military spendthrifts and warmakers. But it's an uphill battle because so many of those who love the arts and could not possibly do without them do not apparently appreciate the intangibles that the arts contribute to society even if the rest of the population considers them a waste of funds or are aware of the possible benefits. Like the Olympics, the Arts represent human dedication and achievement... the best in humanity at the highest possible level. It's inspiring!
 
#84 ·
Is it true that “working class” people have less interest in the arts? It depends, I think, on how you define “arts”. The artsy crowd (us, that is) limits the meaning of the word to certain well-defined elitist entertainments. We may consider certain time-tested movies or even 1950s TV shows “art,” but we rigorously exclude anything on current TV, any form of music currently popular, and so forth.

But of course these are all “art” of one type or another, and they are certainly appreciated by the “working class”, often in preference to our string quartets and piano sonatas.
 
G
#86 ·
Is it true that "working class" people have less interest in the arts? It depends, I think, on how you define "arts". The artsy crowd (us, that is) limits the meaning of the word to certain well-defined elitist entertainments. We may consider certain time-tested movies or even 1950s TV shows "art," but we rigorously exclude anything on current TV, any form of music currently popular, and so forth.

But of course these are all "art" of one type or another, and they are certainly appreciated by the "working class", often in preference to our string quartets and piano sonatas.
Yes, but also most of the middle class prefer low art to high art. My angle is that the working class should have the opportunity to succeed in the arts, including the high arts, and that this can be facillitated by government funding.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top