A place to talk about art, artists, and art education
Justifying Publicly Funded Art in the U.S.
Justifying Publicly Funded Art in the U.S.
Stephen Sokola
Northern Arizona University
As the Unites States navigates its current economic distress and the components which helped it to arrive at these conditions, it is important that we reflect on the enduring ideas of what it means to be an American living with the rights of free speech and freedom of expression, as defined by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. These are undoubtedly defining characteristics of what it means to be a citizen living in the U.S. and an example to much of the world as proponents of true freedom. And as I write this, I’m further reminded of comprehensive ideals laid out by the founding fathers “to promote the general welfare”, as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution. The United States rests upon an economic precipice, and policies that helped guide it to this current economic position will in no doubt be questioned by policy makers as they decide how to reshape financial service systems for the future. The United States currently has a unique position in its history, because of its wealth and technological information systems, it now has the position to help further shape the value systems of its cultural fabric, and the American people have a chance to examine their collective image.
Advancing civilization though the arts was one the modest aim of both the Kennedy and Johnson administration, and it was through sciences and arts that these administrations believed for the progress of civilization. (NEA Chronology 8) Publicly Funded Art could be thought of as types of public works projects, similar in ways like a highway or bridge but instead of works for physical infrastructure become those that place emphasis on ideological content and moral value.
President Kennedy in his promotion of the arts reminds of the true purpose of the artist that, “if art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him.” (NEA Chronology 2000).
Inevitably this is why funding for the arts will become an increasingly important topic as we’ve moved from the information age to what Daniel Pink describes as a Conceptual Age. (Pink 2005, 50) As Pink describes it, the economy will in general become more based on holistic right brain thinking, providing services through empathetic and conceptual design. Good design and aesthetics values are cornerstones for this high concept age of abundance. Hallmarks of a good Art education will undoubtedly be beneficial for this type of service economy. It would seem reasonable that if Pink is right that American students will need comprehensive exposure and education through the Arts.
History of Public Funding for the Arts
Federal Funding for the Arts officially began in 1934, when President Roosevelt established the Treasury Department’s section of painting and sculpture, becoming the first government bureau involving the Arts. Public Service employment programs created during the early 30’s employed 40,000 artists directly by the government in efforts to create employment through the Work Progress Administration, in efforts to help counter the devastating economic hardships of the Great Depression. (NEA Chronology 2000, 4)
Since the Roosevelt administration there have been several attempts to create a nationally centered organization to promote the funding and welfare of the arts in the U.S. It wasn’t for another 31 years until the Federal Government would accomplish this by creating the National Endowment for the Arts.
The NEA was created during the Johnson administration in September 29, 1965; the program began with modest funding, totaling a budget just under 3 million dollars for its first year. Funding for the NEA increased almost every fiscal year until 1992, attaining budget totals just under 176 million dollars. Congress, however voted to eliminate the NEA in 1996, but after coming to a compromise the NEA agreed to slash its funding by 39% to 99.5 million dollars in 1996, just after celebrating its 30 year anniversary. (NEA Chronology 52)
Problematizing Art Funding
As we make the argument for publicly funded Arts and dive deeper into this modern economic landscape we are presented with dualistic ideologies for the intended growth of the economy and of the government itself. In the midst of this duality lies the argument of publicly funded works of art. On the right of this argument are neo-conservatives and neo liberalist, who contend that the role of government should be smaller and that private enterprise should be responsible for helping maintain and promote culture. Conservatives such as Greg Sandow of the Wall Street Journal have announced that the arts should be supported by private enterprises, claiming, that the Arts must accept the structure of the market place, basically unmitigated capitalism. (Osborne 2004, 3) One of the problems of this type of thinking is that it makes the arts depend on the needs of the market place for its prosperity and creates an atmosphere for funder bias. Artists in this atmosphere need to respond the desires of their contributors over their own personal vision and maintain, potentially maintaining already established hegemonic ideologies and practices, further delaying certain ideas of social justice and identity guaranteed by the Constitution. By having artists conform to corporate standards, they are never able to critique the current economic structures already in place. In his article, Market Place of Ideas, William Osborne refers to European societies beliefs that this lack of capitalistic mitigation “creates an isomorphic corporate dominated society.” This form of economic liberalism governed much of the U.S.‘s economic policy for much of the nation’s history until the economic collapse of the 1930’s (Osborne, Endnotes 2) and with this collapse began market regulations, as well as some of the first Government funded Art programs. (NEA Chronology 4) Also according to Osborne many Europeans believe there is a standardization of American culture through the media by Hollywood’s massive commercial film and music industry. His European counterparts argue that this reduces “communal identity”, further homogenizing the American cultural landscape. (Osborne 2004, 6)
2 Points Neutrality and Publicity
There are however two important issues that come up when we discuss publicly funded works of Art, Neutrality and Publicity. Conservative proponents argue that public funding for works of Art can potentially cause a “breach of State neutrality toward issues of faith”, and that a state could be endorsing a certain moral view, potentially violating issues of State neutrality. Neutrality could be understood as meaning that government actions overall must not advantage some particular ways of life against others. (Brighouse 1995, 5) Those in favor of further regulating public funding of the arts believe there should also be some publicity restraints in place. This in themselves seem reasonable when “The publicity constraint says that the actual reasons for government action must be understandable to, and available for scrutiny by, reasonable citizens, and that it must be manifest that the requirements of justice are met”. (Brighouse 8)
In Neutrality, Publicity, and State Funding of the Arts Philosophy and Public Affairs, Harry Brighouse argues that under the publicity constraint it is difficult to justify and also very difficult to track the importance of art and the role that it plays in peoples’ lives, and he remarks there is, “little public consensus of either its purpose or benefit”. (Murray Dale Francis 4)
Inevitably works of Art will cause some questioning of moral standards as this is one of the Arts many roles, but should works of publicly funded art be allowed to offend or criticize people’s religious values? Such is what happened in 1989 with “Piss Christ” by Andre Serrano when it allegedly created a breach in State neutrality. This is inevitable when publicly funded works promote religious ideology, but 1st Amendment Rights also guarantee religious freedom as well the freedom of speech, but what if works of Art offend religious thinking. Members of congress felt this is what happened with Serrano’s Piss Christ, and called the $15,000 award he received from the NEA a waste of tax payer money citing that the arts were, "to support the survival of the best of all forms that reflect the American heritage in its full range of cultural and ethnic diversity and to provide national leadership on behalf of the arts." (Congressional Record 1989, 1Mr. [Alfonse] D'AMATO [of New York]
Brighouse goes on to make the difficulty for publicly funded art by saying “Publicity makes requirements on the design of mechanisms for decision-making and execution of state decisions. Taken together the constraints have the consequence that it must be manifest to reasonable citizens that the justifications of discretionary state policies-i.e., policies not required by justice-are neutrally justified.” He argues that it will be extremely difficult for a policy of funding art to meet this requirement. (Brighouse 1995, 10) He continues by contending that neutrality itself is problematic to define and that liberalism ideology sees neutrality in several forms, sometimes contradicting or imposing value over the other. These arguments are however convoluted by their complex semantic forms and in the end dilute ideas for the social good.
The Challenges
The real challenge for Art funding will be the definition of a moral standard for publicly funded works of Art and if works of publicly funded Art violate principles of State neutrality, the challenge to sway the conservative right becomes increasingly more difficult. The relevance for publicly funded works of Art without the interference market driven ideologies needs to remain at the center of this arguement. Even Brighouse notes that some publicly funded works of art are socially beneficial such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but has difficulty justifying other publicly funded works of Art when it comes to definitions of publicity and neutrality.
Hope for federally funded Art
In Market Place of Ideas, Osborne asks us to consider what art funding could look like if the Arts received one percent of the U.S. military’s $396 billion annual budget. We could give 79,200 composers, painters and sculptors a yearly salary of $50,000 each.” Osborne reminds us that is only one percent of the military budget and he asks us to imagine what it could look like if there was 5 percent of the military budget to spend on the Arts. (Osborne, William 9) There does indeed appear to be some hope upon the horizon.
Ironically in the midst of such economic turmoil a modest sum of 50 million dollars of the federal stimulus package has been set aside for the Arts. Though this amount seems meager, it brings the budget of the NEA close to the budget highs it had seen in the early 90’s. This may be due to the head of president Obama’s presidential art spending transition team, William Ivey, former chairman of the NEA, 1998-2001. (Boston Globe, Kranish, Feb 2009 ) (NEA Chronology 64) Ivey is also an author and has published, Arts, Inc: How Greed and Neglect Have Destroyed Our Cultural Rights (2008). In his book Ivey argues that “Cultural rights are the key to bringing the public interest back into America's creative life”, and that these cultural rights are part of the Constitution. Ivey’s argument is a strong one indeed when we look at the Preambles declaration “to promote the general welfare”. The U.S. has surpassed many of the basic needs for the basic survival of most its populace, and now is in a position to enhance the cultural awareness of its citizenry, which in some measure has already been happening through such mediums as public television and public radio. This enhancement of cultural values seems to be a logical move for the long term prosperity of the U.S. and as Former chairman of the NEA Jane Alexander has said: “A great nation supports and encourages the education of all its people. A great nation recognizes that the life of the spirit, of the human mind, is what endures through the passing on from generation to generation a heritage that says: this is who we are, this is who we were, and this is who we will be in days to come. That heritage is manifested through the arts, the humanities and the sciences. That heritage is what we seek to keep alive at the Endowment for the Arts.” (NEA Chronology 51)
This enduring of the human mind is what is really important here, if the U.S. is to remain a great nation and add to the subsequent generations that will follow, it must fulfill its purpose by seeing that its people are truly educated and that for their current well being posses a heritage worthwhile of inheritance.
Works Cited
Brighouse Harry (1995) Neutrality, Publicity, and State Funding of the Arts Philosophy and Public Affairs Vol. 24 No. 1 winter
Dale Francis Murray Liberalism Art and Funding Project Muse http://muse.jhu.edu
Department of Philosophy Virginia Commonwealth University
High Beam Research, Multinational Monitor Sept 1st 2008 interview with William Ivey
Kranish Micheal 2009 Stimulus funding for arts hits nerve Boston Globe Febuary 5th
National Endowment for the Arts Appropriation History, National Endowment of the Arts
file:///K:/ARE%20Stuff/appropriationshistory.html
The National Endowment for the Arts a Brief Chronology of Federal Support for the Arts
2000 Office of Communications National Endowment for the Arts
Osborne William Market Place of Ideas Arts Journal.com 2004
http://www.osborne-conant.org/arts_funding.htm
Pink Daniel (2005) A Whole New Mind, Why Right-Brainers Will rule the Future Riverhead Books New York New York
Congressional Record
Senate - May 18, 1989
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361_r7.htm
Stephen Sokola
Northern Arizona University
As the Unites States navigates its current economic distress and the components which helped it to arrive at these conditions, it is important that we reflect on the enduring ideas of what it means to be an American living with the rights of free speech and freedom of expression, as defined by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. These are undoubtedly defining characteristics of what it means to be a citizen living in the U.S. and an example to much of the world as proponents of true freedom. And as I write this, I’m further reminded of comprehensive ideals laid out by the founding fathers “to promote the general welfare”, as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution. The United States rests upon an economic precipice, and policies that helped guide it to this current economic position will in no doubt be questioned by policy makers as they decide how to reshape financial service systems for the future. The United States currently has a unique position in its history, because of its wealth and technological information systems, it now has the position to help further shape the value systems of its cultural fabric, and the American people have a chance to examine their collective image.
Advancing civilization though the arts was one the modest aim of both the Kennedy and Johnson administration, and it was through sciences and arts that these administrations believed for the progress of civilization. (NEA Chronology 8) Publicly Funded Art could be thought of as types of public works projects, similar in ways like a highway or bridge but instead of works for physical infrastructure become those that place emphasis on ideological content and moral value.
President Kennedy in his promotion of the arts reminds of the true purpose of the artist that, “if art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him.” (NEA Chronology 2000).
Inevitably this is why funding for the arts will become an increasingly important topic as we’ve moved from the information age to what Daniel Pink describes as a Conceptual Age. (Pink 2005, 50) As Pink describes it, the economy will in general become more based on holistic right brain thinking, providing services through empathetic and conceptual design. Good design and aesthetics values are cornerstones for this high concept age of abundance. Hallmarks of a good Art education will undoubtedly be beneficial for this type of service economy. It would seem reasonable that if Pink is right that American students will need comprehensive exposure and education through the Arts.
History of Public Funding for the Arts
Federal Funding for the Arts officially began in 1934, when President Roosevelt established the Treasury Department’s section of painting and sculpture, becoming the first government bureau involving the Arts. Public Service employment programs created during the early 30’s employed 40,000 artists directly by the government in efforts to create employment through the Work Progress Administration, in efforts to help counter the devastating economic hardships of the Great Depression. (NEA Chronology 2000, 4)
Since the Roosevelt administration there have been several attempts to create a nationally centered organization to promote the funding and welfare of the arts in the U.S. It wasn’t for another 31 years until the Federal Government would accomplish this by creating the National Endowment for the Arts.
The NEA was created during the Johnson administration in September 29, 1965; the program began with modest funding, totaling a budget just under 3 million dollars for its first year. Funding for the NEA increased almost every fiscal year until 1992, attaining budget totals just under 176 million dollars. Congress, however voted to eliminate the NEA in 1996, but after coming to a compromise the NEA agreed to slash its funding by 39% to 99.5 million dollars in 1996, just after celebrating its 30 year anniversary. (NEA Chronology 52)
Problematizing Art Funding
As we make the argument for publicly funded Arts and dive deeper into this modern economic landscape we are presented with dualistic ideologies for the intended growth of the economy and of the government itself. In the midst of this duality lies the argument of publicly funded works of art. On the right of this argument are neo-conservatives and neo liberalist, who contend that the role of government should be smaller and that private enterprise should be responsible for helping maintain and promote culture. Conservatives such as Greg Sandow of the Wall Street Journal have announced that the arts should be supported by private enterprises, claiming, that the Arts must accept the structure of the market place, basically unmitigated capitalism. (Osborne 2004, 3) One of the problems of this type of thinking is that it makes the arts depend on the needs of the market place for its prosperity and creates an atmosphere for funder bias. Artists in this atmosphere need to respond the desires of their contributors over their own personal vision and maintain, potentially maintaining already established hegemonic ideologies and practices, further delaying certain ideas of social justice and identity guaranteed by the Constitution. By having artists conform to corporate standards, they are never able to critique the current economic structures already in place. In his article, Market Place of Ideas, William Osborne refers to European societies beliefs that this lack of capitalistic mitigation “creates an isomorphic corporate dominated society.” This form of economic liberalism governed much of the U.S.‘s economic policy for much of the nation’s history until the economic collapse of the 1930’s (Osborne, Endnotes 2) and with this collapse began market regulations, as well as some of the first Government funded Art programs. (NEA Chronology 4) Also according to Osborne many Europeans believe there is a standardization of American culture through the media by Hollywood’s massive commercial film and music industry. His European counterparts argue that this reduces “communal identity”, further homogenizing the American cultural landscape. (Osborne 2004, 6)
2 Points Neutrality and Publicity
There are however two important issues that come up when we discuss publicly funded works of Art, Neutrality and Publicity. Conservative proponents argue that public funding for works of Art can potentially cause a “breach of State neutrality toward issues of faith”, and that a state could be endorsing a certain moral view, potentially violating issues of State neutrality. Neutrality could be understood as meaning that government actions overall must not advantage some particular ways of life against others. (Brighouse 1995, 5) Those in favor of further regulating public funding of the arts believe there should also be some publicity restraints in place. This in themselves seem reasonable when “The publicity constraint says that the actual reasons for government action must be understandable to, and available for scrutiny by, reasonable citizens, and that it must be manifest that the requirements of justice are met”. (Brighouse 8)
In Neutrality, Publicity, and State Funding of the Arts Philosophy and Public Affairs, Harry Brighouse argues that under the publicity constraint it is difficult to justify and also very difficult to track the importance of art and the role that it plays in peoples’ lives, and he remarks there is, “little public consensus of either its purpose or benefit”. (Murray Dale Francis 4)
Inevitably works of Art will cause some questioning of moral standards as this is one of the Arts many roles, but should works of publicly funded art be allowed to offend or criticize people’s religious values? Such is what happened in 1989 with “Piss Christ” by Andre Serrano when it allegedly created a breach in State neutrality. This is inevitable when publicly funded works promote religious ideology, but 1st Amendment Rights also guarantee religious freedom as well the freedom of speech, but what if works of Art offend religious thinking. Members of congress felt this is what happened with Serrano’s Piss Christ, and called the $15,000 award he received from the NEA a waste of tax payer money citing that the arts were, "to support the survival of the best of all forms that reflect the American heritage in its full range of cultural and ethnic diversity and to provide national leadership on behalf of the arts." (Congressional Record 1989, 1Mr. [Alfonse] D'AMATO [of New York]
Brighouse goes on to make the difficulty for publicly funded art by saying “Publicity makes requirements on the design of mechanisms for decision-making and execution of state decisions. Taken together the constraints have the consequence that it must be manifest to reasonable citizens that the justifications of discretionary state policies-i.e., policies not required by justice-are neutrally justified.” He argues that it will be extremely difficult for a policy of funding art to meet this requirement. (Brighouse 1995, 10) He continues by contending that neutrality itself is problematic to define and that liberalism ideology sees neutrality in several forms, sometimes contradicting or imposing value over the other. These arguments are however convoluted by their complex semantic forms and in the end dilute ideas for the social good.
The Challenges
The real challenge for Art funding will be the definition of a moral standard for publicly funded works of Art and if works of publicly funded Art violate principles of State neutrality, the challenge to sway the conservative right becomes increasingly more difficult. The relevance for publicly funded works of Art without the interference market driven ideologies needs to remain at the center of this arguement. Even Brighouse notes that some publicly funded works of art are socially beneficial such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but has difficulty justifying other publicly funded works of Art when it comes to definitions of publicity and neutrality.
Hope for federally funded Art
In Market Place of Ideas, Osborne asks us to consider what art funding could look like if the Arts received one percent of the U.S. military’s $396 billion annual budget. We could give 79,200 composers, painters and sculptors a yearly salary of $50,000 each.” Osborne reminds us that is only one percent of the military budget and he asks us to imagine what it could look like if there was 5 percent of the military budget to spend on the Arts. (Osborne, William 9) There does indeed appear to be some hope upon the horizon.
Ironically in the midst of such economic turmoil a modest sum of 50 million dollars of the federal stimulus package has been set aside for the Arts. Though this amount seems meager, it brings the budget of the NEA close to the budget highs it had seen in the early 90’s. This may be due to the head of president Obama’s presidential art spending transition team, William Ivey, former chairman of the NEA, 1998-2001. (Boston Globe, Kranish, Feb 2009 ) (NEA Chronology 64) Ivey is also an author and has published, Arts, Inc: How Greed and Neglect Have Destroyed Our Cultural Rights (2008). In his book Ivey argues that “Cultural rights are the key to bringing the public interest back into America's creative life”, and that these cultural rights are part of the Constitution. Ivey’s argument is a strong one indeed when we look at the Preambles declaration “to promote the general welfare”. The U.S. has surpassed many of the basic needs for the basic survival of most its populace, and now is in a position to enhance the cultural awareness of its citizenry, which in some measure has already been happening through such mediums as public television and public radio. This enhancement of cultural values seems to be a logical move for the long term prosperity of the U.S. and as Former chairman of the NEA Jane Alexander has said: “A great nation supports and encourages the education of all its people. A great nation recognizes that the life of the spirit, of the human mind, is what endures through the passing on from generation to generation a heritage that says: this is who we are, this is who we were, and this is who we will be in days to come. That heritage is manifested through the arts, the humanities and the sciences. That heritage is what we seek to keep alive at the Endowment for the Arts.” (NEA Chronology 51)
This enduring of the human mind is what is really important here, if the U.S. is to remain a great nation and add to the subsequent generations that will follow, it must fulfill its purpose by seeing that its people are truly educated and that for their current well being posses a heritage worthwhile of inheritance.
Works Cited
Brighouse Harry (1995) Neutrality, Publicity, and State Funding of the Arts Philosophy and Public Affairs Vol. 24 No. 1 winter
Dale Francis Murray Liberalism Art and Funding Project Muse http://muse.jhu.edu
Department of Philosophy Virginia Commonwealth University
High Beam Research, Multinational Monitor Sept 1st 2008 interview with William Ivey
Kranish Micheal 2009 Stimulus funding for arts hits nerve Boston Globe Febuary 5th
National Endowment for the Arts Appropriation History, National Endowment of the Arts
file:///K:/ARE%20Stuff/appropriationshistory.html
The National Endowment for the Arts a Brief Chronology of Federal Support for the Arts
2000 Office of Communications National Endowment for the Arts
Osborne William Market Place of Ideas Arts Journal.com 2004
http://www.osborne-conant.org/arts_funding.htm
Pink Daniel (2005) A Whole New Mind, Why Right-Brainers Will rule the Future Riverhead Books New York New York
Congressional Record
Senate - May 18, 1989
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361_r7.htm
Add a Comment
© 2009 Created by Pam Stephens on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of Mountain Visions to add comments!
Join this Ning Network