Fair warning: This post wanders into the realm of political discourse, but I assure you that I’m coming from a very honest, confused place.
Earlier this week, Ron Schiller, National Public Radio’s (NPR’s) senior vice president for development (read: fundraising) accidentally went on the record stating that Republicans were ““radical, racist, Islamaphobic, Tea Party people . . . not just Islamaphobic, but really xenophobic, I mean basically they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-America gun-toting. I mean, it’s scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people.” He made this statement during an amateur sting engineered by filmmaker James O’Keefe, in which Mr. Schiller thought he was speaking to representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood, whom he believed would be donating funds to NPR.
Skirting the perceived truth or untruth of the statement, there’s no denying the leftward leaning political orientation of the speaker, whose parent company, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, is supported by something north of $400 million in taxpayer funding. Mr. Schiller went on to say, “it is very clear that in the long run we would be better off without federal funding.” This at the very time that the newly-elected Republican majority in the House of Representatives is hunting for a reason to cut billions of dollars from the federal budget.
From a strictly business perspective, Mr. Schiller is a moron. There’s a time and a place for bigoted statements, and the moment when you’re under a microscope by people who are trying to shut you down is exactly the wrong time. He resigned, as did his boss (also name Schiller, but no relation), and that’s exactly as it should be, as far as I’m concerned.
All of this raises a larger question in my mind: Should taxpayers be compelled to pay for art?
I’m really on the fence on this one. On the one hand, I’m a big believer in the arts, and I fully subscribe to the notion that without art, there can be no civilization. On the other hand, I am as pure a capitalist as one could imagine, and I abhor the very thought of state-run media and state-rung propaganda campaigns. An independent media is our primary safeguard against totalitarianism.
There’s a huge part of me, as a resident of the Greater Washington Metropolitan Area, that loves the millions of dollars in subsidies that go to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (The Kennedy Center). To the degree that Lincoln Center in New York, and the Buttscratch Community Center in Middle America get federal funding (thanks to recently-prohibited earmarks), part of me supports the introduction of “culture” into areas of the country that would otherwise not see it. There’s real value to federal grants that help artists find their voice.
On the other hand, we are a free-market economy—and economic model that I believe in 100%. Every dollar I’ve made in my lifetime has been paid for by customers who decided that the products and service I represented were better than those represented by our competitors. I’ve never received a penny in grant money (I’ve never applied). For me to succeed in the book business, I have to produce compelling stories that people want to read, and I need to convince them that spending money on my imagination is at least as rewarding and an identical investment in the works of my competitors. The marketplace will decide whether I am financially successful or not. If I crash and burn, there you go. A bitter part of me questions why I should subsidize with my hard-earned income on art that I will never see in a part of the country that I will never see.
What do you think, dear Killzoners? Should the United States government be subsidizing art?
My first istinct is to say absolutely not–why taxpayer fund the arts? But I bet if I dug in, I could find taxpayer supported arts that have value to me personally. In any case, I’m sure substantial cuts could be made.
I actually have a much harder time with local governments and the building of sports complexes at taxpayer expense. Why should I pay for a baseball stadium when the players make rediculously excessive sums of money and I hate baseball? Besides, the taxpayer pays a hefty chunk of change just to go to a game.
There are many such conflicts and nobody agrees on which have value. Which just means we all pay excessive taxes to try and ‘please’ everybody. LOL!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Well, this country has not had a purely free-market economy since the guilded age. Moreover, the greatest expansion of the middle class in human history occured during a time–the end of the forties until the turn of the millenium–of high socialization of institutions, and extremely high marginal tax rates. It’s only since the eighties that we have started moving back to the Pre-1929 economic model, and many would argue that move has been to our detriment. Have we had huge advances in technology? Yes. Has there been a huge amount of wealth created? Yes. But, in the second instance, that phenomenon has been almost exclusively localized to a very small minority–the top one percent of wage earners.
Skepticism is good. It keeps us honest. But, it is one thing to have state funded media, and entirely another to have state run media. The two are not synonmous, and it is ridiculous, if not outright paranoid, to presume that they are. The BBC has proved for nearly a century that it is possible to have the former without it leading to the latter. And arguably, as a news service, the BBC has provided more comprehensive, valuable information than many private news corporations in Britain. Just compare the BBC homepage to that of the Globe and Mail.
Now, for me, public funding of the arts is essential to the betterment of our society. Using economic concepts, its existence prevents private business from creating insurmountable barriers to entry, creating monopolies, crowding out opposing/unpopular points of view, picking winners and losers. Art effects language, records history, and lets us reflect on who we are. I like my satellite TV as much as the next guy, but The Tudors shouldn’t be my only way of learning about the British monarchy. And Def Poetry Slam shouldn’t be my only way of hearing the spoken word.
It’s another avenue for expression, one essential to the core of our cultural identity–the ideas that anyone can become anything and everyone has a right to be heard.
I believe that it is good and right for us to support through our taxes those things that we as a country feel are important. There is much room for debate, however, on how we use that money to support those things. The arts is one of those fields in which the free market system doesn’t encourage what we would like to see happen. By this, I mean to say that we would like to see everyone involved in The arts in some way, but the money naturally flows to the top artists. Public funding of the arts should make the arts accessible to all people and should support only those things that are incapable of being self supporting. Of course, there is always the bigger question. Should we be borrowing against the future in order to support some of these things? The government spends too much money. It is well and good to say we should support the arts, but if we don’t have the money, we don’t have the money.
John,
I’m with you in the belief that government committees and taxpayer dollars have no business funding art.
That being said, there are so many worse ways that taxpayer dollars are spent – greater wastes, or more active harms – that I find it hard to get mad at NPR. If we’re looking to make cuts on the basis of improving the lives of citizens or at least making government leaner, I should think there would be other programs on the chopping block first.
If times were good and we were running a huge surplus like back in the Clinton years, no one would be questioning tax dollars supporting the arts.
the first time i gave this any thought was the bruhaha over maplethorpe’s work….it was very controversial photography…that did seem to offend some folk. so then it became sort of a complex issue….if the public coffers pay for this should they have censorship on what they are funding? as art is subjective….or beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc etc…. that puts a new twist on the public funding of art. if you don’t believe me…come to scottsdale and see the metal monstrosity someone erected. wonder who paid for that??
I believe that societies are enhanced when they support the arts, so I wish we gave more, on the local, state, and federal levels. And I don’t say this just because I have a daughter going to a very expensive art school! 🙂
Professor, let me be clear: I am not against taxpayer funding for the arts. I think I might be leaning that way when I look at the ballooning national debt, but then when I consider what a small portion of the overall debt is actually accounted for by the arts, I return to the fence. I’m genuinely conflicted on this one.
For me, the conflict is rooted in principle. It’s one thing if the good people of, say, Atlanta convince the state legislature to invest in the Atlanta Symphony. The residents of Savannah might balk at the expenditure of taxpayer dollars, but at least the argument could be made that what’s good for Atlanta is good for the state. On the other hand, I’m not sure that it’s reasonable to take money from the good citizens of Detroit to fund the Atlanta Symphony. (These are random examples, by the way; I have no idea whether Atlanta even has a symphony, let alone how it is funded.)
Doesn’t it make sense that if a symphony were important enough to the people of Atlanta that they would find a way to put one together through private investment (the free enterprise system)?
Carrying on with the fictional example, if Atlanta gets federal money for their symphony, shouldn’t Boise get one, too? And Fresno? How about Gila Bend, New Mexico?
For that matter, why just fund PBS? Why not NBC and Spike TV?
Maybe there should be a check-mark on our tax returns to authorize funding for the arts, like the one that authorizes a contribution to presidential elections. And those who check yes get opera tickets for half price.
BK, I hadn’t thought about the sports complexes thing. You raise a very interesting point, made even more interesting by staggering wealth of the team owners and their players. Surely, there must be statistics that prove the taxpayer investment to be worthwhile, or else it wouldn’t happen over and over again. Right? Oh. Maybe not.
John Gilstrap
http://www.johngilstrap.com
See if I’ve got this right. Ron Schiller was caught bad-mouthing one “conservative” organization to solicit funds from another “conservative” organization in order to help fund a supposed “liberal” organization. Real slippery lizard, this Schiller fellow. He should be put in charge of teaching ethics to congressmen and senators.
John, most networks DO receive federal funding, albeit a smaller amount than PBS.Now, if I understand your argument correctly, you’re saying that municipal funding is acceptable but federal funding is not? Using your example, what happens if some violinist from Atlanta moves to Boise and the good folks of that little berg have deemed classical music unimportant? This would limit where some artists could move, simply because of economic opportunity? Does that sound like America?
I think not.
Federal funding levels the playing field even further than municipal because it allows poorer communities, who may not otherwise have the money, to have arts programs too.
Why should we give the government any power to approve what is “art”? Haven’t we seen enough NEA funding of what is seriously on the edge of, if not completely over, pornography? Government funding does not produce masterpieces. It debases art by elevating and approving the mediocre if not the outright obscene.
In 1995, the NEA funded “Highways,” a venue featuring a summer “Ecco Lesbo/Ecco Homo” festival in Santa Monica, California. The festival featured a program actually called “Not for Republicans” in which a performance artist ruminated on “Sex with Newt’s Mom.”
Nice. A real masterpiece there. As was “Piss Christ,” the crucifix in the jar of urine. I could go on and on with similar examples of government funded “art.”
Artists are free to try to sell this junk. But they should go out and do it on their own, not be given our money to prop them up.
The NEA has tried to “clean up their act,” but have moved on to funding based on quotas. Multiculturalism infects the NEA, as it will any government bureau, which by its nature can never be neutral. The NEA is now little more than affirmative action for the arts.
And by the way, do you realize how much overhead and waste occur in any governmental bureaucracy? Do you really think these jokers at NPR deserve to be paid $450,000 a year? Really?
Even if we weren’t awash in wasteful spending it wouldn’t be a good idea to give money to something this inefficient and questionable.
The only “good” they do is by mistake. That’s not any way for government to spend money.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ha I can think of way worse things to spend money on than art. Like prisons.
And sports complexes get municipal funding, not federal, because of their economic impact. A sports complex means more money for the city, so it is looked at as an investment. You may not like the sport played there, but it provides added revenue to private industry and city coffers.
The Green Bay Packers are a great example. They are completely owned by the people of Green Bay, who pay taxes to maintain the team. The city is only 120,000 people, and it wouldn’t even be that if not for some of the businesses the football team has brought to it.
We subsidize the hell out of many industries, either in the form of tax breaks or direct subsidies for things like agriculture. I don’t think kicking a few million dollars to support the arts is a big deal.
It seems when the little guy is asking for some help it is a handout, but when corporations do the same, it is free market.
With respect to NPR, the money is filtered through Corporation for Public Broadcasting. CPB adds a layer to prevent direct political influence on broadcasting, so the public stations don’t become a mouth piece for whichever party is in charge.
This comment has been removed by the author.
John – You’re hitting a nerve.
I’m an upper middle class, fiscally responsible, hardcore capitalist, gun totin’ non-racist taxpayer that happens to write books. Forget the politics for now (NPR & PBS aren’t relevant anyway). Right now we’re facing a crushing debt, the result of a lack of restraint over the years from both parties. It’s impossible to continue spending more than what’s taken in. If this means cutting back on programs that aren’t essential, at least for a period of time, then that’s what has to be done. Individuals & families have to make tough decisions to maintain fiscal balance, why is the Gov’t immune?
I am a limited gov type. Federal gov should focus on international relations & national defense and interstate relations. Everything else that effects the populace in general should be in the hands of states/ cities. Arts should find their patrons amongst the wealthy who want to pay for art they’re impressed with.
If an artist can’t find someone willing pay them for work, and that work makes it impossible for them to earn a living in a job and do the art while off from the day job, then maybe they shouldn’t be an artist. Maybe they don’t really love their art or maybe nobody wants to see their stuff.
Hit a nerve, indeed, Jax. Today’s post will not go down in history as my brightest idea.
Sometimes I need to learn lessons more than once: Never write about politics or religion on a writers’ board.
Never write about politics or religion on a writers’ board.
Never write about politics or religion on a writers’ board.
Neverwriteaboutpoliticsorreligiononawriters’boardNeverwriteaboutpoliticsorreligiononawriters’board . . .
Okay, I think I’ve got it now. :-/
John Gilstrap
http://www.johngilstrap.com
Oh John, you wouldn’t be you without stirring the pot once in awhile.
We have people sleeping on the streets and going hungry, and we’re worried about using taxpayer money to fund the arts?
When we’ve solved hunger and cured cancer, then we should think about using tax money for art. And not one day before.
We here can have honest discourse and agree, disagree, or agree to disagree and have some sort of dialog without foaming at the mouth, something our leaders and lawmakers can’t manage.
make that 24 comments.
If you’re going to have the taxpayers pay for symphony orchestras, then they should subsidize rock & roll bands and country singers. Get my point?
The problem with taxpayer-funded “support for the arts” is that “the arts” are what the major fund managers say they are. And those fund managers are nearly always northeastern elitists who sneer at the artistic endeavors that appeal to the overwhelming majority of most Americans.
If symphonies, opera, and ballet are so important, then the people who like them should pony up and support them. That might mean $1000 tickets to see these events, but you know, most of them can afford it. And if they can’t, if those artistic groups can’t scrape up the money to survive, then they should fail. If they don’t appeal to a lot of people, then, well, you know, it’s a tough world out there.
The beauty of art is truly, truly in the eye of the beholder and should not be dependent on the wallet of the taxpayer.
As an artist (about 35 years), a former gallery director, a writer, and a taxpayer, I say…
No.
It’s one thing for a local arts group to come to my home in person or by mail or by telephone and solicit funds. That’s good. More power to them.
It’s also my right and privilege to fund those things I agree with.
But to have the federal government tell me I have to fund things I not only disagree with but believe are fundamentally wrong… that is not good.
I might be convinced that public funding of the arts is good for society if the funds were allocated at public discretion.
My experience in the business is that they are not. Fund are allocated by federal oversight and state oversight and usually by people who give every impression of knowing ‘what’s good for the people’ and sometimes comes with an attitude of ‘even if the people are too stupid to know what’s good for them’.
If there must be public funding, I vote for local public funding. Not state. Not federal. The more remote the government, the more expensive it is and the less accountable it becomes.