Now in terms of tax money, they already spend hardly anything on the arts, in America. But many think even that is too much. Earlier, we reported on Facebook and Twitter about Republican America's call to abolish subsidies altogether. Meanwhile, the president of the National American Arts Fund NAE (National Endowment of the Arts) has thrown a cudgel into the sparsely furnished fray. In a blog post on the official weblog of the NAE he argues that there is a sharp (5%) decline in visits to the arts in general, but that the number of 'not-for-profit' arts organisations increased by 23% over the same period that this played out.
Performing arts in particular, reports the author, Rocco Landesman, grew in the 'not-for-profit' section disproportionately with population growth: 60% more, he argues.
There is, he argues, a disproportionate relationship between supply and demand, and that means the NEA needs to better align the two: increase demand, or reduce supply.
Having already started dividing the cake among fewer institutions in America (which receive a relatively larger share of the budget), Landesman argues that more needs to be done.
He parries the criticism that the NEA only gives money to big institutions and blocks innovation:
"We should never talk about survival of the largest; we are here to ensure the survival of the most creative and most dynamic."
For the most creative and dynamic institution to survive, he proposes strengthening arts education, and wants arts institutions to take over some of the energy that drives the success of big shows like Dancing With the Stars, American Idol, Glee, and So You Think You Can Dance. He also wants to drastically reduce the number of non-performing and art-making staff. Previously, after all, theatre groups were collectives of creatives who owned a place. Now they are companies with overheads. 5.7 million workers in the arts, while 2 million of them are performing artists, he considers undesirable.
He mentions ideas for new revenue models, new methods of innovating in the digital age and giving away more for free.
All this from a deep passion for the arts, of course:
"I care passionately about the arts in this country, and I believe that they will always play a vital role in who we are as an American people. But in order to get to where we need to be, we are going to have to have some uncomfortable conversations and prepare ourselves for a not-for-profit arts sector of the future that does not necessarily look the way it looks today."
We have also heard these noises closer to home.
Your views, please.
English (UK) 
Nederlands 
Français 
And yet there is hope, even in the country that pretty much invented commerce as a palliative for every problem. I cannot withhold this contribution by Linda Ronstadt to the same National Endowment for the Arts in 2009:
http://www.artsusa.org/pdf/news/press/Ronstadt_testimony.pdf
Here speaks not only a celebrity but also someone with a big heart and a lot of common peasant sense.
It is a form of making a linear connection between numbers of spectators and supply. If fewer spectators are coming, then there should also be less supply. But it says nothing about the viability of the institutions bringing the offerings. And until you really know why fewer spectators are coming, this kind of solution sounds somewhat demagogic.
Comments are closed.