Bill Eddins

There are a lot of people calling for the end of federal funding of the arts this past week. Only it isn’t coming from politicians or groups opposed to having tax dollars devoted to the arts. It is coming from people within arts disciplines. Last week fellow Inside the Arts blogger Bill Eddins posted an entry calling for the end of the National Endowment of the Arts. Leonard Jacobs at the Clyde Fitch Report expanded on Eddins’ theme. On Friday the NPR show On The Media had an interview with the editor of Reason.com, Nick Gillespie, who suggested ending funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) as a means of denying politicians a perennial bugbear needing to be slain.

Gillespie’s interview was in reaction to an editorial, Steve Coll wrote in the Washington Post suggesting the big networks like Fox News should be charged more to broadcast and the proceeds directed to the support of the CPB. Coll’s editorial was in response to one that South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint wrote calling for NPR to support itself.

Common to both Eddins and Gillespie was the idea that the funding support to individual arts organizations and broadcasters that trickled down from the NEA and CPB was such a small portion of the total funding, it might be better to lose the money altogether and be free of the recriminations and accusations about how poorly the money was being used. Nevermind that it is only about 42 cents per taxpayer, the perceived rate is so much greater and so ingrained in people consciousness that contradictory evidence finds no purchase.

Some who commented on Eddins’ post point out that the indirect impact of NEA funding actually provides more support than is immediately perceived. State art foundations pass along funding and may actually owe some of their continued existence to NEA funds as states cut back funding in that area more and more. I know that many in my state wonder if our foundation would still be in operation if not for administration of stimulus funding that necessitates it existence.

Gillespie felt that the cut in funding to radio stations wouldn’t impact them that much and they could either thrive without it or might find an increase in funding from other sources. I was a little skeptical at that since I wondered what sources have been holding their dollars back in reaction to federal funding.

For all the resistance part of me feels toward the idea of spurning federal funding, there is another part of me that wonders if the current situation isn’t a little like that faced by 20somethings living with their parents after graduating college. The support the parents provide isn’t a whole lot, but they keep complaining about the resources being diverted toward supporting their generally responsible adult children (as opposed to those slacker kids). Most of those bills they would have to pay even if you weren’t living in the house but they keep talk as if it is all due to you! At the same time, moving out and giving up that little support is pretty scary first step to take.

For some arts organizations, not receiving federal monies may actually open their programming up and embolden them. All that money flying around during political campaigns may end up directed their way as political action groups hire groups to paint murals and organize flash mobs to either support their view or embarrass the opposition. Though most arts groups’ aversion to being perceived as selling out might preclude that sort of thing. And of course this is based on the assumption that the dearth of funding from both public and private sources will make non profit status and the attendant restrictions on political activities less desirable to have.

Even if they aren’t engaged in politicking, knowing that they won’t have to rein in controversy could result in more experimental fare once people move past the “we can’t do that” mindset that the culture wars surrounding NEA funding has created. As the song says, “freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.” That might result in the creation of things that will really scandalize politicians, only they won’t have a carrot or stick to wield any longer.

While money does equal access and control in the world of politics, it tends to be a little divisive in the arts scene -> who has it – who doesn’t = who has sold out – who does “pure art.” Maybe if there was more money available on a dependable basis this wouldn’t be the view. But right now the best thing to do to keep the arts community divided may be to give out a lot of money. Because in an environment where there is no money, the seeds of a unified vision seem to be sprouting.