The geography of arts funding
Rocco was right
I gave a presentation today, a little bit contentious, on the topic of arts funding - here is a post that captures what I talked about. And in the workshop discussion the city of Peoria came up.
Here is a “quick facts” page from the National Endowment for the Arts. It makes a point of saying, “The NEA recommends on average 2,300 grants per year, reaching every Congressional District in the country.” Is there a good policy reason for this distribution? The “politics” seem clear: be able to say to any small-government politician that if they want to cut the NEA’s budget, it means at least a couple of people in their district won’t be happy about it. But is there a justifiable policy rationale?
In August 2009, newly-appointed NEA Chair Rocco Landesman had thoughts about this:
And while he praised the way recent endowment chairmen have carefully rebuilt the agency’s political standing, Mr. Landesman who is known more as an independent entrepreneur than as a diplomatic company man said he was not planning to follow too closely in their footsteps. While Dana Gioia, his immediate predecessor, made a point of spreading endowment funds to every Congressional district, for example, Mr. Landesman said he expected to focus on financing the best art, regardless of location.
“I don’t know if there’s a theater in Peoria, but I would bet that it’s not as good as Steppenwolf or the Goodman,” he said, referring to two of Chicago’s most prominent theater companies. “There is going to be some push-back from me about democratizing arts grants to the point where you really have to answer some questions about artistic merit.”
“And frankly,” he added, “there are some institutions on the precipice that should go over it. We might be overbuilt in some cases.”
That went over about as well as you could expect. And so, after being poked in the leg with a sharp stick by the President who had just appointed him, he packed his bags for Peoria:
Mr. Landesman, who is from St. Louis, said on Monday that he looked forward to the trip, which he planned to make sometime in early December, when the Eastlight presents its holiday show, and that he was surprised by the positive spirit with which the invitation was extended. “The attitude could have been indignation, hostility, being offended it was anything but,” he said. “I think it’s something we’re all going to have good fun with. It’s great for the Peoria folks having some attention. And we can make a statement about the N.E.A. we do intend to be everywhere. I’m looking forward to it.
“I heard they have a Steak ‘n Shake there,” Mr. Landesman added, “which is my favorite place to eat.”
Mr. Landesman was also pleased to hear that the Eastlight’s first production in 1992 was “Big River,” a show he originated as a producer on Broadway. “I love that show and I love anyone who loves it,” he said.
The NEA reported:
Rocco Landesman spent Friday, November 6, with Kathy Chitwood of Eastlight Theatre and Suzette Boulais of ArtsPartners of Central Illinois as well as Peoria artists, arts administrators, civic leaders, and other citizens. It was a full day with a comprehensive schedule of events: a walking tour of the Warehouse District; roundtable discussions with artists, civic leaders, and developers; visits to artists' studios; Q&As with the Peoria arts community; a taping of "At Issue" on Peoria's WTVP; and an evening performance of Eastlight Theatre's production of Rent.
And so, to this day, the grants go to every Congressional District.
Why have a federal arts council that does this? After all, since the NEA already funnels much of its budget down to state arts council, why not let states handle the whole thing?
Landesman was correct: not that you can’t find interesting theatre in some unexpected places, but that an awful lot of places just aren’t going to have much in the way of artistic quality. There might be other great aspects of those places, but interesting live theatre just isn’t one of them. I don’t know if we are supposed to think otherwise, or if the purpose of arts funding is something else entirely. But this episode made clear that if you are appointed Chair of the NEA, keep your head down, and distribute funds three thousand miles wide and an inch deep.
I had thought the expression "will it play in Peoria?" Was from politics by way of market-testing maybe. But, it turns out to go back to vaudeville days. If an act was successful in Peoria, the act could make it anywhere was the meaning. Peoria was a riverboat town famous for taverns and other establishments of ill repute. Source: Wikipedia. So, it was certainly possible to imagine great popular culture at least coming from government funding of Peoria theatre in those days had there been government funding of vaudeville. I haven,t kept up. NEA is on elon- Vivek chopping block? Will any Republican Congress member speak up? Or will funding of big city organizations take brunt of cuts?
I think the issue here is: what is the purpose of arts funding? If it's to produce the greatest art, then sure, just fund the "best" institutions, and hope that they create great art, with the understanding that only a small fraction of the country will have access to that. On the other hand, if the purpose of the arts funding is to bring the arts to all citizens, then it *does* make sense to provide funds to small groups that might not be producing the highest-quality creations. If Peoria has a small theater company that can't compete with the best of New York or Chicago, well, there are still a lot of taxpayers in Peoria -- don't they deserve some arts funding as well?
The real problem with funding "elite" cultural institutions is that the money often results in insulating the management from their bad decisions, so they can develop weird unappealing productions without having to worry about public pushback. Also, there is a vast oversupply of artists, and so the theater company in Peoria might actually be pretty good, so perhaps sending tax dollars to them might not be so futile as you might think at first.
Ultimately, the real issue is why we engage with arts funding at all. Taylor Swift seems to be connecting with a lot more fans than any symphony orchestra, and as far as I know she doesn't get any federal arts funding.