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.
Thank you for your comment. Your last paragraph asks the right question: why have federal arts funding at all? I think there *are* some good reasons we could imagine, but it is important to start there before setting out the details of how funds will be allocated. The current practice of very wide geographic distribution of small grants is not, I think, something we would come up with if we were starting from scratch. It doesn't serve a goal of fostering the production of great art (and we can justify this even if the location of the funding would be geographically concentrated, on the grounds that what is produced really does benefit people in far flung places - I benefit from real achievement in live theatre in New York City even as I live way out here in Bloomington), nor is it a well-targeted effort to serve people who we think might be missing out. I just don't see how we can reverse engineer current practice into something that has a well-defined mission.
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.
Thank you for your comment. Your last paragraph asks the right question: why have federal arts funding at all? I think there *are* some good reasons we could imagine, but it is important to start there before setting out the details of how funds will be allocated. The current practice of very wide geographic distribution of small grants is not, I think, something we would come up with if we were starting from scratch. It doesn't serve a goal of fostering the production of great art (and we can justify this even if the location of the funding would be geographically concentrated, on the grounds that what is produced really does benefit people in far flung places - I benefit from real achievement in live theatre in New York City even as I live way out here in Bloomington), nor is it a well-targeted effort to serve people who we think might be missing out. I just don't see how we can reverse engineer current practice into something that has a well-defined mission.
Saving for arts policy class this Spring…