ChoralNet

The professional networking site for the global online choral community.

You are here: Home / Others / Arts and the Upcoming Elections

Arts and the Upcoming Elections

by Leave a Comment


The Arts Action Fund of Americans for the Arts, the advocacy group for the American Choral Directors Association, graded the members of the U.S. Senate on their support for the arts. The grade was based upon criteria such as voting in support of the arts, joining the Senate Arts Caucus, and more. Senators had three opportunities to vote on the arts during the past two years—from including the arts in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to supporting public art along our nation’s highways to ensuring museums received federal funds. Senators had the chance to stand up for the arts, and many of them failed.

Whether they blatantly speak out against the arts, say they support the arts and then vote another way, or simply don’t know the economic role the arts play and the well-being they provide in their state, each of the twelve Senators featured received an F grade on their support for the arts. There are more than twelve Senators who failed the arts this year, in fact there are twenty-eight who received an F on the Americans for the Arts Congressional Arts Report Card.

On the other hand, there are many who aced their support of the arts and should be commended. As the upcoming elections approach, the single focus issue of the national economy will undoubtedly dominate media conversation, but with the help of Americans for the Arts and their vigilent work toward the Congressional Arts Report Card, voters such as you and I could help our legislators improve their grades.


Reader Interactions

Comments

  1.  
    Indeed, Dan, your reply to Tim’s Forum contribution on ‘report cards’ is well worded, and displayed respect for the human beings who have differing perspectives about Congressional appropriations for the arts, mainly through the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).  The complete report, I’m sure, presented details of which ‘arts bills’ the senators voted for and against and the basis for their ‘grades.’  That’s the info I prefer to read.  The ‘grades,’ as such, are ‘fluff’ as far as I’m concerned.  And good ol’ Tim Sharp included links to the full report with the details.
     
    This missive provides an alternative perspective to some of the perspectives that you described so well.  For instance, as you wrote, some citizens very honestly believe that federal government arts funding “…is simply an extension of government beyond that for which the constitution provides.”  My honest belief is that those who hold that perspective have missed two important phrases in the purpose-words of the Constitution, its “Preamble” [the phrases are bolded, but note that In the original printed version of the Constitution, “We the People…” is bolded and greatly enlarged]:
     
    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
     
    Article 1 then establishes the legislative power of the United States in a Congress, members of which represent the People, all of whom are elected by them through a citizen voting process (since the 17th Amendment established election of the Senate by the People).  And, contrary to the perspective of some people, governments in the U.S. have never been and can never be “,,,the source of all worthy things.”  [That would actually be socialism (government owns all means of production, all land, controls all citizen pay, etc., the way Republic of China mostly still does).  We ain’t got that and never will.] 
     
    Governments can, however, “…promote the general Welfare,…” by providing partial ‘investment’ support for the modes of human self-expression that we refer to collectively as “the arts” (the so-called ‘serious’ or ‘classical’ arts, that is).  Those ‘competitive’ or ‘selected’ investments constitute processes by which the government can recognize and provide incentives for foundations and citizen patrons to contribute to the filling out of the fundings that are necessary to make those expressive arts financially viable.  [After WWII, among the first structures that were rebuilt in Europe were the Opera Houses and Concert Halls because their citizen leaders saw the need to build up the human spirit amid the devastation.  Imagine them hearing live choral-orchestral performances of Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis, or Verdi’s Requiem, or Bach’s Mass in B-minor, or Brahms’ German Requiem.] 
     
    I’m pretty sure that government funding of the arts (NEA/NEH) does not and never has leaned “…toward the bizarre or controversial while making it nearly impossible to obtain funding for the canon of great art.”  The key phrase that precedes that quote is, “…widely publicized cases….”  Some people have way overgeneralized the one highly publicized incident involving urine and a religious symbol as representing the work of NEA/NEH.  Have there been other such bizarre and controversial cases (plural)?  I’m not aware of any others.
     
    Yes, “At times, government funding has resulted in misguided attempts to control the expression of art, limiting it to the politically correct expressions of the moment while silencing sacred expression….”  True, government funding has resulted in the misguidance, but no branch of the government has ever prohibited sacred music from being rehearsed and performed in taxpayer-funded schools at any level (that’s the locus of the great misunderstandings of the relevant legislation and court decisions). 
     
    Sacred music can be rehearsed and performed in taxpayer-funded schools.  Period.  What the legislation and court decisions have said, however, is that taxpayer funding for public schools is not to be used to promote one set of religious beliefs to the exclusion of others.  Why?  Because ‘the taxpaying public’ is made up of people with a multiplicity of religious belief-sets.  To me, that’s a fairness issue.  What if Christianity was practiced by about 50-million of the roughly 300-million people in the U.S., and 200-million people were of the Hindu religion.  And what if Hindu music, then, was so pervasive in the public schools that Christian music was rarely if ever sung by choirs.  But then, suppose there was a court decision that said “no set of religious beliefs were to be promoted by any program in a taxpayer funded school.”  How would the Hindus–believing that theirs was the one ‘true’ religion–react to that?  Hmmmm.  And the Christians?
     
    As to the “…pervasive societal question of fiscal responsibility…,” and those who “…hold the honest belief that those who patronize the arts should also fund them…,” there is an alternative perspective backed up by some relevant facts. 
     
    1. The federal government’s contribution to ‘the serious or classical arts’ amounts to about .000015% of the total federal budget.  When I ran such figures in the 1980s, it was .000017%.  Not exactly profligate government spending, seems to me.  Plus, a number of surveys of the contributions of the arts to the U.S. economy and various state economies is placed in the billions (they include the ‘popular’ arts, too, so….).  The minuscule national government ‘investment’ in the ‘serious’ or ‘classical’ arts is a key cog in that segment of the arts actually remaining alive in the U.S.
    2. The ‘popular arts’ have achieved such a wide appeal among the U.S. population that they are abundantly funded by those who patronize them.  It’s the so-called ‘serious arts’ or the ‘classical arts’ that do not have a sufficient number of citizen devotees that they could be consistently funded solely by those patrons.  To me, then, that easily falls under the heading of the Constitutional purpose of promoting “the general Welfare,” and securing the “Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
     
    My purpose here is not to ‘argue’ meaninglessly, but to present information and a perspective about national and state government funding for the so-called ‘serious’ or ‘classical’ arts in the U.S. for contemplation by the citizens thereof.  Because we live in a country that has a representative government, and we elect our representatives, it could be helpful to have some sense of which elected representatives understand the value of government arts funding to the people they represent.  This information, then, can join the many other items of information that we weigh to make our voting decisions.
     
    If you’ve read all this…congratulations.  I hope I’ve written it clearly so it’s easily understood, but if I haven’t and anyone has clarification questions, let me know.
    Be well,
    Leon
     

  2. I believe Daniel Gawthorp wrote an essay on this topic several years ago called “The National Endowment of Football,” or something like that.  I would appreciate knowing the correct citation if anyone happens to know it.
     
    Look at  it this way: if you do not believe the government should fund the arts, now you know that there are 28 senators who agree with your position.
     
    Steven Grives

  3. I’ve been mulling this subject over ever since ACDA began printing the Arts Advocacy statement in publications. Pragmatically speaking, I would like to see all deserving arts endeavors fully funded. But I believe this is not as simple an issue as might appear on a “report card”.
     
    Gifted and passionate advocates and leaders in the arts may hold sincerely differing beliefs about arts funding. For some, it is simply an extension of government beyond that for which the constitution provides. In this person’s view our nation is designed to function robustly without government being the source of all worthy things.
     
    For others there have been deep concerns about the wise stewardship of government arts funding. There have been widely publicized cases of the ways in which government funding leans toward the bizarre or controversial while making it nearly impossible to obtain funding for the canon of great art. At times, government funding has resulted in misguided attempts to control the expression of art, limiting it to the politically correct expressions of the moment while silencing sacred expression, for instance. (I have personal experience with this.)
     
    Others want to address the pervasive societal question of fiscal responsibility. While millions object to profligate government spending, few want the savings to begin with their own worthy cause. They might also hold the honest belief that those who patronize the arts should also fund them. (I make my own disclaimer – I strongly support a rich arts education curriculum in public schools. I believe it is as essential as the other “core subjects”. If there is to be a public school system, it must fully include the arts, especially music!)
     
    I realize that these points bring up countless counter-points that are worth consideration. I bring them up to make the point that a person could view the “arts report card” from an alternative viewpoint and still be a vital and worthy leader in the choral art and in ACDA. I do hope that we as an organization remember this diversity when we formulate our official positions on issues that overlap into the political and philosophical realms.
     
    Respectfully.
     
    Dan Wagner
    Illinois R & S Chair for Music in Worship

Leave a Reply

© 2026 American Choral Directors Association. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy