Con: Arts funding

Liberal blogger Kevin Drum comes out against federal funding for the arts:

Now, I, Kevin Drum, happen to like classical music but not jazz. I like film but don't really get much of a kick out of theater. I love novels but have never developed an appreciation of poetry. Etc. etc. If it turned out that my tastes were broadly shared, would that mean there's a market breakdown in jazz, theater, and poetry? Or would it mean that public tastes have changed over time and artists ought to change with it? If great playwrights are producing scripts for HBO movies instead of scripts for regional theaters, does that mean the market is working or failing? If serious modern composers produce music that the public has to be bribed to listen to (usually with a post-intermission performance of a popular old warhorse), does that mean there's a breakdown in the market for serious modern music? Or does it mean that serious modern composers ought to rethink the kind of music they write? How do you know?

… I view the decline of live theater with equanimity because I think that modern film, video, and multimedia performances are better than live theater on virtually every level. Obviously Isaac disagrees, and that's fine. The question is, why should the federal government adjudicate our disagreement?

Obviously this has ramifications for choral music, which has suffered a huge drop in popularity in the last century. But he's talking about funding from the federal government, which doesn't go to small-fry choirs but to big operations such as municipal orchestras. The "market" winners in choral music are reality TV shows about choirs and Glee.

P.S. Matthew Yglesias reminds everyone that the biggest subsidy to the arts comes via the deductibility of contributions to arts organizations; such giving totals about $12 billion per year (meaning a tax subsidy of about $2 billion), compared to direct support to the NEA of about $150 million, some 1% of total arts spending.

John Howell says

February 19, 2011 at 12:25 pm

Hi, Allen, and thanks for the interesting quotes. But I’m not sure how seriously to take the opinions expressed.

Firstly, I have to question his use of the loaded terms “serious modern composers” and “serious modern music.” Sure, I know exactly what he means: composers who believe that they are serious and that their music is serious, and are more than willing to tell us so! But can we honestly call “serious” any music that is so out of touch with the modern audience that it has no hope of earning any money for the composer, or any composer who produces such music and then tells us how “serious” it is? Doesn’t this have echos of the inmates running the asylum and defining the terms to fit their own world views?

And secondly, American “culture” (and I use the term losely!) has ALWAYS been a popular culture. We don’t have state orchestras or state opera companies or state ballet companies or state broadcasing companies that hire radio or TV orchestras and choruses, the way European countries have had for a very long time. We don’t provide education in the arts to the few who pass rigorous examinations to prove they are entitled to government support, we try to educate everyone in whatever field they like! Europeans rightly consider “The Arts” important to their cultures. We never have. We’ve ALWAYS left support of the Arts to the commercial marketplace, which means that it’s only the Arts that don’t support themselves in the marketplace that even get considered for Arts Council funding, which means that actual government support goes only to (with respect and apologies) the lunatic fringe who cannot generate actual support for their work, which in turn means that government support is an easy target for politicians to attack. That’s called a “self-fulfilling prophesy”!

And semantics are important. You say that choral music “has suffered a huge drop in popularity in the last century.” Given the number of audition announcements, concert announcements, and leadership position announcements posted right here on ChoralNet every month, I would have to question that statement. But even if there is objective evidence that it’s true, there’s an important semantic distinction to be made. SINGING has not seen a huge drop in popularity. Far from it. Just look at the Grammy Awards, and at how many categories are purely instrumental compared with those involving singing. No, it’s the TRADITIONAL choral approach that has become less popular, less exciting, and closer to a museum function than at any other time in music history. I happen to believe that the museum function, keeping alive and well our long musical heritage, is VERY important. A good amount of my own time over the past 40 years has been devoted to just that. But another good amount of my time has been devoted to contemporary entertainment music in various forms, and that is ALSO very important.

But where these two thread some together is simple: If “The Arts” are to be dependent on success in the commercial marketplace, then they are going to change with the times because we no longer have a culture in which the artistic tastes of a small, elite, wealthy social class determines what is important and what is not, but one in which “the people” vote with their feet and with their credit cards on what “arts” are important TO THEM. And you probably can’t have it both ways at the same time.

All the best,

John

Comments

Tim Sharp says

February 19, 2011 at 3:23 pm

Drum admits in the preface to this blog, “I simply lack a strong enough version of the art gene to talk about this with any vigor or nuance”, as well as “…in the end the scholarly articles didn’t especially change my mind.”

While Yglesias makes a valid point, the truth is, federal funding for the arts leverages such private funding. The NEA requires at least a one-to-one match of federal funds from all grant recipients—a match far exceeded by most grantees. On average, each NEA grant leverages at least seven dollars from other state, local, and private sources. Private support cannot match the leveraging role of government cultural funding. I

Log in to Reply
John Howell says

February 19, 2011 at 12:25 pm

Hi, Allen, and thanks for the interesting quotes. But I’m not sure how seriously to take the opinions expressed.

Firstly, I have to question his use of the loaded terms “serious modern composers” and “serious modern music.” Sure, I know exactly what he means: composers who believe that they are serious and that their music is serious, and are more than willing to tell us so! But can we honestly call “serious” any music that is so out of touch with the modern audience that it has no hope of earning any money for the composer, or any composer who produces such music and then tells us how “serious” it is? Doesn’t this have echos of the inmates running the asylum and defining the terms to fit their own world views?

And secondly, American “culture” (and I use the term losely!) has ALWAYS been a popular culture. We don’t have state orchestras or state opera companies or state ballet companies or state broadcasing companies that hire radio or TV orchestras and choruses, the way European countries have had for a very long time. We don’t provide education in the arts to the few who pass rigorous examinations to prove they are entitled to government support, we try to educate everyone in whatever field they like! Europeans rightly consider “The Arts” important to their cultures. We never have. We’ve ALWAYS left support of the Arts to the commercial marketplace, which means that it’s only the Arts that don’t support themselves in the marketplace that even get considered for Arts Council funding, which means that actual government support goes only to (with respect and apologies) the lunatic fringe who cannot generate actual support for their work, which in turn means that government support is an easy target for politicians to attack. That’s called a “self-fulfilling prophesy”!

And semantics are important. You say that choral music “has suffered a huge drop in popularity in the last century.” Given the number of audition announcements, concert announcements, and leadership position announcements posted right here on ChoralNet every month, I would have to question that statement. But even if there is objective evidence that it’s true, there’s an important semantic distinction to be made. SINGING has not seen a huge drop in popularity. Far from it. Just look at the Grammy Awards, and at how many categories are purely instrumental compared with those involving singing. No, it’s the TRADITIONAL choral approach that has become less popular, less exciting, and closer to a museum function than at any other time in music history. I happen to believe that the museum function, keeping alive and well our long musical heritage, is VERY important. A good amount of my own time over the past 40 years has been devoted to just that. But another good amount of my time has been devoted to contemporary entertainment music in various forms, and that is ALSO very important.

But where these two thread some together is simple: If “The Arts” are to be dependent on success in the commercial marketplace, then they are going to change with the times because we no longer have a culture in which the artistic tastes of a small, elite, wealthy social class determines what is important and what is not, but one in which “the people” vote with their feet and with their credit cards on what “arts” are important TO THEM. And you probably can’t have it both ways at the same time.

All the best,

John

Log in to Reply

Con: Arts funding

Connect with us!

Recent Blogs

American Choral Directors Association

Reader Interactions

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Footer

Connect with us!

Recent Blogs

American Choral Directors Association