By DANIELLE KLINE and JASMINE MAHMOUD, FOUNDING EDITORS
Published: Issue 1, Summer 2009
Part of SPECIAL REPORT: The Arts & The Economy

Each issue’s policy brief is informed by the magazine’s contributors, TAP’s reporting, and additional research. This policy brief is written for policymakers, artists, activists, government officials, academics and citizens; it is written for those seeking to solve problems and progress arts policy.

***

Today’s snapshot of the American arts landscape is a decidedly economic one.  It is also bleak. Several institutions—Rose Museum at Brandeis University, Montclair Art Museum in New Jersey, and the Metropolitan Opera in New York City—are each slated to sell off their collections to fund economic exigencies. Arts organizations are folding, and some regular cultural happenings have ceased. Among them, the Milwaukee Shakespeare Theater Company, the Las Vegas Art Museum, Opera Pacific in Orange County, CA closed their doors; the JVC Jazz Festival—New York City’s summertime regular—will, in the summer of 2009, not take place for the first time in 37 years; and the Sacramento Ballet cancelled its remaining season. Heightened museum admissions fees now accompany already inaccessible ticket prices for theatre seats and music concerts. In 2008, the artist workforce shrank by 74,000 workers.

Under the current economic climate, many arts institutions continue to be inaccessible and unaffordable. Many arts organizations are closing or significantly changing their operating structures due to economic concerns.  Others are, at the very least, re-assessing their short- and long- term contingency plans. Make no mistake, successful artists and arts organizations abound. However, we remain concerned because we live in an America that continues to render public funding for the arts controversial. Earlier this year, artist involvement on Capitol Hill was largely part of a rigorous economic battle to secure a very scant amount of funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). We remain concerned because many government leaders proclaim the arts to be a successful tool for economic development and job creation, and yet, during precarious economic times, most turn a blind eye and render an empty hand. We want to live in an America where government leaders help to create a meaningful dialogue with the arts community. We believe we can live in an America that works together to learn the language of a clear and thoughtful plan for the arts.

When viewing the economic portrait of the arts, there are two details to keep in mind. The first: the arts revive economies. For cities seeking to foster robust economic, urban, and community development, an arts-conscious policy is an effective policy. The second detail: arts output into the economy is often much greater than arts input from the economy. In other words, artists and arts organizations often don’t reap the economic reward of the work that they sow.

Few emphasize this second detail so bluntly, but evidence of it is well-known.  Ask an artist about gentrification, and she’ll show you the trendy neighborhood she helped to pioneer, a neighborhood she can no longer afford to live in. “Arts districts” across the country—NYC’s East Village, LA’s Venice Beach—are evidence; many are no longer known as thriving arts communities, but rather as locations for high-end, celebrity-dense, architect condos. [For a longer list of these cities, see Doreen Jakob’s essay on page 33]. Where have all the artists gone and how will artists reap the economic seeds they have sown?

This economic portrait of the arts is not all bleak; after all, the arts community is enormously resourceful. During this economic downturn, artists and arts groups have engendered new work, partnerships, and means of inclusion. Their work reminds us that the arts are a necessary impetus for economic and community and educational and citizenship development, as well as for arts for arts sake. It is this economic lens—that is both bleak, and didactic—that informs this Arts Policy Brief.

Assessing public funding for the arts leads many to support economic policies as the sole type of arts policy. Take for example this year’s $50 million stimulus bonus for the NEA, or President Obama’s FY2010 budget proposal which includes $161 million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and $38.16 million for the Arts in Education program at the Department of Education, or the House’s FY2010 budget proposal which includes $170 million for both the NEA and NEH—the highest funding level in fifteen years.  We applaud the White House, the President, and Congress for these (proposed) budgetary increases to the arts.

However, much more can be done. The current economic lens calls for a drastic re-thinking of arts policy that is not just led by economic policy. Rather, a progressive arts policy means a long-term investment in our cultural future that promotes inclusion, sustainability and progress. To advance such development, arts policy must come from language, positioning, education, partnerships, policy, as well as funding. Arts policy must come from the arts community, from activists, and from policymakers. The Arts Politic has chosen to articulate such a policy, which includes robust, diverse proposals that can be started today, or in the near future.

Build and disseminate the historical record of arts policy and activism. Policies that harm the arts are often enacted merely because the history of arts policy/activism is not well-known. [See our interviews with Judy Baca, who discusses how community-created, history-keeping murals were painted over in L.A.; and with Dudley Cocke, who speaks pointedly about the changes that overcame the NEA in 1997 that wiped out 90% of funding for Roadside Theater]. Mal-effects of undone arts policy are widespread: cultural sites are damaged or lost, community-development regresses, arts districts are replaced by condos and parking lots, and arts leaders are left re-painting the lost portrait of the historical arts memory for each new Administration. Many local, state, and federal government officials are now being re-familiarized with the nuts and bolts of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Federal One (the collective term for the Federal Writers’ Project, Federal Theatre Project, Federal Music Project, Federal Art Project, and Historical Records Survey), as well as with the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), started in 1973, which trained workers for jobs in public service.

Every policymaker should receive a consistent briefing from the arts community that gives an overview of arts policy history, mistakes, triumphs, as well as consistent suggestions of possible arts polices. Building the historical record is a low-cost way to integrate arts sustainability into arts policy and activism decisions. Artists: invite policymakers to your performances, openings and screenings. Arts Councils: work with your community to make a historical record of arts policies, activism and events, and to disseminate this record to policymakers. Policymakers: listen, listen, and listen closely. Understand carefully how the legislation and partnerships you enact and the language you use affects the arts community, often in subtle, albeit profound ways.

***

Reposition “Arts” in a Place of Prominence on Whitehouse.gov. “Arts” is not among the twenty-two issues listed within the main “Issues” drop-down menu on Whitehouse.gov. Rather “Arts” is listed on the “Additional Issues” page, with a three-sentence description:

Our nation’s creativity has filled the world’s libraries, museums, recital halls, movie houses, and marketplaces with works of genius. The arts embody the American spirit of self-definition. As the author of two best-selling books—Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope—President Obama uniquely appreciates the role and value of creative expression.

The secondary placement of “Arts” may seem to be a small issue; however, Whitehouse.gov is a significant website committed to providing thoughtful, intelligent information to all citizens and its language and framing of issues has a tremendous effect on national positioning and economic support. “Arts” should be placed within the primary Issues section of the website; and accompanied (like the other primary issues are) by consistent press releases of policies affecting the arts. By repositioning “Arts,” the White House will also set an example for state and local governments to raise the online profile of the arts on their websites. By including this information and additional arts-related events, blogs and video posts, as well as a more robust description of the arts in the United States, the White House will be signaling its commitment to the arts as they are, and as they are envisioned to be. Here’s a suggested description from the Editors:

Our nation’s creativity is all around us in the form of hard-working mothers and fathers, students, activists, professionals, and scholars, most of whom will never receive mention, many of whom work two- and three- jobs so that they can provide for their families and organize powerful community dialogue, empower thoughtful citizen engagement, and ultimately, creativity to our great nation through their work in the arts and cultural industries, a powerful field for job creation. While arts and creativity fill our venerable institutions, it is important to recognize that the arts also fill our sidewalks with illuminating street art and murals; our slam poetry clubs with artistic words that engage in conscious-raising dialogue; and our live-work studios with innovative, forward-thinking uses of space. A strong arts environment creates empowered people and spaces to grow. A strong arts environment fosters diversity, tolerance, compassion, education and unity—global citizenship values—and engenders a stronger, more informed, and more responsible America.

***

Revitalize shuttered communities with partnerships that leverage the arts. Across the nation, once thriving neighborhoods and districts, are now notable for “for lease” and “for sale” signs. The “empty storefront district” is ever-present and ominous. Artists can play a large role in economic recovery and community re-development by revitalizing neighborhoods where businesses and residents have left. Local and state policymakers should work more proactively with neighborhood and city development agencies, universities, businesses, and artists to create partnerships that  grant artists and arts organizations free- or low-cost rent of vacant spaces in exchange for art that contributes to community development such as low-cost classes, regular concerts and film screenings, the creation of public works, and citizen involvement.

***

Re-think tax codes to better incentivize artists and for-profit arts businesses committed to the arts as a public good. The not-for-profit arts model expanded after the NEA was established in 1965, along with the nonprofit tax-exempt code that encouraged fundraising and empowered foundations. Yet nonprofit theatres, museums, and performance galleries were primarily formed for aesthetic reasons rather than economic goals, often to present eclectic- or socially-conscious work and to expand theatre communities as an antidote to the commercialism, inaccessibility and narrowness of work presented in for-profit spaces. Today, there are limitations to the non-profit model, and in the past decade a flurry of for-profit (or not-just-for-profit) arts businesses committed to producing art, in part for the public good, have grown up.

Tax codes should benefit these businesses, with, for example, tax write-offs for low-cost concerts or classes that benefit the public. Tax codes must also better benefit artists who contribute to the public good. One example is the Artist-Museum Partnership Act (H.R. 1126 and S.405) introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate by Congressmen John Lewis (D-GA) and Todd Platts (R-PA) and Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Robert Bennett (R-UT) designed to allow artists to take a tax deduction for the fair market value of donated works.

***

Tie public funding of arts organizations to greater inclusion. The arts should be for all. Yet, many arts groups that receive city, state and/or national funding still have economically-prohibitive admissions fees.  Mandate that arts organizations that receive public funding (or perhaps a certain level of public funding) practice inclusive public engagement methods. This could be regular free admission days at the museum, $5 symphony tickets, or suggested pricing night at the theatre. This could be the encouragement of partnerships that produce free concerts, which bring art to the people.

***

Increase arts business know-how and foster entrepreneurship among arts organizations. Some arts groups suffer due to lack of knowledge about how to run their businesses financially. Theatres, and music venues, and art galleries are businesses too—their economic growth should be situated within the business community, and they should be encouraged to harness economic and business tools, such as Small Business Association courses. There are also economic issues particular to arts businesses (lack of high profit margins on ticket sales, for example).  To persist in the 21st century, arts businesses deserve a large-scale re-thinking of business to identify means to grow and sustain the arts; this re-thinking can come from arts entrepreneurial summits or conversations about ways to harness technology to create more viable arts economic models.

***

Create an Office of the Arts. Many arts advocates, such as Quincy Jones, have called on the Obama Administration to create a Department of the Arts and Cultural Affairs. The impetus towards a national department comes in part out of frustration with the National Endowment of the Arts, a limited funding agency that primarily serves nonprofit arts spaces (instead of for-profit arts businesses and individual artists). The impetus also comes from the perceived benefit of a Department of the Arts. Consider the dramatically heightened impact of local and state arts councils (especially post 9/11 when national arts funding drastically decreased during the Bush administration) that has produced strong state arts programs, funding and advocacy. Nationally, there is a need for a place to root arts history, policies, development, advocacy, connections, activism, and funding, as a means to advance the arts.

A Department of the Arts may be long off, but the creation of a smaller-scale Office of the Arts would be a boon to advancing arts policies. Currently, the Obama Administration’s “arts staff” are clustered within the Office of Public Engagement and within other agencies; all have other duties outside of the arts. An Office of the Arts could cull policy briefs from arts advocacy groups; build the arts activism record; foster economic literacy and better funding practices among arts groups; learn from state agencies to spread working arts policies; lead national efforts to revitalize downturn communities with arts partnerships; foster new conversations among artists, activists and policymakers; and ultimately forge a new bold presence for the arts in education, civic engagement, the economy and our society. TAP