Fiscal inspiration, but not here

I came across the following:

Forgan called for both public and private funders to maintain their levels of investment in the arts, and for artists to see themselves not as victims of the recession but as a key part of its solution.

She said: “The arts council has three over-arching aims as we plan for the coming years - great art for everyone will be our mission in life. We will continue to support innovation and creative courage. And we will focus on recovery.

“Of course we understand that the national debt has to be tackled, but a few million off the arts budget is going to make no appreciable difference to that task. On the other hand it could undermine years of creative and financial investment. The arts council will do all it can to keep that investment in place. We cannot protect artists from the realities of recession, but we can be as imaginative, open and useful as possible in our efforts to get us all through this with minimal damage to the creative life of this country.”

Forgan added: “The real challenge for the arts sector is not to ask ‘what is the government going to do to help us?’ but ‘what can we do to help the country weather and recover from this downturn?’

“Showing that we can make a real contribution in even the most difficult of times will be the best case we can make for continued public investment in the arts through – and just as importantly – beyond the recession.”

I'd like to be encouraged by this quotation, particularly the bits about "innovation and creative courage" and "minimal damage to the creative life of this country" during the recession. But Liz Forgan -- who made the above statements -- is the chair of the Arts Council England.

Just imagine a U.S. government official saying "great art for everyone will be our mission in life." Kinda funny, huh? Has anyone heard any similarly committed and inspiring language from anyone at the National Endowment For The Arts? We all know that private individual giving is down these days. Probably corporate giving is down, too, and besides, most corporate giving for the arts became a form of marketing quid-pro-quo some time ago. It's also unlikely that state governments are able to do much to help right now.

The article from The Stage also cites some numbers. Despite a significant cutback, the ACE's main program, called "Grants For The Arts Budget," will grant £54 million next year; that's about $80 million. $80M for England, not the whole UK. England has about 51 million inhabitants, the US has 300 million. The budget of the National Endowment for the Arts is about $144 million. We have six times the population and less than twice the amount of national arts spending. If "A great nation deserves great art" as the NEA likes to trumpet, perhaps this "great nation" isn't so great as far as arts funding is concerned (but we knew that). The NEA would need an annual budget of around $500 million to be minimally competitive. In other words, just some disgraced CEO's income last year.

Imagine what we could have: thousands of free tickets for young people, more stable lives for artists, increased local tax revenues, more vital city centers and a more informed and outgoing populace overall.

The Royal Shakespeare Company regularly performs in the U.S, and internationally. Besides being a vital activity, such touring promotes tourism to the UK. They even have an American website to encourage U.S. donations. The RSC now employs a permanent company of actors for stretches of up to three years. Last summer, the RSC's artistic director, Michael Boyd, was scouting out a permanent performing space in New York City.

But could American theatres handle a real increase in arts funding? Would we spend on artists and audiences, or on buildings and managers? Can we envision productions with longer life-spans that would attract audiences and be worth showing to the rest of the world? Currently, no mainstream American theatre maintains a permanent company that would be worth the travel expense. Do any have the vision? Surely, none has the money. Great art deserves a great nation.