I'll start by taking the unpopular artist position of saying, "I don't really think we deserve a bailout." Let's face it, the way things work right now, most arts groups work on a constant bailout system. We produce work that never supports itself and ask businesses, foundations and individuals to make up the difference for our desire to operate on a model of business that aspires for a 50/50 ratio of earned to unearned income. Come on. Does that seem like an ultimate recipe for disaster to anyone else?
And I'm not going to be shy about saying that it doesn't work. I'll even not be shy about noting that the much admired Milwaukee Shakespeare that was Artistic Directed very well by my wife rapidly when out of business when their "makeup fund" called The Argosy Foundation took some huge hits in the stock market. About 75% of Milwaukee Shakespeare was funded by Argosy, a situation that was the envy of some, and a great source of anxiety around my home. The simple economics of the situation didn't make sense ever--there was no way that Milwaukee Shakespeare would ever easily get that yoke off of its neck. That yoke being a very generous donor organization publicly profiled by the very public lover of art named Chris Abele. In that situation, the donor had all the power. I'm not into one side having so much power. I share. If you're every having lunch with me, I'll be happy to let you have half of my meatball hero.
And that's the heart of why I think bailouts are bad. It's a bad share of power for one end (the bailout giver) and it offers the bailout-ee the chance to continue fucking up with an infusion of cash. I can say from first hand knowledge that having someone pay your bills for you when you're strapped with no hard commitment for a payback is not a good idea. I was a bad business person in that respect when I ran my own theater company and the benificient Chris Abele and Argosy came to our rescue more than once. But it really never taught us great lessons. It also took me a long time to realize the benefits of spare living after too many well-intentioned bailouts by my ever-loving parents.
So, yeah, to me this whole national bailout thing reeks of a bad idea for the long term. I prefer to think of it as the National Enabling.
But, soon, more cash is going to be funneled into the system. And it must. Good God, I can't stand the number of "Final Sale-Going out of business!" signs I see popping up here, there and everywhere.
So, if we as a nation are going to get some cash to help fix the economy (such a better idea actually than Bush saying something like "here's an income tax refund, go buy a new DVD player") then artists deserve some of that emotionally wounding money, too.
The current measure that has gotten through the House and is on to the Senate this week has $50 million set aside for the arts. This money would basically go to state governments through increases to the National Endowment for the Arts. Maybe not as direct support as could really start a bonfire of artsy initiatives, but we'd be fools to imagine that a guy with an American eagle lapel pin would be walking around looking for men and women wearing black turtle necks and reading Brecht poems to hand them $100 bills (though the thought pleases me greatly).
This is why I'm suggesting you write your Senator immediately to urge them to support the arts getting some of this dirty feeling money. The bill will be hacked up in the Senate, no doubt, but I don't even think the Heritage Foundation can stop the arts getting some of this bailout money.
A quick way to do that is to visit The American for the Arts website and fill out their "letter to your public official" template. They've created all the language, and you can even personalize your message. It's easy, and The American for the Arts website is interesting to consider. Lots of good legislative shit their for wonk heads like you and me.
Go suck on the teat some more. It makes sense, even though it doesn't address fully fixing the bigger problem: A NEW WAY OF DOING THINGS FOR ALL ARTS INSTITUTIONS. (Like I have an answers for that one!)
1 smart alecky remarks:
no.
This makes no fucking sense to me, Artsy. How can you make such good arguments against bailouts and then turn around and tell us to ask for em?
The only reason Obama's bailouts look at all better than Bush's (and i'm still opposed to them anyway) is the fact that they're targeted to A. people who need the money, B. environmentally sustainable investment and C. innovative business practices.
This last one is the most important. The only positive thing to do with an economic downturn is find opportunities for change. Chances for new innovative entreprenuers to do things in a new, different, hopefully improved way.
Artists, who are supposed to be creative, innovative people, ought to be EXCITED about these kinds of opportunities. We oughta be pumped that all the stupid shallow consumerist shit that has eclipsed art in the last 50 years is taking a hit. Instead, so many of us are scared and mourning because the crutches we hobbled through that wave of consumerism with are becoming unecessary. It's bullshit.
There are artists and organizations that do see these opportunities, who ought to lead the way out of current crisis. but we all know they aren't going to see a dime of any bailout money. After the culture wars of the 80s no politician is going to risk the possibility that they endorsed spending money on profanity, smut, or critically engaged art work.
Funds going from the NEA to state governments is the best way to garauntee that the money will go to no one but the safest, least innovative, and therefore least deserving bailout recipients. More funding for these organizations means less interest in innovation, fewer opportunities for innovative arts organizations to gain a foothold. Which means a bailout for the arts is an especially stupid bailout that will amount to the worst instance of National Enabling.
Post a Comment