 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: EuGeneSee
Date: 2009-02-15 14:17
Here's the text of a letter recently sent out by the Connecticutt Opera . . . a foreboding of things to come as we struggle through the current economic malaise?
It is painful to read a letter such as this:
"January 29, 2009
Dear Friend of Connecticut Opera:
Next month will mark the 67th Anniversary of the first performance by Connecticut Opera. Unfortunately, its passing will not be met with great celebration as we must regrettably inform you that Connecticut Opera is the latest victim of the current economic crisis facing our nation.
Last night our Board of Trustees approved a plan to cancel the production of our final two operas of the season: The Daughter of the Regiment and La bohème. The decision to cancel the rest of the season is not one that was easily made.
The reality of our situation is that ticket sales for Connecticut Opera in a normal season cover less than 40% of the cost of producing the high-quality opera you have grown to expect from us over the past 67 years. This year, however, we are facing enormous economic challenges including a slow down in ticket sales and increased difficulty in raising charitable gifts and sponsorships. This combination has made it financially impossible for us to complete the season.
We know that you, like each member of our staff, will have many questions about Connecticut Opera’s future, but it will take a few weeks before we will have clear answers. We ask that you give our Board of Trustees the necessary time to develop a plan for our future.
On behalf of the Board of Trustees, Management, Staff and Artists of Connecticut Opera, we wish to extend our sincerest appreciation for your support and understanding during this very difficult time.
Sincerely,
John Kreitler, Board Chairman
Brooks Joslin, Board President
Willie Anthony Waters, Artistic Director
Linda Jackson, Managing Director "
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-02-15 15:08
Yes, it is sad. The Baltimore Opera company has recently gone into chapter 11 and cancelled the remaining two operas, they do three - four productions a year. Also, the Baltimore Chamber Orchestra just had to cancel their season. It's getting more and more difficult for freelancers to find work. Most, if not all, the major arts organizations are running larger and larger deficits. Guess which party still wants to cut out funds for the Arts? After all, the arts don't produce jobs, unless of course you happen to be one of hundreds of thousands that work in the "Arts", directly or indirectly. The BSO just laid off five staff members and cut staff salaries to help balance our budget. Let's hope things begin to turn around soon. ESP www.peabody.jhu.edu/457
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2009-02-15 15:29
Ed Palanker wrote:
> fter all, the arts don't produce jobs, unless of
> course you happen to be one of hundreds of thousands that work
> in the "Arts", directly or indirectly.
The "Arts" have always "depended on the kindness of strangers", from ancient times until now.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EuGeneSee
Date: 2009-02-15 16:57
This morning, after I posted that letter, I was chatting on-line with Raoul Camus up in NY, and he said there was more that wasn't mentioned in the letter . . . the CT Opera is so broke that they put out the word that they don't have the money to refund the season ticket subscribers, so those payments will be considered as having been made as donations!
Now the Arkansas Symphony Orchestra is continuing with a series of guest conductors as auditioners for their Conductor position. Are these the guys losing their jobs elsewhere? Are they vying for a ticket to board the unsinkable Titanic?
The kindness of strangers might not be there now because a lot of them are broke . . . if the economy didn't bite 'em, some Ponzi scheme did.
Eu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2009-02-15 18:14
Hence the problem with large-scale classical ensembles... they're simply not financially viable with ticket sales alone. Simply a fact of life for them that when donors don't have a bunch of money to throw around, they fold. They'll be back in some form or another when things recover. Until then, there's a handy void that could be filled by versatile, high quality chamber groups.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2009-02-15 19:57
Recently, our daughter-in-law, who sings for/in the San Jose [CA] Opera [among others] sent us info re: a proposed amendment to the Stimulus Bill [package] by our junior Senator Tom Coburn, R, OKLA, to ban stimulus help for many "pursuits" including the Arts. Happily, since then, it is not included in the agreed/passed [BIG] bill. Tom has now lost my partial support of some of his better issues. {Too much politics, MC, GBK ??}. Let's hope for some help to our ailing, valuable Arts community. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EuGeneSee
Date: 2009-02-15 20:05
I got an e-mail from another friend that said the the Connecticut Concert Opera (CCO) is in much better financial condition and has been getting resumes from folks at the sinking CO, as well as inquiries and subscriptions from former CO patrons.
Maybe the tight times will not shut down the arts, but rather thin out the ranks where there are several "competing" orchestras & operas . . . same with other art venues, manufacturing, retail outlets, etc.
Even in the Big Apple, Eve Queler has closed the OONY for the season, and the NYCOpera is struggling. I suppose when times are tight, the arts must combine, as you can't afford to have a theatre or concert hall in every block.
Eu
EEBaum wrote:
> Hence the problem with large-scale classical ensembles...
> they're simply not financially viable with ticket sales alone.
> Simply a fact of life for them that when donors don't have a
> bunch of money to throw around, they fold. They'll be back in
> some form or another when things recover. Until then, there's
> a handy void that could be filled by versatile, high quality
> chamber groups.
>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-02-15 21:09
Very few politicians have been real friends of the arts- regardless of party affiliation. The NEA's budget was cut almost in half during Clinton's tenure in office and has been slowly growing since.
It's very disgusting that the current congress can throw away billions of dollars yet give so little for the arts. I'm still waiting to see Obama's first ever presidential arts platform go into action, but I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EuGeneSee
Date: 2009-02-15 21:49
Did I not hear something from Obama back during the campaign to the effect that he was going to establish a cabinet position similar to the Arts and Culture Minister that is common in the civilized world?
Then, only the most naive folks believe that campaign promises are for any purpose other than getting votes. Once the votes have been cast, something like the arts doesn't have enough pull to be bothered with. Joe lunchbox, for some reason, doesn't go to symphonies, operas, ballets, art galleries, or anything else that doesn't come from tin pan alley, Nashville, or Hollywood.
So, maybe we need to change the minds of Joes and Josephines starting back in kindergarten . . . but then who would fund it? It's a chicken and egg game, and only gets worse when the economy slows down.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2009-02-15 22:07
> So, maybe we need to change the minds of Joes and Josephines starting
> back in kindergarten . . . but then who would fund it? It's a chicken and egg
> game, and only gets worse when the economy slows down.
Not necessarily - when art and music is part of everyday culture, then their part in our everyday life is astonishingly stable, despite economic problems and all.
Maybe the values, the "need to haves" of a society manifest themselves clearer in a crisis, devoid of all "nice to haves". We now can see better what to work on....
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-02-15 22:14
Eugene,
I don't know about a minister of culture or "arts czar" (very good image for the arts by the way- ha) as I have seen it referred to. What I remember the arts platform being was a major boost in the NEA's budget, improved arts curriculum in public schools, and the creation of a new arts corps (similar to Greenpeace I suppose). Perhaps this, like many campaign promises, was only a farce.
I completely agree that the arts education in America is abysmal. There needs to be much more govt. spending, but until congress gets control of their checkbook this isn't likely to happen. Also, there needs to be some more initiative by artists who are quick to complain but slow to do anything about the problem.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EuGeneSee
Date: 2009-02-15 22:37
Thus spaketh Ben: "Not necessarily - when art and music is part of everyday culture, then their part in our everyday life is astonishingly stable, despite economic problems and all."
That's where the chicken & egg game hits us between the eyes . . . since the urchins are basically all exposed to the art and music of the everyday world through popular music, TV, movies, etc. from birth on up, the vast majority never learns to appreciate classical music, opera, ballet, painting, sculpture, etc. during their early formative years. By the time they hit the teen years most are hopelessly lost.
Then as voting adults, they don't have the interest in pushing their elected leaders to support education in the arts in early childhood, so yet another generation grows up with little interest in the fine arts . . . and so ad infinitum.
Somehow, an adult population with a small interest in the finer arts has to support teaching those arts to those highly absorbtive young minds in order to ultimately create a populace where " . . . art and music is part of everyday culture . . ." That's a big hurdle to overcome when you must begin with an "everyday culture" whose concept of art is overwhelmingly centered around rock 'n' roll, country and western, bluegrass, and other forms of pop music.
We raise the kids in a "symphony/opera/ballet/other fine art = YUCK!" society, so why should any politician care about the arts -----> there ain't no votes there!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-02-15 23:12
Mark wrote, the "Arts" have always "depended on the kindness of strangers", from ancient times until now.
The last thing I would want is to have our government "support" the arts but I would love for them to help A bit more. The money local and national governments collect from arts organizations is mind boggling, directly and indirectly. Think about this, when the BSO had the longest orchestra strike in the USA history in the 80s five restaurants went out business stating that they relied on symphony patrons supporting them. We were on strike for 23 weeks. Without a symphony in Baltimore 150 people would not be employed in this area. Just think of the sales tax the city and state collects from ticket sales and parking and all the tax the employers pay in payroll and federal, state and local income tax. All the tax the BSO members pay in sales tax when purchasing items in the community not to mention property tax homeowner’s pay, and most of us are homeowners. Then there are all the restaurants that manage to stay in business because we bring patrons into the area and their employee’s pay all the same taxes as the BSO members. Multiply that by the dozens and dozens of orchestras and other art organizations and I bet the governments collect much more money directly or indirectly than they pay out in "support" of the arts in America, and some in congress want to eliminate the NEA. Every time an orchestra, opera, theatre or what ever closes down the community losses much more than simply "art". They lose a tax base that extends much further then just the people they employ. ESP www.peabody.jhu.edu/457
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2009-02-15 23:31
Ed Palanker wrote:
> Without a symphony in Baltimore
> 150 people would not be employed in this area.
It's really a drop in the bucket, isn't it? 150 people isn't even a blip here, hardly makes the village news anymore. When you need continuous (and I mean since inception) subsidies to survive then you can't figure on a sustainable business model - it's not a "regular" business anymore - profit and loss are no longer in the picture when you depend on charity. I'm not arguing that public funding of the arts isn't a good thing, but it will always be at the whim of the donors, whether it be private, public, or church-based.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-02-16 02:23
"Subsidies to survive then you can't figure on a sustainable business model." Mark, my answer is this, how about our automobile and banking industry?
Mark I think you missed my point, or rather I did not make it clear enough. The 150 people that the BSO employs is only the beginning, there are the restaurants in the area that rely on our patrons, the garage workers, the printers for our programs, the advertising we pay for, the contactors that do repairs, the utilities we pay for and on and on and on, it goes way beyond the 150 people that simply work for the BSO. I also thought I made a good point about all the taxes that we, and all the other people that rely on our income, pay into the community. That’s a great deal more then we get back in the tiny subsidies we get. Those taxes would not be there if we weren’t Multiply that by the 40-50 major orchestras plus all the smaller ones, the theaters, the museum, the art shows and chamber music events, the music festivals and it turns into a very substantial amount of people that either make their living directly from or partly from the arts, not to mention all those earning a living from the musicians that work in these orchestra. Many of them too would be out of business, or not employ as many workers as they do. There is no end to the amount of workers that benefit for the arts for their living. I am not calling for anything near a full funding, not even close. But when our government can give hundreds of billions to help other industries I don't think a million here and there is too much to ask. It's like asking for a dollar from someone that earns a hundred million a year to help those in need. Yes, the arts, all of them, must be mostly by donations but a few cents from the government when things get tough is not unreasonable. Also consider this, they spend more money on music in the armed forces than for all the orchestras, museums and theaters combined but I'm grateful, I have many students playing in those military bands and they do a great service because our military realizes the importance of music in our society and is willing to fund it. I'm talking pennies by comparison. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EuGeneSee
Date: 2009-02-16 02:34
Of course I wasn't suggesting that the government should give direct support to the arts, which would ultimately make them totally dependent upon the dole . . . the self-perpetuating welfare syndrome.
Inasmuch as the government pays for public education anyway, then having more fine arts introduced at the lowest grades, would over time make the public much more attuned to them, and much more likely to support them. The arts would then be more likely to become of a major part of our everyday culture.
My love for classical music, operas, ballet, etc. didn't come about because of it being a part of our family life (my parents were pop music fans who had never been to a symphony concert, opera, or ballet) or anything I ever was exposed to in school (I never had one iota of training in any of the fine arts prior to college).
No, I came upon my musical taste quite serendipitously at about age 5 or 6 when an Uncle gave me a big old wooden 1930ish Zenith radio with a round dial about the size of a dinner plate, a green "seeing eye" tuning indicator, and SHORT WAVE BANDS!! He had to put it into my room, because I couldn't even drag that heavy thing. From that point in time I could turn that beast on at night and fall to sleep to great music like I had never heard before. That was my early fine arts introduction and schooling.
That music came from England, Russia, Italy, Germany, etc., and those folks were playing beautiful music with lots of instruments, not like what the AM stations (FM wasn't much in those days) played . . . pop or country, usually with but a few instruments, like guitars, a fiddle, banjo, and a drum set!
If all kids were taught about the fine arts from the earliest age and all the way through school, I would imagine the average attendance at concerts, operas, and ballets would be several times what is is in our current culture. Art galleries, exhibits, etc. would be much more popular than they are now. T.C. Mits (the common man in the street) would be a much greater supporter of the arts than today, and economies of scale would make art venues much more financially secure.
Eu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike Blinn
Date: 2009-02-16 05:08
I subscribe to the Connecticut Opera and the cancellation of the last two productions is very sad. My friends and I so looked forward to Donizetti's 'La Fille du Régiment', and Puccini's 'La Boheme' which was to be staged with an all-black cast.
This came out of the blue: the opera had sent out magnificent brochures before the season began, and the opening opera, Mozart's 'Don Giovanni' was wonderful. The large Bushnell audience in Hartford gave it a standing ovation. But a second performance in a new venue in Waterbury did not break even, and the board called it quits. So I'm out $120 for the two tickets.
However this is America and we take care of each other. Other organizations have come forward to help alleviate the situation. The worthless tickets can be now exchanged ticket-for-ticket at the Hartford Stage, the Hartford Symphony, or TheaterWorks, which is considering a revival of 'Master Class' to satisfy the opera audience, which is considerable here in Connecticut.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2009-02-16 05:31
It would need one or two generations to bring these Arts back to John and Jane, probably more as long as TV is depending on advertising.
Paintings, sculptures and (at least some) classic music take time to ingest, and time is what we pretend not to be having. Sitting and contemplating doesn't fit into a time where the average attention span of an adult is some 10 seconds (reading an ad) or 3 minutes (reading a newspaper article). Now imagine a whole concert with just one (if any) intermission, with Generation Ritalin!
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2009-02-16 07:40
Brycon wrote:
<< Also, there needs to be some more initiative by artists who are quick to complain but slow to do anything about the problem.>>
Bingo! We're all the first to line up to audition when a job opening is announced, but most of us are the last to take matters into our own hands to start ensembles of our own. Compared to just about any other type of music, we really suck at marketing and at innovating and drawing in new audiences.
The audiences are out there. The response I get in casual conversation with non-musicians and non-classical-aficionados is very positive. They tend to be at least peripherally interested in going to classical-type concerts, and remember any they've been to as good experiences. It's in the presentation that we lose them. Concerts are an ordeal to plan for and go to... heck, I even decided against going to see the NY Phil when they were in town once because I had so much trouble trying to buy a ticket, and I'm a seasoned classical-attender. We've so resigned ourselves to being our own woe-is-our-dwindling-art ivory-tower museum-pieces that, while we put out the word of our concerts, we secretly expect that people who aren't already really into it won't be interested.
If we're resigned to keeping our music primarily in concert halls, played by enormous, financially infeasible ensembles that on some level are assumed to play high culture for the educated elite, then yes, we'll have troubled times. If, though, we form quartets to play in coffee houses, like ALMOST EVERY OTHER GENRE OF MUSIC OUT THERE, and perhaps market orchestras as "like the quartet in the coffee house but TWENTY TIMES MORE AWESOME!!!" we might get a different reception.
Even with smaller ensembles, we seem to like putting ourselves in smaller halls and libraries and churches, which is fine, but which is also limiting our appeal and perceived relevance. You won't find a tribute band to KISS or the Beatles playing in a library.
There's also the problem of repertoire and consistency of expectations... if you go to see Willie Nelson or Neil Young or 50 Cent, you know what type of thing you're going to hear. If you go to see the L.A. Phil, you may hear some Bartok Concerto for Orchestra awesomeness, or you may be put to sleep by Bruckner 6. There's research to do, not even to become educated about the piece, but to just figure out if it's something you'd like to hear! For us that have been around a while, we can feel it out pretty well. For the classical n00b, it may not be worth the risk.
I think that if we present ourselves in a way that suggests we are culturally relevant for today, the rest of culture may give us a more serious look. We can be relevant to common life in addition to the high art society we currently excel at, but until we as a whole are willing to relate to society at large, we'll have a hard time getting society at large to consider us relevant for purposes of "because it's important" rather than "because we're told it's important by people who seem to be smart."
It's fairly clear to me that action reinvigorating support for the arts is not terribly likely to originate from an edict from on high, but if we get off our waiting-for-the-next-audition-while-hoping-the-orchestra-doesn't-go-under butts and explore possibilities on our own initiative, I think it can happen.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-02-16 08:57
Orchestras (and other arts organizations) having financial troubles is certainly nothing new. Here's an interesting Time Magazine article about this phenomenon from 1969:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,942093,00.html
Like other posters indicated, I think education is central to getting people in the concert halls. Quite frankly I think there are a lot of people who might be more inclined to go to concerts if they knew a little more about what they are going to hear.
For example, anyone who buys a John Williams soundtrack album is a potential classical music lover, whether they realize it or not. Those of us who are familiar with the "classical" repertoire sometimes chuckle about how John Williams "steals" from the great composers. You know what that demonstrates, though? A lot of ordinary people actually like classical music--they just don't know enough about composers and their styles to connect the musical ideas they hear and enjoy to the composers they were inspired by. They don't realize that a concert of music by Mahler or Stravinsky may very well sound a lot like that soundtrack they liked so much. Consequently, they're less likely to pay to go to a symphony concert when they don't have a clue what they're paying to hear. It's no big secret that some pieces are more accessible to the lay listener than others, but the general public often doesn't know enough to have any inkling as to what they might like to hear, and they don't have the time or the money to buy subscription tickets, so they just don't go.
When I was in college I was a church musician for a while. The pianist and I would sometimes play an instrumental piece or two while people were entering the church. One of the pieces we'd play was the Adagio from the Mozart Concerto. To my amazement, there were quite a number of people who not only liked the piece but also *remembered* hearing it before because they had seen "Out of Africa." They didn't know it was Mozart, but they remembered enjoying it as part of the soundtrack to that movie.
Also, I think that if the general public were better educated about classical music, orchestras might not have to rely so much on (often very expensive) guest artists/soloists to bring in crowds. If you look at the typical symphony season brochure, they spend a lot of space touting what great guest artists they have that season, as if the orchestra is some kind of glorified accompanist. I tend to think that the more educated the public is about classical music, the easier it is to attract audiences based on familiarity of the programming selections, as opposed to familiarity of guest performers. As I understand it, the cost of a single guest performer's appearance on one night, in some cases, is enough to pay an orchestra member's entire annual salary. No wonder orchestras run deficits.
From the musical side of things, I think there is a real need for orchestras to play *new*, but *accessible* music. It's high time for a new generation of great American composers to come out of the woodwork and write music that is not only fresh and sophisticated, but also at least somewhat accessible to the lay listener. And to the extent that there are composers out there producing high quality work of this nature, why isn't their music being promoted? Who and where are the Aaron Coplands and Samuel Barbers of today? Did serialism and minimalism kill the symphony?
Post Edited (2009-02-16 08:58)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2009-02-16 10:35
Ed Palanker wrote:
> "Subsidies to survive then you can't figure on a sustainable
> business model." Mark, my answer is this, how about our
> automobile and banking industry?
>
> Mark I think you missed my point, or rather I did not make it
> clear enough.
No, I got the point, but when you're looking at industries that are shedding 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 jobs (with the 100,000, 200,000, 300,000 or more indirect jobs), the 150 isn't even a drop in the bucket. The proportion of indirect jobs lost are the same for everyone. My department has lost about 3500 people locally - you can imagine how many stores and restaurants have gone under in the last year.
Many of the large donors and supporters of the arts have been the large industrial companies and their subsidiaries. The support of those 150 people was more akin to "indirect jobs" for them since they relied on 60% of their income in the form of grants, etc.. When companies and families go into survival mode those non-essential services get shut down fast.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Puwalski
Date: 2009-02-16 12:04
Why would anybody think that Symphony Orchestras would not be subject to any or all of the forces that act on all "Acts" that appear on stage and in theaters. If a broadway show starts to have 3/4 of a house, a close date is arrived at. If any performing organization is not making it on ticket sales eventually it will cease to be viable.
As hard as it is to admit, classical music in the USA is not a viable art form. And by viable I mean can exist without massive amount of "contributions" from business or government. Sorry to say that's the same as it is for Jazz. Phil Woods said once that he can barely keep his quartet together in the USA and he could do 2 shows a day 7 days a week in Italy.
Years ago, I was in a lesson with a clarinetist who is a member of a Balto-DC major orchestra, when leaving the lesson I remarked that it was time for both of us to head to our "Government" gigs. This clarinetist was incensed with my statement and said, " I don't have a government gig". I was going to an Army Field Band concert this person was heading to an Orchestra concert. His orchestra received more money from the Uncle Sam than the Field Band. The Field Band's budget was 100% government funding, this Orchestra was about 50% but the dollar amount higher. So, is that a government gig?
The major difference was I was being paid to play the clarinet and do a commercial for the U.S Army. We did it by putting on a show that people wanted to hear, AND WE WERE A FREE Concert! I can't remember in 20 years of doing that playing for less than a packed house.
Think it's bad for Orchestras? It could be worse you could be a record company. Try to sell a CD these days, not too many orchestras have recording contracts anymore, why because no one will buy them.
There is a ray of hope Andre Rieu and his "new" Strauss Orchestra will probably sell out the His concert in Baltimore and $100 is the cheapest ticket. Play music that people want to hear, dress the women up in colorful gowns and smile for every note you'll make a living! or you could get a DMA
Come on people hasn't P.T. Barnum taught us anything?
Tom Puwalski, a clarinetist who plays music that people want to hear AND pay for.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nessie1
Date: 2009-02-16 16:08
Come on people hasn't P.T. Barnum taught us anything?
Do you mean "There is a sucker born every minute?" (lol)
Vanessa.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2009-02-16 17:55
Tom who plays music that people want to hear AND pay for:
I feel the picture is a little more complex than playing what people want to hear. If you were to do this always, then art would be in a sorry state.
Although I agree that many large orchestra/musical organizations are poorly run and tend to target a very specific elitist audience, I believe there is room for making more money and being adventurous in your programming.
Paying a conductor millions of dollars (Mazel makes ~2) as if s/he was an international star is ludicrous. How many people in the world know Karajan vs. Michael Jackson (or Michael Jordan)?
At the same time funding the arts to experiment with art is fundamental to our society. It is as important as funding scientists to experiment with science. It helps us discover where we are coming from, who we are and where we are headed.
Not everything has to be profitable. A (not so) bad analogy is a public transportation system. Probably most of it is not profitable, yet if one only keeps the lines that make revenue, the system as whole loses its identity and probably ends up failing in the long run.
But yes today's economic reality is overshadowing other less immediate concerns, arts being in the front line. Just look at this web site, it's been way too long since Mark started the donation drive.
My answer to this, is that even in the poorest of poorest communities, art exists, strives even. It is as indispensable to our daily lives as breathing clean air, we are just too blind to realize it.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
Post Edited (2009-02-16 17:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2009-02-16 18:20
> A (not so) bad analogy is a public transportation system. Probably most of it
> is not profitable, yet if one only keeps the lines that make revenue, the
> system as whole loses its identity and probably ends up failing in the long
> run.
That very much depends how you are calculating. If you consider all externally paid costs (eg pollution is not paid for by the car driver but the whole society; the cost of freightliners waiting in congested roads is added to the product price etc), then public transportation could be profitable.
But I digress.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2009-02-16 18:28
> That very much depends how you are calculating. If you consider
> all externally paid costs (eg pollution is not paid for by the
> car driver but the whole society; the cost of freightliners
> waiting in congested roads is added to the product price etc),
> then public transportation could be profitable.
Exactly my point, although at first sight, cutting costs by eliminating "service" lines seems the most reasonable thing to do, in the long run it does a disservice to both the community and the shareholders...
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-02-17 17:08
I find this fascinating. One industry has received 17 billion dollars, that's with a B. That equates to 17000 millions dollars to help save at least a million jobs. I support this entirely; I believe it’s needed, both the jobs and the industry, no problem. Tom P told us that one orchestra received 50% of their expenses from the government yet the entire NEA budget is only 50 millions dollars for all the arts in the USA, that’s all the arts combined and some want to cut that. Start up organizations, museums, music, art theatre etc. Already we know that the Conn. Opera has closed down, the Baltimore Opera and chamber orchestra has closed down, The BSO has layed off staff as I’m sure many other orchestra and art originations are doing. Those people are just as unemployed as anyone else, no job is no job. I know at least one major orchestra has cut salaries by 11% and many more will follow and close down. 17 Billion to save a million jobs, good, how about a few millions to save a few thousand jobs that also help serve the public.
Yes, we get federal gov’t money in the BSO. Once in while we get a small grant to do education or outreach concerts, never just money to balance our budget. We do get less then 5% of our budget from the state and local gov’t, also with strings attached often, and that’s OK, we need to do educational concerts. And the state of MD just cut that grant by 2/3 adding to an already growing deficit because donations are down for obvious reasons. You know, a job is a job is a job. A few billions here and there, why not a few millions here and there. As I said before, saving arts organizations from going under is like a person making a million dollars a year giving an organization a single dollar to help save a job. I’m not advocating the gov’t supporting the arts, only throwing a few crumbs to help save those jobs, as well as a service to their community in tough times like these. Just a few crumbs. It’s just as much being unemployed if you’re laid off from the opera company that went under, as you are if the auto industry is not selling cars. It’s still unemployed. This is my last word on the subject because I know I can't change peoples minds that believe in what they believe. At least the staff person on the unemployment line that lost their job because the opera company went under or they got laid off from an orchestra wasn't making very much of a salary anyway, in most cases. Heck, they don't deserve a government bail out, even in crumbs. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-02-17 18:10
Ed Palanker wrote:
> Tom P told us that one orchestra
> received 50% of their expenses from the government yet the
> entire NEA budget is only 50 millions dollars for all the arts
> in the USA, that’s all the arts combined and some want to cut
> that.
The NEA's 2008 fiscal year budget was about $145 million dollars. At one point during George H. Bush's presidency it was close to $180 million. Under Clinton the NEA's budget was cut to $100 million, and it has grown under W. Bush to its current amount. Still, this amount is pocket change for the US govt: the city of New York spends more each year on the arts than the federal government.
This new round of stimulus spending to prop up various institutions that are perhaps bound to crumble eventually only highlights the governments interest (or lack thereof) in the arts. The founding generation- who were much more fiscally conservative than our so called conservative Republican Party- believed in the importance of education, sciences, and the arts. John Adams even wrote in the Massachusetts Constitution that it was one of the roles of the government to cherish and promote the arts. However, I suppose as long as politicians chief concern is rescuing large voting blocks from financial hardship and the flux of tax dollars constricts and expands accordingly, the band director will be the first to cut costs in schools and the symphony orchestra will go "out of business" relatively quietly.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-02-17 18:57
brycon wrote:
<<John Adams even wrote in the Massachusetts Constitution that it was one of the roles of the government to cherish and promote the arts.>>
What a nice statement. The closest thing in the U.S. Constitution (the patent and copyright clause in Art. I, Sec. 8) is, at best, an insult to the fine arts. This clause gives Congress the power to:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Yet another example of when it's a bad idea to take things too literally. No one in their right mind (not even a dyed-in-the-wool strict-constructionist like Justice Scalia) would argue in this day and age that Congress's applying copyright protection to music is unconstitutional, yet if you take the Constitution 100% literally, that's what it says. Crazy, no?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike Johnson
Date: 2009-02-17 23:19
The worst thing we can do for the arts is to get the government involved. Then you get art 'standards'. If the art is relevant, then it will find funding.
Mike Johnson
Napa, California
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-02-18 18:36
What art "standards?" The government is currently involved with arts- could you please elaborate?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-02-18 19:42
Mark,
As I understand it, the NEA awards grants based on artistic excellence (as determined by peer review). There are however, several other determining factors in grant giving.
In increasing order of constitutional difficulty:
1. Artistic excellence/peer review
2. Obscenity (as determined in Miller vs. CA 1973)
3. Subject Matter Restriction
ex.) Barring all political speeches versus only Republican speeches. This is where the first amendment comes into question. The NEA, with a limited amount of funds, must pick and choose which organizations and artists receive grants. If the govt. chooses to fund landscape paintings one year can a portrait artist complain of first amendment violation? I believe the NEA earmarks some funds each year for such occasions.
4. Viewpoint restriction
This is the cardinal sin against the first amendment and is always suspect.
This structuring presents several problems. For instance, if a project is passed by peer review as artistically excellent, how could it be struck down later on as obscene? If a project is denied like the link you provided, it may (and should) be constitutionally questioned. This is one of the positives about the system.
I think the main problem with the NEA is that it is NOT an endowment. Congress appropriates funds every year to the NEA, or should they so choose to, withhold funds. This leverage over the NEA is a major hindrance in my opinion. However, I think the solution is not to do away with the NEA, but rather to give them more funds and more leeway with grant giving.
Post Edited (2009-02-18 22:47)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2009-02-18 20:41
brycon wrote:
> If a project is
> denied like the link you provided, it may (and should) be
> constitutionally questioned. This is one of the positives
> about the system.
And it was - that was a Supreme Court decision.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
