 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2010-08-04 04:04
"Officials are calling for a permanent shift toward the U.S. model of private philanthropy as the main benefactor of the arts"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/03/AR2010080306964.html?hpid=topnews
It appears that we have become an unfortunate example of how the arts should be patronized. Granted, each country is facing it's own unique set of economic factors and must discover their own solution to those challenges.
The article states that aside from health care every sector will receive cuts, but that cuts to the arts appear to be quite deep.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2010-08-04 05:28
"Cultural leaders say they have been warned that reductions could reach 40 percent over four years."
If that scenario comes to fruition, the British govt would still be spending over twice the amount per year as the US when it comes to arts funding...
Large budget cuts may not bring an end to London's arts scene though. New York does pretty well despite the US govt's rather agnostic approach to the arts; NYC's Dept of Cultural Affairs even has a larger budget than the National Endowment for the Arts.
If interested, check out the collection of essays, Public Money and the Muse, for a good overview of arts funding, education, and the US govt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2010-08-04 15:02
I saw an article on this in today's Washington Post, and I noticed that among "the arts" they listed visual arts, drama and theatre, but did not mention music (unless it was buried in the article and I missed it).
I guess music is no longer an art, just an inexpensive and disposable commodity............
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2010-08-04 15:19
As long as Brittany Spears, Lady Gaga, and EmNEm are in the music business, it is hard to make the case that music is an art.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2010-08-04 15:45
Dileep, respectfully I'd go the other way on that:
As long as art is being performed anywhere, Brittany Spears, Lady Gaga, and EmNEm are not music.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2010-08-04 18:29
To keep the conversation going...
Why should the British, US, or any government fund the arts?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2010-08-04 18:38
No I was kidding of course.
It is a good question if government should fund the arts.
And my response is that the great eras of art (Florence for visual, Vienna for music, Paris for ballet, etc)
All these great periods for art (and consequently for humanity as a whole) were funded by government.
We forget that the Medici family, Esterhazy court, Louis XIV, King George, King Frederick.......they were not only patrons.....at the time they were the governmnent.
And the money they used for their commissions was indeed the money of the People.
We would not be benefiting from the great works of art by Michealanglo, Handel, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Gluck, etc had the government not supported the arts.
I can think of no better argument than the above when people say that government should not support the arts.
Post Edited (2010-08-04 18:39)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2010-08-04 18:59
Not to invoke politics, Dileep, but back in the eras of which you speak (pre-20th century), is it not generally true that for the most part it was the elite (i.e. rich and/or powerful) who benefitted from these publicly-funded arts? Nowadays, the usual expectation is that those who pay for something should in some way reap the corresponding benefits. I doubt that the 17th-century farmer whose taxes helped pay for Gluck's music, for example, had much opportunity to enjoy that music.
Hold the flames, my point is strictly about music and not about a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' or anything else.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2010-08-04 19:14
David Spiegelthal wrote:
I doubt that the
> 17th-century farmer whose taxes helped pay for Gluck's music,
> for example, had much opportunity to enjoy that music.
True enough, and that is the flip side of the system under which this music was created.
Dileep Gangolli wrote:
>We forget that the Medici family, Esterhazy court, Louis XIV, King George, King Frederick.......they were not only patrons.....at the time they were the governmnent.<
Yes, and they supported the arts partially to enhance their prestige. Nowadays politicians build power in other arenas.
There are extreme financial pressures on social programs being faced by so many countries as the population ages. The UK government is signaling a need to set priorities in a difficult economy where many face challenges keeping a roof over their heads and food on the table.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2010-08-04 19:34
Dileep,
I think you might agree with me that because some thing is good for a state at a particular moment in history does not mean that that thing will be good for all states and for all time. As governments continue to change, their relationship to the arts will necessarily change as well.
The regimes you cited are quite a bit different than our modern, expansive democratic state. Could the sort of arts patronage that you described work in the US?
To borrow your argument, how would you answer someone that were to point out that the American novel (Hawthorne, Twain, Ellison, Faulkner, Hemingway) poetry (Poe, Wordsworth, Dickenson, Whitman) and classical music (Gershwin, Ives, Copland) all flourished before the birth of federal arts patronage?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2010-08-04 19:41
"Why should the British, US, or any government fund the arts?"
From an economic standpoint, every dollar invested in arts and culture has a positive impact on tourism and economic development. American studies repeatedly find that for every dollar invested in arts and culture, between $10 and $13 are returned in a given state's economy, through ancillary and spinoff spending.
Here in Canada, a recent government study found that every dollar given to the arts spurs economic activity in spinoff industries that rely on the arts (tourism, IT, film, restaurants, etc.) from $6-$12 and sometimes higher. In addition, according to the government's own calculations, every dollar given to the arts comes back immediately to the government treasury as $1.36 in general revenue.
Those are economic benefits. We could discuss the non-economic benefits all day.
Even if one does not believe that the arts sector is a productive economic driver and a major employer, nor agree with UNESCO when it states that access to culture is a basic human right, one would be hard-pressed arguing that the arts do not improve quality of life for everyone.
---------------------------------------------------
Simon Aldrich
Clarinet Faculty - McGill University
Principal Clarinet - Orchestre Metropolitain de Montreal
Principal Clarinet - Orchestre de l'Opera de Montreal
Artistic Director - Jeffery Summer Concerts
Clarinet - Nouvel Ensemble Moderne
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2010-08-04 20:06
Simon Aldrich wrote:
> American studies repeatedly find that for every
> dollar invested in arts and culture, between $10 and $13 are
> returned in a given state's economy, through ancillary and
> spinoff spending.
Citations needed.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2010-08-04 20:19
Great thread folks.
I have put my flame thrower in the closet for at least today.
And I am at work so have to be quick this go round.
1) I do not have specifics, but have seen studies that back up the claim that arts do generate more for civic economies than professional sports teams.
2) There is no question that prestige was part of the equation of past patronage. But my tax dollars are helping the farmer big time here in the US with the Dept of Agriculture farm subsidies. More goes in that direction, to the US farmer (and of benefit to the entire world actually) than to me and my musician friends (not including Britanny or Lady Gaga here).
3) Writers are a different breed. One man can write and sustain his art in a very different way than an orchestra or even a string quartet. Not a good comparison
4) Gershwin made $$$ from Tin Pan Alley. His classical work was not done for money really. Ives made his fortune in insurance. He did not need govt support. Copland received help from the WPA during the 30s and it helped in his writing Sym 3 (with the Fanfare for the Common Man as part of the sym).
I am well aware that Rome is burning as the Western World has stretched its resources well beyond its coffers allow. I also know that unfettered greed by way of Wall Street and the Eton boys of the City did their share to pull the patient off of life support.
The next 10 years will be esp hard for the US and UK. It is a sorry state of affairs that we find ourselves in when social services and the arts need to be cut to balance deficits that will last for generations.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2010-08-04 20:38
Mark Charette:
http://www.artsusa.org/information_services/research/services/economic_impact/default.asp
Dileep:
Music, literature, and art are indeed different, but they all, nevertheless, flourished in the US prior to the creation of the NEA. If you were to say that great art was created with the help of government someone could just as easily point out that great art was created in the US without the help of government.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2010-08-04 20:42
brycon wrote:
> http://www.artsusa.org/information_services/research/services/economic_impact/default.asp
Any cites from non-advocacy groups?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2010-08-04 21:20
Mark,
Perhaps my British allies can help me here but I remember a quote attributed to Winston Churchill during WWII.
When asked about why there was so much money being spent on the arts by the British Government during the depths of WWII, he replied:
"Then what the Hell are we fighting for...?"
And leaving aside that F did not need/accept Fed money last year, what are your thoughts on the government helping GM and Chrysler?
Just a sliver of that money to the orchestras of the US would put them ALL in black.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2010-08-04 21:55
Dileep Gangolli wrote:
Your post didn't answer my question and is frought with danger for a BBoard dedicated to music (and I don't work in the auto industry right now, anyway).
Sometimes reports by non-advocacy groups tell a much better story, in unexpected ways, than those by advocacy groups. As Philip Morris discovered in a famous report it sponsored for the Czech republic ... to the delight of the non- and anti- smoking world.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2010-08-04 21:57
Bottom line is that the Arts are mainly for the affluent, and the affluent keep getting poorer, and poorer..... They are our supporters.
The Arts are not a basic human right, they're a luxury - unfortunately.
Even crap art is suffering these days.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2010-08-04 22:17
David,
The median household income of the 95th percentile has risen from around 100k in 1976 to around 155k in 2003...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2010-08-04 22:26
"The median household income of the 95th percentile has risen from around 100k in 1976 to around 155k in 2003..."
And how about the cost of inflation? The cost of a gallon of gas in '76 is a little bit different than now.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2010-08-04 22:36
On the other hand the Consumer Price Index (measure of general inflation) has risen from a 1976 average of 56.9 to a 2003 average of 184. In terms of general purchasing power, $100,000 in 1976 is equivalent to $323,373 in 2003.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2010-08-05 00:20
Thanks Jack, that was data I wouldn't have known how to find.
$323K is more than $150K.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2010-08-05 00:24
We've created a MONSTER....
Inflation, WWII, cuts, subsidies, bad economy, American car industry, Brits whose First Lady has a dolphin tattooed on her ankle, unsubstantiated statistics, rich people becoming poor...
I'm having my double G&Ts, eating a nice dinner, and then going to bed.
I suggest that you all do the same.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2010-08-05 00:30
I'll toast the MONSTER with a glass of Aussie red myself. Maybe I'll even get my clarinet out later. It sure is easier to practice when the kids are in school, even as they get older, but maybe this summer evening will be calm after they have both worked out.
Barb
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2010-08-05 03:06
Tobin and Jack,
Those were adjusted figures (with inflation taken into account). Here's the US census for your perusal:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf
Clarinetwife, I'm with you! Time for a glass of Chardonnay...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2010-08-05 20:07
Brian,
Thanks for the clarification. Note, however, the the high-water mark in the table you cited was 1999. While the median income fluctuated from 1999 to 2003, it never again reached the 1999 level. Also, while the median income in 2003 was up slightly over 2002, it was lower than every other year in the period.
More recent (2008) data:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/index.html)
paints a fairly similar picture. Since 1999, the the mean (apparently, for some reason, the Census Bureau has chosen to change its metric or I didn't dig deeply enough to find the median data) household income in the 95th percentile (in 2008 dollars) has been:
2008 294,709
2007 298,226
2006 317,594
2005 310,084
2004 300,807
2003 296,461
2002 300,414
2001 316,764
2000 315,575
1999 303,765
While 1999 is no longer the high water mark in this data, notice where the low water mark is. I would wager a short lager (or a tall one) that I know in which direction things have gone since 2008. In any case, the data would seem to indicate (in government speak) that, over the last decade, at least some of the rich haven't been getting richer. (Though, in reality, most of them probably haven't been getting significantly poorer, either.)
Best regards,
jnk
Postscript: Sports (figures) can have a negative impact on the arts in an area. Recently, the only classical radio station in St. Louis was sold to a group that has turned it into a Christian contemporary pop station (in an area that already has several). Instrumental (no pun intended) in helping the purchasers raise the money to buy the station was ... Albert Pujols. (And, for anyone who remembers him, Andy Benes was also instrumental.)
Post Edited (2010-08-05 20:08)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2010-08-05 20:48
Thanks for the info Jack!
Yes, the numbers have fluctuated, but I would hardly say that the richest Americans have been getting significantly poorer (maybe slightly less wealthy would have been a more apt characterization).
I would be more interested in seeing a study of spending habits. I wonder how much wealthy Americans are now saving...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2010-08-06 05:42
My uneducated guess is that over 52 weeks, the Cleveland Orchestra will have more of an economic impact on the downtown of Cleveland than the Cavs minus LeBron.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2010-08-06 13:22
This is a clarinet blog, not a political blog, but I have to say that information on the widening gulf between the rich and the rest of us is out there, and easily available, and it's fairly conclusive: the rich (the top 1% of the population) are doing MUCH better than the rest of us, and much more so in the last 20 years than ever before.
(Cite: http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/where_has_all_the_income_gone_look_up/ and yes, Mark, it's an advocacy group, but the numbers are real.)
Sure, writers wrote before the NEA was created. Equally true that somehow we all got across country before there was an Interstate Highway system. But the Interstate Highway System encourages mobility, makes the journey easier and cheaper, and saves time, leaving us free to use that time in ways we choose.
Likewise, arts funding lets artists work on their art, rather than on groceries and the light bill, allows arts to proliferate in a society, and raises the overall quality of everyone's life.
Sure, nobody "needs" the arts, in the grim survival sense. But the "American model" for arts funding spells doom for the arts and artists, and the vibrant presence of the arts in most peoples' lives becomes limited to "So you think you can dance" and "American Idol."
I'm sure we could have a lovely flame war discussing what the country's priorities should be and what we as a nation can afford, and can't.
But turning to private philanthropy to fund the arts in lieu of the government is not a solution to anything: not because the wealthy no longer have the money (the exact opposite is true), but because the rich increasingly give less of the money they are getting more of. (http://www.philanthropyjournal.org/news/nonprofit-revenue-growth-slows-donors-decline)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2010-08-06 14:38
DougR wrote:
> and yes, Mark, it's an advocacy group, but the numbers are
> real.)
I'm sure you're not implying that I believe numbers fronted by advocacy groups aren't real. I've said no such thing, and honestly, I don't believe the numbers provided by advocacy groups are incorrect - skewed, maybe.
However, just because a group can throw out accurate numbers does not mean that their analyses are correct. After all, PhRMA throws out accurate numbers, but there is an army of people skeptical of any of their analyses.
By examining both sides I might actually have a ghost of a chance of overcoming my own preconceived notions.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2010-08-06 16:01
Of course I'm making no such implication, Mark--just emphasizing that those are government statistics, aggregated more or less objectively (as far as I can tell), and while there may be advocacy outfits that COULD take the same figures and somehow make them show that the rich are actually poorer than you and I, and we in the middle class really need to reach into our pockets and start contributing to the "poorest" rich among us, the graph attached to my first link was fairly stark (and also fairly incontrovertible), I thought.
I also found, after doing some quick & dirty googling on the subject, that actual nonpartisan sources of comparative statistics are frequently hard to come by, unless you're prepared to wade into government databases yourself, and do your own home-made comparisons, which I am not statistically competent to do. I suppose the watchword here is "Trust but verify": Can I see any overt bias in my source's statistics? Have they lied to me before? Do they consistently distort basic facts to support an agenda?
But it's useful, sometimes, to have a reliable statistically based reply (which I think mine was) to statements like "Bottom line is that the Arts are mainly for the affluent, and the affluent keep getting poorer, and poorer..."
Well, no, they're not getting poorer and poorer, just the opposite, in fact. And are the Arts are mainly for the affluent? Only if we ALL, as a society, allow that to be the case.
The wealthy are giving less, if you accept the Philanthropy Journal's numbers. Why are they giving less? Not because they HAVE less; must be some other reason.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2010-08-06 17:20
DougR wrote:
Quote:
it's fairly conclusive: the rich (the top 1% of the population) are doing MUCH better than the rest of us, and much more so in the last 20 years than ever before.
(Cite: http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/where_has_all_the_income_gone_look_up/ and yes, Mark, it's an advocacy group, but the numbers are real.)
The numbers may be real, but I'd be careful not to conclude too much from them. The data you cited refer to the 400 top-earning households in the U.S., or the top 0.00035% of the population (based on a Census estimate of 114 million households in the U.S. http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1129.pdf).
That's hardly representative a representative sample of the top 1% of households, which would be about 1.14 million households. The top 400 are too far to the right of the bell curve to be a meaningful indicator of trends in the entire top 1%. A simple random sample would be more informative.
That's not to say that you're wrong or even that I think you're wrong--it's just that the data you cited do not provide solid statistical support for the conclusion you drew from them, even if the data are entirely accurate.
Post Edited (2010-08-06 17:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2010-08-06 18:21
(Is PROPOSING to close!)
--------------------------------------------
That's just an idle threat then. I thought it was for sure.
Of course they will figure out a way to keep the library system open.
But the Arts might suffer from it 
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
