More thoughts on the NEA

Not necessarily wanting to be a contrarian, I must continue my thoughts on the National Endowment for the Arts. It does serve a public good and is in the business of providing financial support and public advocacy for the arts. No doubt that many of the grants have made a positive contribution to the arts globally as well as locally. When the NEA gives money to the states to disperse through various state-supported grant programs, those funds go to the local communities to advance the cause of the arts. How can this be a bad thing? So why am I against the very support that is intended to raise arts awareness and provide financial resources for artists and artistic endeavors?

Rather than denigrating or exclaiming for or against any organization, we should, instead, examine its actions over a ten-year period and make a decision based on evidence. Once the reader knows how tax dollars are spent, then he can decide if this is a worthwhile organization. Here is the search form for an analytical study: https://apps.nea.gov/grantsearch/. While most readers will find one or two grants that fit one's personal interest, most grants are specialized art forms for small audience consumption.

Keep in mind that the term "arts" represents a vast amount of experiences from the visual and aural world. "Arts" could mean stand-up comedy, dramatic readings, poetry, literature, opera, drama, jazz, blues, rap, hip-hop, rock, folk, orchestras, busking, dancing, film, media, singing, television, graffiti, design, architecture, decorating, quilting, crafts, even culinary presentation. When one considers support for creative endeavors, the only real limit is the human spirit for something new. Add in historical studies, ethnic emphases, demographic alternatives, social considerations, and audience responses, we find a tremendous amount of artistic possibilities for support.

Is it art if nobody is there to experience it? (I know, it sounds like the old tree falling question). If the NEA supports that which requires funds for its existence, it probably funds artistic experiences that are limited in audience response. This makes logical sense. No need for the NEA to provide funds for the musical Hamilton or for a Lady Gaga concert. The NEA looks for those worthwhile art experiences that will likely not garner a large audience but are "worthwhile" in spite of the lack of public financial support.

The conclusion, therefore, is that our tax dollars go to events that are generally not popular. If they were popular, then no support would be required. If I make a cake that is lousy and nobody purchases it, then I am saddened by my poor effort and will try to improve next time or perhaps give up on my cake making ability. While it feels cheap to relegate art to a commodity, is it really that different? Should our art find a public audience, and if not, should it not go the way of all bad art?

Market forces determine so much of our world including our clothes, media, cars, jobs, interests, tastes, and the list continues. Why is art different?

The only valid argument, which is distasteful, is that "we" who are artists, "we" who determine the value of the arts, "we" who make the decisions for what to fund, are the knowledgeable elite who know what is best for society and culture. This is the same weak argument that once prevented the Holy Bible from being in the hands of the people. The same poor argument that causes totalitarianism, demagoguery, power abuse, self-proclaimed experts, and ultimately enslavement.

The NEA, for all its good intentions, may need to start listening to the people. This is not a diatribe against the NEA but it is a large demand for the arts to remain alive and in the hands of a public that just may know best over time. It seems almost dangerous to rely on the so called artistic elites to decide what is best for our culture.

Cutting the National Endowment for the Arts

Once again the NEA is under seige and this time it looks as though a serious battle is about to begin. The result is unknown at this point but I won't be surprised to see a compromise of sorts to include a substantial cut to the funding. This does happen every few years for different reasons, most of which are valid, and it causes a myriad of emotional reactions with most people ultimately exclaiming the value of the arts in culture today. Politicians give in to the public pressure and the NEA survives at a lower level. Then each year funding increases, new emphases occurs in the arts, and the growth continues until a new administration questions it once again. Ah, the cycle of life in the arts.

Is there a solution to the problem? It can be boiled down to the role of the marketplace and the true value of the role of the arts in our society. Are the arts truly dependent on government intervention for survival? Without the funding, would the arts as we know it die a slow death, going the way of the horse and buggy, the typewriter, the basset horn?

I have been writing on the state of classical music and the symphony orchestra for several years and now it looks as though the problems are extended to the arts in general including theatre, art, ballet, and music. All of these and more are struggling, living on life support, and suffering through poverty, deprivation, and a lack of resources. The basic needs for existence are being removed and soon the arts will disappear forever.

But wait a minute! What about Hamilton, the amazingly successful show that marries history with current events? How about Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, Josh Groban? How about the sell out crowds at the Metropolitan Opera? New music by Jennifer Higdon? What about the countless public school concerts of children's music, orchestras, choirs, bands? Small schools and large schools with a marching band performance every Friday night throughout September and October? What about the art shows all over town? The plays in schools and in community theatres? Are the arts really in decline? Does not look that way to me.

Are the arts doing well because of the NEA, because of government support? Or do the arts survive successfully because of the human need for culture, refinement, beauty, emotion, sound, sights, experiences? Take away all government funding and the arts will bounce back in full force because the arts are essential to the human experience. We do NOT need the NEA for support and we do not require tax dollars for the arts to live and breathe actively in our lives. Limiting the funding may be painful but it will not kill the arts because the arts cannot be killed.

Let the market guide the arts in the future and do not depend on external funding for success. Reduction of government funding and development of privatization can only serve society better than the current system.

Doctoral work, the beginnings

Yes, I do already have a doctorate so why would I start yet another one? My Doctor of Philosophy in Fine Arts serves my profession well and having a research based degree with emphasis in music education and administration gives me the kind of credibility I need to be effective. But my objective side also enjoys the business world and I recognize the value of the market in shaping our culture. Fascinated with business ventures, the stock market, and the economy, I enjoy observing the growth and the decline of local and global businesses. It is all about finding and keeping customers, and selling the product. Customers may be local people walking around looking for a snack or customers may be giant conglomerates needing support from other businesses. The product could be an object, a good, a commodity, a service, or a need.

Rather than enter the business world myself, especially considering a lack of financial resources to begin the business I seek, I have decided to continue my education with the pursuit of a Doctorate in Business Administration with an emphasis on Management. Suddenly I find myself in an on-line class with 22 other people. The course is writing and research intensive and there is no room for citation error. Once again needing to learn APA format, I am frequently checking the manual on specific citation requirements.

The world has changed since my last dissertation which contained no web resources. Suddenly the world wide web is the springboard for research which may include books but mostly includes journal articles, surveys, data, and analysis. My previous research work did not include digital object identifiers for web resources such as journal articles and references. I am thrust into a world that has changed, for the better I might add, and I need to learn what to do. Admittedly I am strangely embarrassed that I have not kept up with the research world the last 15 years. It is neither fair nor right to teach college students in a style or even information that is not current. Yes, truth does not change but the way to discover that truth is completely new.

When did I become archaic, I ask myself? Was it the day I completed my PhD and began to be contented with my own accomplishments? A frightening thought indeed. How often does this happen to college teachers where they set their sights on a goal, reach the goal, and then stop learning? Yikes, the idea is completely deplorable to me, and I will not let that happen again. Regardless of where this pursuit takes me intellectually or otherwise, I am pleased to learn something new and to seek after a new goal. Have I become a life-long student? I think so and proud of it!