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.