When should arts funding be cut?

Posted at 9:53 PM on June 16, 2009 by Marianne Combs (7 Comments)
Filed under: Funding, Public Art

Governor Tim Pawlenty took a shot this afternoon at Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, saying "Minneapolis has been on an unbroken streak of 8 percent increases in property taxes, funding things like $50,000 artistic fountains." This just after the governor announced $2.7 billion in "unallotments" to balance the state budget.

Interestingly enough, Pawlenty didn't make any noticable cuts to the arts today. His strategy mainly affects local government, education and health and human services. But he does raise a good question: when is it inappropriate to fund the arts? Should arts grants be cut before funding for social services for the disabled or homeless? Is saving lives more important than funding art? If that were the case, it would seem we could always find places to put public money before allowing it to trickle down to artists.

The money for Minneapolis' ten new drinking fountains comes from a designated public art fund. And it's supposed to draw attention to issues surrounding clean drinking water, not just look cool. But considering the recession we're in, could the half-million dollars be spent more wisely?

---

Comments (7)

Just a gentle quibble: $50K is not a half-million dollars.

Posted by Mary L | June 16, 2009 11:05 PM

---

Mary, I'm afraid in this case it is. Each fountain costs $50,000, and there are ten fountains being built. Thus the half-million dollars.

Posted by Marianne Combs | June 17, 2009 8:24 AM

---

I think the governor's example is a convenient soundbite that leaves a lot of details out. Did the city need new drinking fountains? Well then, that seems to me a clever use of "designated public art funds" to fund necessary city infrastructure.

I also think it's artificial to decide which is more important, social service or art? We need lots of different things to be a successful society.

Posted by laura | June 17, 2009 9:30 AM

---

Good points Laura, but how do you navigate the decision-making process? It's easy to say "we need both" - but when you come face to face with the choices, how do reason it through?

Posted by Marianne Combs | June 17, 2009 10:25 AM

---

As you might imagine, I have a lot of answers to that question. One simple way though, is to stop considering arts as an alternative to those other important needs and start seeing the ways that art is a part of those needs. For example; residency programs that put artists in schools to help with education; art crawls and festivals that contribute directly to neighborhood revitalization; large art institutions that help bring tourism and conventions to downtown areas, theater companies that work with homeless youth to engage them and keep them off the street...I could go on and on. Being able to make that case is on us in the arts community, though:

http://www.springboardforthearts.org/blog/2009/04/making-case-i-think-that-many-in-arts.html

Posted by laura | June 17, 2009 10:41 AM

---

This is a such a hard question to answer! In a perfect world we WOULD have both, but we (especially now) are in a far from perfect world. Ultimately, I think arts are an expression of our humanity. If our government ceases to support art, do we cease to be human? Obviously not. Would it lessen our humanity? Probably not. Art would continue, humanity would continue. There may be less grandiose, less expensive expressions, but art would survive. As much as I hate to say it, if a government has to choose between sustaining life (health and human services) and sustaining human expression (the arts), I would rather have our leaders choose sustaining life - human expression will find a way to survive.

What a terrible choice to have to make! Let's hope we never get to the point where we have to make an "either/or" decision.

Posted by Paul W | June 17, 2009 5:32 PM

---

Actually, I think the water fountains are a perfect example of how we need to think about the arts...not as a separate entity to fund or not fund, but as an integral part of our other needs; city infrastructure, community development, education, healthcare, neighborhood revitalization, business development, tourism...I could go on and on.

But I think it's up to us in the arts to be able to make this case (and also to believe it!) I wrote a blog post on this a while ago here">http://www.springboardforthearts.org/blog/2009/04/making-case-i-think-that-many-in-arts.html="_blank">here

Posted by laura zabel | June 18, 2009 9:20 AM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

E-mail Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Tweet this page
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories