Such is the sloganized dictum of the National Endowment for the Arts, driven deep into the minds of NPR devotees on an hourly basis as we listen to our favorite music, art and culture programs each day. And towards that end of supporting great art, the Bush administration is proposing $128.4 million in funding for the NEA during the 2008 fiscal year, as reported today by the Washington Post. The good news is that this is actually an increase of $4 million, and only one in a steady stream of increases (see the appropriations history) since 2001, marking an upward turn from the downward spiral that began in 1996 when the budget was dramatic slashed to $99.5 million by a Republican Congress, who had hoped at first to eliminate federal support of the arts and later merely settled for a scheme to flat-fund the organization.

Though not yet anywhere near the level of funding that it received during the 80′s and early 90′s, I applaud the gesture by the administration (and I don’t applaud much for this administration) to continue the growth of the funding, especially during this time of record-high war spending. But then one has to wonder, though the appropriation proposal has been made, how does it fit into the larger picture of fiscal responsibility (or irresponsibility) of the Bush administration? I don’t have the answer to that question, and would argue that there are many other spending appropriations that should be cut prior to cutting arts funding (as they say, make art, not war), but I worry that an irresponsible spender can throw money wherever he or she sees fit in an effort to make the proper overtures, without regard for how such behavior will ultimately tax the public. I suppose the up-side here is that any ramifications of the recent war spending will entirely eclipse a measly $4 million arts funding increase.

Nevertheless, with the current balance of power in Congress, the NEA can in all likelihood look forward to another small increase in funding, and art in America can continue to move forward with federal support. In fact, the Washington Post also reports a $678.4 million budget for the Smithsonian and $271.2 million for the Institute of Museum and Library Services, with most of the latter going directly to support libraries – something that should make my good friend Casey Bisson over at maisonbisson.com happy (congratulations again to Casey on his recent Mellon Award).

As a performing artist myself, I’m personally very grateful for federal support – hell, all support – of the arts. But Richard Cheatham, writing over on The Free Liberal back in the fall of ’05, takes issue with it.

The term “great art” also bothers me. I’m especially fed up having money taxed from me to fund certain government “experts” who tell me what is great art and, by implication, what is not. Truly great art does not need, nor has it ever needed, the force of government confiscation, subsidy and expert promotion to make it great. Art happens or it doesn’t. I prefer…”Good nations create great art.”

I prefer “good nations create great art” as well, especially the create part – it’s what I do, so I’m biased. I also agree that I don’t like paying to have “experts” that may have agendas that I don’t agree with telling me what art is great and what is not. But our “good nation” is in fact a democracy, and though sometimes difficult, we do have the power to change who it is that is judging our art (for funding purposes), and while we’re pushing for such change, we have the wonderful ability to speak out in favor of it – and we’ve never been so enabled as we are in today’s connected society, as is evidenced by blogs such as this one.

But I simply can not agree with the statement that “truly great art does not need, nor has it ever needed, the force of government confiscation, subsidy and expert promotion to make it great.”

Government subsidy has in fact made possible some of the greatest work in history, and though not necessarily a fan of some of the genre’s myself, the so-called “New Deal” art produced during the 1930′s and ’40s is just one recent example. FDR, through his initiative, helped aid in the development of numerous new as well as pre-existing genre’s, sustained many great artists and made possible the creation of many classic works.

Yes Richard, art happens or it doesn’t. Government funding can help some art happen more easily, but who gets to see it is an entirely different question. You see, art promotion is decidedly different from art creation, yet you state too that art doesn’t need expert promotion. I know firsthand that, regardless of how well-known you and your art may be, if the people do not know where to find your art and how to access it, it will not be a success. Promotion is absolutely vital to art. Only through promotion can an artist be seen and receive the continued support necessary to go on producing. Likewise, only through promotion can a public be made aware of art, upon which it may then pass judgment. A work or an artist can never be popular or unpopular unless it gets the chance to be seen. The greatest work of art may sit collecting dust in a studio – or worse, only in the artist’s mind – and may never have the opportunity to be appreciated and brought to the fore of public opinion if it lacks promotion. The work may be great, but popular, seen and appreciated? Not without the business of art, and that includes promotion. And what is the purpose of great art if it’s not in the public eye changing opinion and encouraging thought? The inverse is of course true as well: a rotten work of art can not be deemed unpopular unless it has the opportunity.

Surprisingly, Michael Levin has a truly great article over on The Free Market which puts forth an incredibly lucid and well-reasoned argument as to why the government should not fund the arts, and I encourage you to read it. It’s good enough to make me think twice about endorsing government support, but in the end, there is often a difference between great art and commercial art, and I feel strongly that a society should support great art – be it commercial or not.

Perhaps, however, the answer lies with that cogent and clever critic of American culture, Andrei Codrescu. In his 1994 compilation of his own NPR commentaries, Zombification, he proposes, courtesy of a Frenchman, the idea of Culture Stamps. Like Food Stamps:

Every citizen who could demonstrate a need for art could get culture stamps. They could use these to go to events sponsored by nonprofit corporations: independent movies, experimental plays, poetry readings, art shows, dance recitals, concerts. The artists would get all the profits from the culture stamps. The government wouldn’t have to decide what art to fund: it would be up to the people to spend their culture stamps on anything they liked.

The government would continue to support that arts, but the people would directly decide who gets the money. The popular art would remain popular, and the less-commercial-but-popular-if-it-had-the-chance art would stand a chance of survival. Though the stamps would come from our tax dollars, people would be psychologically more willing to use their stamps on events and showings that they wouldn’t normally consider spending their “hard-earned cash” on, and thereby open up the possibility of discovery, growth and unforeseen appreciation of non-mainstream art and culture. The artists would survive, the richness of American life would expand and we would pave the way for a new golden age of art. Perhaps we’d even become a more intelligent and thoughtful society. Imagine that…

Leave it to a Romanian and a Frenchman.

###
Andrei Codrescu, Appropriations, Art, Art Funding, Bush Administration, Casey Bisson, Culture Stamps, Maison Bisson, Michael Levin, National Endowment for the Arts, NEA, Richard Cheatham, Smithsonian, Washington Post