Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Always Be Closing

Posted by on Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 10:20 AM

In Michigan (dance company).

In Baltimore (opera).

In San Jose (musical theater).

In Massachusetts (musical theater).

In Los Angeles (LA MOCA, not officially sunk, but tossing in the storm).

In San Fransisco (the Magic Theater, home base for Sam Shepard and premieres by Anne Bogart, David Mamet, Charles Mee, Stones in His Pockets, more).

And Michael Kaiser, president of the Kennedy Center, calls for an arts bailout:

The arts have historically received short shrift from our political leaders, who all too often seem happy to offer bland endorsements of our work without backing those words with financial appropriations. But the arts in the United States provide 5.7 million jobs and account for $166 billion in economic activity annually. This sector is at serious risk. Because the arts are so fragmented, no single organization's demise threatens the greater economy and claims headlines. But thousands of organizations, and the state of America's arts ecology, are in danger.

We need an emergency grant for arts organizations in America, and we need legislation that allows unusual access to endowments. Washington must encourage foundations to increase their spending rates during this crisis, and we need immediate tax breaks for corporate giving.

(Thanks to Metafilter and Schmader.)

 

Comments (16) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Yeah, good idea.

But ...

Not going to happen.
Posted by Will in Seattle on December 31, 2008 at 11:08 AM
2
MEDIC! ART IS DOWN!! ART IS DOWN!!!
Posted by STJA on December 31, 2008 at 11:09 AM
3
I'd be more interested in using the arts sector as a case study for what happens when governments don't intervene.
Posted by Hayek on December 31, 2008 at 11:22 AM
4
I blame Hip Hop which is neither art nor music. Its influence on young people will bring about the fall of civilization as we know it.
Posted by Hip Hop stinks on December 31, 2008 at 11:25 AM
5
For what it's worth, the San Jose company was effectively closed because of bad business dealings with Theater of the Stars in Atlanta, not "the economy" per se.
Posted by Al on December 31, 2008 at 11:26 AM
6
Earlier this year, in Minneapolis: the Minnesota Center for Photography
Posted by Q*bert H. Humphrey on December 31, 2008 at 11:30 AM
7
@3: This is why I hate that the term "bailout" was used. The arts should be supported by public funds at all levels. It's not a case of intervention, it's a case of deciding that the arts are an important facet of our cultural infrastructure and our local and national identity and funding them appropriately.

When the economy is booming tax breaks and other intangible benefits make it beneficial for companies and individuals to support the arts. Right now, however, there isn't enough surplus in the private sector and in order to safeguard our artists and cultural institutions more must be done by the public sector.
Posted by Al on December 31, 2008 at 11:42 AM
8
@7

Given the notion that the government has limited resources (which is debatable at this point), why are the arts deserving of help in comparison to other industries like tourism, retail, etc etc? I mean, the mere fact that the arts have been supported on a public or voluntary basis doesn't mean that at this juncture they should be first in line given the situation.

Posted by Hayek on December 31, 2008 at 11:55 AM
9
@8

We decide that the arts are more deserving of public support than other sectors based on our values.

1. Arts orgs are generally charitable organizations, already sanctioned by the government as Public Interest Corporations.
2. Art has inherent value that retail does not have. You either agree or disagree with this proposition and act accordingly.

Posted by TValley on December 31, 2008 at 12:05 PM
10
Eh, it'll all end up going to the movie studios anyway.
Posted by Not That I'm CYNICAL Or Anything on December 31, 2008 at 12:09 PM
11
I really really wish @10 wasn't right.
Posted by Will in Seattle on December 31, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Posted by randy on December 31, 2008 at 12:15 PM
13
@8: I don't think the arts need to be first in line, but they should be considered. To be pragmatic, the arts also frequently support other industries -- tourism, other entertainment (e.g., dining out), retail to name three.

But more importantly, in my estimation, is the need to keep art alive in America. Art shouldn't be about capitalism.
Posted by Al on December 31, 2008 at 1:24 PM
14
@9 and values change according to the circumstance we are in. I reckon that the arts are not nearly as supported by individuals who are patrons of arts would believe based on the fact the arts require tax payer support. Does something that is truly valued require government mandate and funding to exist in the size that it does? Now if the argument follows that the cultural value of art can't have a cost placed on it, that opens a whole new can of worms...

@13 and vice versa, several industries support the arts. the question though is whether the arts, and more importantly which arts are able to survive without grants and funding and what changes we will see if the government backing falls through. Is there a silver lining in that?
Posted by Hayek on December 31, 2008 at 1:36 PM
15
maybe we have too much art & too many artists.
Posted by Max Solomon on December 31, 2008 at 2:28 PM
16
@15, Which explains why I am skeptical about the actual "need" of such action.
Posted by Hayek on December 31, 2008 at 2:37 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy