Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, May 13, 2009
Visual Art A Call for Actual Common Sense, Not the Folksy Kind
Posted by Jen Graves on Wed, May 13, 2009 at 2:00 PM
A few minutes ago I went on KUOW to talk to Ross Reynolds on "The Conversation," about public art. The subject for today was the editorial in this morning's Seattle Times by state Sen. Steve Hobbs (D-Lake Stevens)—in which Hobbs decrees art to be the enemy of teachers, the sick, and the poor.
If we could just cancel public art for the next two years, he writes, we could save our state. Why, oh why, is art so damned selfish?
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!" Hobbs veritably yells in his editorial.
Then, on the radio, he declared public art a "luxury" and a "sacred cow." He said he didn't want to kill it, he just wanted to do some "cowtipping."
Hobbs has the right idea: The legislation he proposed is as intelligent as cowtipping.
Does any of this sound familiar? It's exactly the same debate we were having when the National Endowment for the Arts had to get on its knees and beg to be included, for the miniscule price tag of $50 million in the $787 billion federal bailout.
It's also the same debate we've been having since Jesse Helms made it obvious that art, due to its subjective nature, would be the easiest target for public ire—the easiest way for politicians to distract the public from real problems.
PUBLIC ART FUNDING IS A RED HERRING, PEOPLE. If we'd fined every politician who tried to use public art for his or her own gain in the last 20 years (thanks, Patty!), we could have paid for art/music/dance/etc teachers in public schools this whole time. Imagine!
The state spends about $2 million a year on public art, in an approximately $15 billion operating budget. Public art spending accounts for .013 percent of the state's budget.
Please ask your legislators to focus their time and money on fixing the other 99.987 percent of the budget. Please ask your newspapers and broadcasters (as much as they can) to disallow idiotic, ancient, false debates.
I'm sorry to be belligerent about this, but it is infuriating to have this dumb conversation year after year after year, whether the economy is up or down or in-between, and whether the politicians are Democrats, Republicans, or space invaders.
Most important of all for every intelligent person out there: Don't let anybody, ever, say that art is preventing Americans from being educated, fed, and cared for.
We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore.
UPDATE: One more thing: On the radio, Ross Reynolds was also interviewing Washington State Arts Commission executive director Kris Tucker, whose office oversees public art in the state. Tucker talked soft, about "quality of life" and making our buildings "better." Tucker basically refused to engage.
Blech. Why didn't you call him on his shit, Kris? And where were your numbers?
Kris, I realize that you and your office have to spend most of your time convincing legislators about your point of view, and maybe very different things need to be said in those private meetings, but this was a public forum, and you should have creamed him—or sent someone who could.
2
Trust me, sit back and enjoy the collapse of America. Obama can't/won't stop it; he'll just slow it down a little bit.
6
7
10
13
Yes, $2 million dollars in a 15 billion dollar operating budget is a minuscule amount, but where I come from $2 million dollars is still a lot of money. According to Ms. Tucker this Arts program funds 46 public arts projects in our state, which employ 35 artists part time (and some unknown amount of fabricators and materials people either full/part time). This means that we have a state program that employs 35 people part time at a cost per person of $57,142. What do we get to for this money? Pretty building and an "increased quality of life." Well you know what would greatly increase my quality of life? Health Care. For that same amount of money we could provide 200 people quality health care and that is if we paid retail for it. Yes, 200 people is a small amount of people but if the options are "making the building pretty" or "helping a mom with her diabetes" I'm way more in favor of diabetes treatment.
Finally, the idea that we should use our tax money to buy local art gets laughed off as hopelessly naive, yet at the same time we should only shop at local shops, buy local coffee, and buy our produce locally. So buying books, coffee, and fruit locally good, but our Art we have to import from New York?
17
18
If the question is money, cutting a single percentage point (or more) from construction budgets could be done in any number of ways other than killing a popular program that's been going for decades. Jen nailed it: This is a bogus populist gesture, nothing more. But then you read the comments sections of the Times and the Olympian and wail.
19
21
Makes a lot more sense.
22
It seems like lately ("during these economic times") that art has become this maligned buzzword for fiscal irresponsibility. Without getting too dramatic, the lack of appreciation for art just seems like it has to be a portent of a civilization on its decline. What will it take for folks to start thinking art is a good thing again? I don't recall a similar uproar in 2006 when federal funds were used to help develop Olympic Sculpture Park (directly promoting public art). Is it an elitist pursuit that has less relevance once money's tight?
It is not money that can be moved around. That half a percent would just stay in the construction budget and disappear. It can't be used for education or health benefits. It is not discretionary.
"Look," I said, "the average taxpayer contributes about 64 cents to the NEA. I'll pay you a dollar to drop it."
And I got to keep my buck.
Everyone takes the art they see around them for granted as part of the landscape; beautification as it were. But what if it were completely gone? How would we function in a completely utilitarian world? Not well, I'm guessing.
Every day I deal with the fundamental importance art has on our daily lives. I teach art to kids in an after school/weekend program and see the effect it has on their non-artistsic lives. Those afflicted with Asberger's and high-functioning autism, the mathematically inclined and artistically inclined alike are benefiting from the ways in which art enriches their experience outside the studio.
Public art functions in the same way. It brings art, dangerously elite on the walls of museums and galleries, into our every day lives and environments. By virtue of its presence, we are enriched by it. Aesthetics bring us pleasure. It betters our world. Not everything can or should be sharp angles, sheet glass curtains and concrete.
I don't even understand why this is a debate. War is a luxury. Art is not. Education and health care are important, but in our current gasping-for-air culture none of these things are mutually exclusive for our survival.
Where would you rather have your tax dollars going?
29
I'm in strong agreement with the sentiments @12 @18 @24 @27.
The benefits of public art are multi-faceted. Art increases the livability, walkability and desirability of neighborhoods and cities, which in turn, drives local economy, tourism, health, safety and more resources for better quality of life. Public art projects = jobs for artists and jobs for others when they buy materials locally, work with local contractors and engineers and fabricators to assist with the execution of these projects. Many of these sentiments are nicely wrapped up in this recent Forbes article.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/05/state-o…
I'm particularly fond of the economic figures stated. An recent artwork costing the New York City $15.5 million, "brought in, according to the Public Art Fund, $69 million for the city."
As far as dealing with art in a recession, I think like with any other government or business program, the recession is a good time to assess the effectiveness of programs and seek efficiencies and improvements. But to advocate for sweeping cuts and freezes for effective programs that are economic stimulus drivers is a cowardly, narrow approach and will not help us turn the economy around.
Sara E
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (29) RSS