Slog
News & ArtsFriday, May 29, 2009
Arts / Theater / Economy Part of the Problem
Posted by Brendan Kiley on Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:38 AM
On hour ago, I posted this. In brief: The city gave $225,000 to some great local artists—including Stranger Genius winners—and isn't that great because the city used to give money to some crap local artists.
Fourteen minutes later, the first comment, from PC:
1. Other things are more important.
2. This is why the working class gets poached by the GOP.
3. This is insane. If you want to spend money on art buy paints and pay art teachers so kids get more art. Or pay for kids to go to well established plays or the ballet.
Dear PC, and all the PCs of the world, allow me to direct you to this column by Jen Graves from a few weeks ago, where she dissects this false choice between arts spending or social services spending.
An excerpt:
It's the same debate we had 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 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, 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, out of an approximately $15 billion operating budget, on public art. 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 to stop 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.
Read the rest here.
And I can't wait to see what John Osebold, Jen Zeyl, Keri Healey, KT Niehoff, Marya Sea Kaminski, Amelia Reeber, Haruko Nishimura, Robin Holcomb, and the rest of this year's OoACA gang are going to make with that money.
3
Since such small sums are not worth talking about, would you mind if I petitioned for and won a city contract for just a tenth of the expenditures on public art just to walk around Seattle more to get my pretty face into more public eyes? I mean, think of how insignificant it would be, in terms of the total state budget.
Okay, public art expenditures are small. Granted. And it won't solve the budget crisis if it's axed. Also granted. But that doesn't make it any less stupid or wasteful. And in politics it's all about stupid symbols anyway. I'm sorry, but "hey, cutting out this puny budget item is not going to make gregoire shit rainbows and money" is not a good answer to the charge that it's a stupid expense. The point stands that it is.
Okay, public art expenditures are small. Granted. And it won't solve the budget crisis if it's axed. Also granted. But that doesn't make it any less stupid or wasteful. And in politics it's all about stupid symbols anyway. I'm sorry, but "hey, cutting out this puny budget item is not going to make gregoire shit rainbows and money" is not a good answer to the charge that it's a stupid expense. The point stands that it is.
4
Can I use this comments section as a launching pad for one of my patented totally irrelevant rants on how Obama isn't properly catering to old rural white people? I mean, I know you all want to talk about other things, but only my obsessions matter!
5
Whoa, "notsnarkyever", you should probably state why it's a stupid expense, and not just make the assumption that it is. The arts are part of what make a great city - they provide the creative, vital atmosphere that make people want to live in an urban hub. You can debate the relative value of one art form over another, and definitely the effectiveness of the arts pieces themselves, but I just don't see the argument that arts investment is stupid. Getting your pretty face into the public eyes? Definitely stupid. Nobody's moving to Seattle for that shit.
6
Also, there is a program that pays (mostly) for kids to go see theatre and ballet in Seattle. Its called Teen Tix, and once the student signs up they can go to any of the participating institutions for $5. This includes the opera, PNB, and most of the theatre companies in this town. This problem is being taken care of.
The arts have a bunch of problems that aren't. Let the government help us. We need it a lot right now.
The arts have a bunch of problems that aren't. Let the government help us. We need it a lot right now.
7
thank you for the response. You are basically saying that these dollars are free, but until we raise taxes and have social democracy, they aren't. They are real dollars and we could redirect them.
You also didn't address the overall point that this kind of spending for fluffy ephemera is what drives the working class away from Democrats and liberals.
You also didn't adress the point that if we are spending on art, there are better ways to spend on art.
You're basically name calling and it reveals the poverty of your position.
Until progressives take accountability for the choices government spending involves, efficiency and the like, we are not going to get to national heath care well funded transit spending for education or anything resembling a just society.
The overall progressive movement is set back because too often the charge of the right wing that govt. is mismanaged is true. Budgets are real choices. Pretending they aren't for your special sacred cow is intellectually ... let's just say lame.
I repeat: this is ephemera. Not one of these performances is going to be remembered for anything. This is taxing the poor to pay for nothing. The dollars would be better spent on preventive check ups, transit vouchers, housing vouchers, hiring art teachers and paying for paint in schools, or taking kids to good, established plays. So if all you can do is name call and pretend that these dollars, alone out of all dollars the govt. spends, are magically "free" dollars as to which no discussion is allowed on pain of name calling, you are just avoiding the responsibility of defending the position that you take. People are unemployed, we need infrastructure, our nation is failing in many ways, the city is cutting budgets, the state is cutting budgets, and the nation has run out of money and in a sense every dollar spent is a mortgage on the future. So in this context especially, when you can't even be bothered to actually defend your spending choices, that decision to simply personalize, name call and pretend the dollars are free is not just irresponsible but elitist, arrogant, and cold and unfeeling to real human and social needs.
Thank you for this forum.
More...
You also didn't address the overall point that this kind of spending for fluffy ephemera is what drives the working class away from Democrats and liberals.
You also didn't adress the point that if we are spending on art, there are better ways to spend on art.
You're basically name calling and it reveals the poverty of your position.
Until progressives take accountability for the choices government spending involves, efficiency and the like, we are not going to get to national heath care well funded transit spending for education or anything resembling a just society.
The overall progressive movement is set back because too often the charge of the right wing that govt. is mismanaged is true. Budgets are real choices. Pretending they aren't for your special sacred cow is intellectually ... let's just say lame.
I repeat: this is ephemera. Not one of these performances is going to be remembered for anything. This is taxing the poor to pay for nothing. The dollars would be better spent on preventive check ups, transit vouchers, housing vouchers, hiring art teachers and paying for paint in schools, or taking kids to good, established plays. So if all you can do is name call and pretend that these dollars, alone out of all dollars the govt. spends, are magically "free" dollars as to which no discussion is allowed on pain of name calling, you are just avoiding the responsibility of defending the position that you take. People are unemployed, we need infrastructure, our nation is failing in many ways, the city is cutting budgets, the state is cutting budgets, and the nation has run out of money and in a sense every dollar spent is a mortgage on the future. So in this context especially, when you can't even be bothered to actually defend your spending choices, that decision to simply personalize, name call and pretend the dollars are free is not just irresponsible but elitist, arrogant, and cold and unfeeling to real human and social needs.
Thank you for this forum.
8
It's not a stupid expense.
We can all argue whether one example or another of public art is worthy or not. But as a whole, in the abstract, art has great value to our society. I would rather Seattle be known as an arts and cultural center than being known for its viaduct.
I, for one, would advocate spending 100 times more on public art and support for the arts.
We can all argue whether one example or another of public art is worthy or not. But as a whole, in the abstract, art has great value to our society. I would rather Seattle be known as an arts and cultural center than being known for its viaduct.
I, for one, would advocate spending 100 times more on public art and support for the arts.
9
This expense has nothing to do with the state's budget - this is a city expense. The 1% for the arts program generates millions of art expenditures per year. Go check with Sound Transit and other agencies.
10
@4
if you want gay marriage, national health care and other progressive policies you need support from people who are not young and who do not live in cities. Learn some electoral math. Go look up the definition of coalition. And the meaning of the terms, unity, hope and change.
Right NOW we don't have any of those things and we're not even likely to get them soon because since 1968 conservatives have painted govt. as wasteful, crazy, wacky, loony and "the other." So having spending programs for things that are wasteful, crazy, wacky, loony and "the other" helps the conservatives. That's the problem.
If you think supporting these programs is democratic or popular, I invite you to go on KIRO Dave Ross and take some calls to find out.
And go ahead -- you tell me how we're going to sell the people who aren't progressive to become progressive with albatrosses like these stupid dollars for wacky plays around our liberal necks.
if you want gay marriage, national health care and other progressive policies you need support from people who are not young and who do not live in cities. Learn some electoral math. Go look up the definition of coalition. And the meaning of the terms, unity, hope and change.
Right NOW we don't have any of those things and we're not even likely to get them soon because since 1968 conservatives have painted govt. as wasteful, crazy, wacky, loony and "the other." So having spending programs for things that are wasteful, crazy, wacky, loony and "the other" helps the conservatives. That's the problem.
If you think supporting these programs is democratic or popular, I invite you to go on KIRO Dave Ross and take some calls to find out.
And go ahead -- you tell me how we're going to sell the people who aren't progressive to become progressive with albatrosses like these stupid dollars for wacky plays around our liberal necks.
12
PC,
"pretend the dollars are free" is not what Brendan or Jen is saying. Of course these arts programs are not free. They cost every man, woman and child of Washington State 30 cents per year. That's right, 30 cents per year! That's bigger than zero! How elitist and arrogant to ask 30 cents of every person in Washington State to keep a productive, vibrant arts community going in this city and state and to slow the rate of our artists from brain-draining to New York. The presence of an active arts community is a big part of what makes Seattle attractive to productive, hard-working creative-class folks (such as our software development industry), who in turn bring jobs and business into the city, which more than likely can account for more than $2 million in annual state tax revenue.
Why do you hate the economy, PC? Why do you want this state to fail?
"pretend the dollars are free" is not what Brendan or Jen is saying. Of course these arts programs are not free. They cost every man, woman and child of Washington State 30 cents per year. That's right, 30 cents per year! That's bigger than zero! How elitist and arrogant to ask 30 cents of every person in Washington State to keep a productive, vibrant arts community going in this city and state and to slow the rate of our artists from brain-draining to New York. The presence of an active arts community is a big part of what makes Seattle attractive to productive, hard-working creative-class folks (such as our software development industry), who in turn bring jobs and business into the city, which more than likely can account for more than $2 million in annual state tax revenue.
Why do you hate the economy, PC? Why do you want this state to fail?
13
In terms of job creation and the multiplier effect of money, spending $250K on some low-paid artists who create things locally, have parties locally for friends, can't afford to jet off to Thailand and spend the money there - as compared to giving it to AIG to give to British employees of the hedge funds who almost certainly will spend ZERO dollars locally ...
makes a heck of a lot more sense.
makes a heck of a lot more sense.
14
The point is that the majority of arts events actually generate money for the local economy. Though they are niche events, like most forms of entertainment (cable TV has been targeting smaller and smaller specific demographics for years), performing and visual arts programs bring specific people from their homes (often from outside the city), to areas within Seattle. Though a group is relatively small in size, they can have huge financial impact. They pay for the event, they often pay to park, they often pay to eat, and they often pay to drink. If I were a restaurant owner near the Seattle Center, I would thank the city for at least doing something to bring people near my place of business, because Lord knows no one is coming to Key Arena now that The Sonics are gone.
The money generated from ticket sales and secondary purchases associated with the arts patrons will MAKE THE CITY MONEY. This is not a waste, it is a tiny investment that almost always turns a profit for the city.
The money generated from ticket sales and secondary purchases associated with the arts patrons will MAKE THE CITY MONEY. This is not a waste, it is a tiny investment that almost always turns a profit for the city.
15
"Not one of these performances is going to be remembered for anything."
PC you lost your whole argument right there.
PC you lost your whole argument right there.
16
@5:
@3 has no clue as to why investing in culture and the artists who create it would be "stupid and wasteful"; they've just heard someone (probably Rush or Hannity) spew this talking-point, and they're simply parroting the verbiage without any conscious thought behind it.
The TRUTH is that art & culture represents a HUGE economic engine at all levels of our society, far more than say, professional athletics, which is even more heavily subsidized by the government (ask Paul Allen!), brings in a far lower Return On Investment, and yet receives very little comparative criticism as do the arts.
It is also a well-documented (and easily searchable) fact that a much larger portion of the revenue generated from arts and cultural activities tends to stay in the local economy and thus in the pockets of local businesses, than does the income generated by sports, where an significantly larger amount of revenue gets sucked out of the local economy than stays within it.
Finally, the amount of revenue attracted to the state and city by artistic endeavors tends to be much higher than the amount spent. For example, the non-profit Washington Film Works is authorized by the State to provide tax incentives of up to 30% of a film, TV series or national commercial's production expenses, capped at $1mm per production. Last year WFW doled out about $4mm in incentives (all funded by local businesses, NOT taxpayers, BTW), which in turn generated more than $16mm in revenue from productions that could very easily have gone elsewhere to shoot.
And that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
@3 has no clue as to why investing in culture and the artists who create it would be "stupid and wasteful"; they've just heard someone (probably Rush or Hannity) spew this talking-point, and they're simply parroting the verbiage without any conscious thought behind it.
The TRUTH is that art & culture represents a HUGE economic engine at all levels of our society, far more than say, professional athletics, which is even more heavily subsidized by the government (ask Paul Allen!), brings in a far lower Return On Investment, and yet receives very little comparative criticism as do the arts.
It is also a well-documented (and easily searchable) fact that a much larger portion of the revenue generated from arts and cultural activities tends to stay in the local economy and thus in the pockets of local businesses, than does the income generated by sports, where an significantly larger amount of revenue gets sucked out of the local economy than stays within it.
Finally, the amount of revenue attracted to the state and city by artistic endeavors tends to be much higher than the amount spent. For example, the non-profit Washington Film Works is authorized by the State to provide tax incentives of up to 30% of a film, TV series or national commercial's production expenses, capped at $1mm per production. Last year WFW doled out about $4mm in incentives (all funded by local businesses, NOT taxpayers, BTW), which in turn generated more than $16mm in revenue from productions that could very easily have gone elsewhere to shoot.
And that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
17
PC, you keep repeating that money should only go to good, established plays.
Where do you think "established" plays come from? Do you thnk they spring, fully formed, from the ether? Or are you completely failing to comprehend that established playwrights were once writers of "ephemera" who developed their work with assistance from granting programs exactly like this one?
Where do you think "established" plays come from? Do you thnk they spring, fully formed, from the ether? Or are you completely failing to comprehend that established playwrights were once writers of "ephemera" who developed their work with assistance from granting programs exactly like this one?
18
Also, PC, if you capitulate on arts funding - which is actually stimulative and MAKES the state more money than the state spends on it - if you concede that such funding is frivolous, well, you've lost the argument already on all that other stuff. Government funding never directly turns a profit in the same way that corporations measure their profits, but their social benefits and indirect stimulative effects are what makes them worthwhile. So regardless of whether you think this art is worthy, it pays for the state to fund it.
Unless you really believe that nobody needs art. In which case: do us all a favor and go crawl into a cave.
Unless you really believe that nobody needs art. In which case: do us all a favor and go crawl into a cave.
19
First off, I agree: our city should have a very vibrant arts scene. I like going to the theater, going to shows, visiting museums, etc. I don't see why taxing people who may or may not believe that to pay for it is a good idea (even if it is taxing them just a little bit; I go back to my proposal to tax everyone a very, very small amount and just give it to me.)
I think what's healthy is if a city is full of enough people who appreciate culture that they voluntarily pay for its trappings. We've got a lot of great practitioners of the culinary arts here, all without tax support for them.
And I'm not saying art should be only enjoyed by people rich enough to pay for it. Rich people, for whatever reason, also seem to like to provide subsidized art for their whole communities. Theaters are largely underwritten by philanthropy. I went to school where Paul Allen paid a couple hundred k just for us to be able to look at some giant painting. And that's great. But I don't see why we should force people to pay for something they wouldn't spend their money on anyway
I think what's healthy is if a city is full of enough people who appreciate culture that they voluntarily pay for its trappings. We've got a lot of great practitioners of the culinary arts here, all without tax support for them.
And I'm not saying art should be only enjoyed by people rich enough to pay for it. Rich people, for whatever reason, also seem to like to provide subsidized art for their whole communities. Theaters are largely underwritten by philanthropy. I went to school where Paul Allen paid a couple hundred k just for us to be able to look at some giant painting. And that's great. But I don't see why we should force people to pay for something they wouldn't spend their money on anyway
20
also, @18, where do you get your numbers that arts funding makes the state money? How much, and how much could it? What if we taxed everyone $500 dollars, used it to fund the arts. Could we then give everyone $600 back from all the skrill that would come rolling in? if so, sign me up! I take it all back!
Look, even if $.30 is a small arts tax, it is still a tax, and in principle offsets other spending. Presumably people would spend some or all of that money on other things, which would in turn be income for other washingtonians. Are you saying it has a net money making ability, or only if you ignore, you know, the costs?
Look, even if $.30 is a small arts tax, it is still a tax, and in principle offsets other spending. Presumably people would spend some or all of that money on other things, which would in turn be income for other washingtonians. Are you saying it has a net money making ability, or only if you ignore, you know, the costs?
21
@19 - You don't understand how art works. Established artists can usually get private funding for their projects; up-and-coming artists are the ones who have the raw talent but don't have the name recognition and need the boost from public funding to make the work and put it out there. Fewer successful up-and-coming artists means fewer established artists in the long run, until we only have national and international Damien Hirst superstars and big playhouses doing Shakespeare re-runs getting all the private investment and nobody smaller than that can get a break.
"But I don't see why we should force people to pay for something they wouldn't spend their money on anyway"
You clearly believe, then, that the free market can fix every problem there is. You don't plan on going to jail any time soon, do you? Then why should your tax dollars fund a jail? Or a military? You're not directly using them, so why pay for them?
Fact is, these expenses have indirect benefits whether you use them directly or not. You use jails to keep criminals out of your life. You use arts programs to keep the city vibrant and to fund tomorrow's established artists and keep them from leaving the state. You may not directly see the benefit right away, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
"But I don't see why we should force people to pay for something they wouldn't spend their money on anyway"
You clearly believe, then, that the free market can fix every problem there is. You don't plan on going to jail any time soon, do you? Then why should your tax dollars fund a jail? Or a military? You're not directly using them, so why pay for them?
Fact is, these expenses have indirect benefits whether you use them directly or not. You use jails to keep criminals out of your life. You use arts programs to keep the city vibrant and to fund tomorrow's established artists and keep them from leaving the state. You may not directly see the benefit right away, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
22
@19: It's called paying for something you don't realize you demand. It's what people who never purchase an ounce of gas do when they pay for mark-up at the grocery store due to fluctuating fuel prices.
People laud Seattle for its beauty, both natural and manmade. This is one thing that draws people in for whatever purposes they use Seattle for, even those who hate spending money on art. Creating a functional but beautiful environment on pocket scrapings isn't wrong, and expecting the rich or deliberate patrons of art to pay fully for something used by everyone is idiotic. The public benefit of well-maintained and high-standard public spaces is obvious, from the boulevards of Europe to our own publicly funded art spaces downtown.
If that makes you feel dirty, you can always move.
Complaining is free, though. You can do that all you want.
People laud Seattle for its beauty, both natural and manmade. This is one thing that draws people in for whatever purposes they use Seattle for, even those who hate spending money on art. Creating a functional but beautiful environment on pocket scrapings isn't wrong, and expecting the rich or deliberate patrons of art to pay fully for something used by everyone is idiotic. The public benefit of well-maintained and high-standard public spaces is obvious, from the boulevards of Europe to our own publicly funded art spaces downtown.
If that makes you feel dirty, you can always move.
Complaining is free, though. You can do that all you want.
23
@20 - Look, it's a fact - rich yuppies want to be where the artists are. Small towns like Port Townsend have a big tourist industry around the arts. Bigger cities like Seattle attract an upper class as long as they are vibrant cities worth living in. Kill the arts community, kill the vibrancy of the city, and your rich yuppies set up shop elsewhere. Keep the arts here, and your rich yuppies are going out for artwalks, nights on the town, expensive condos downtown, and so forth.
Point is, the economy is not a "pie" to be sliced up - it's a flowing system, so when you give money to artists they're going to turn around and spend it right away to make stuff that other people will in turn spend money to experience. Simple as that. So, even after the costs, you're making a NET ECONOMIC BENEFIT from having arts programs around.
Point is, the economy is not a "pie" to be sliced up - it's a flowing system, so when you give money to artists they're going to turn around and spend it right away to make stuff that other people will in turn spend money to experience. Simple as that. So, even after the costs, you're making a NET ECONOMIC BENEFIT from having arts programs around.
24
I think the better argument about public arts funding is that it generally gets used for exactly the kind of dreck PC is proposing sending kids to--well-established plays or the ballet. Conformist art, that no one's going to be offended by. In this instance, it sounds like it's going to people who might actually be doing interesting things, however.
25
PC writes:
"Not one of these performances is going to be remembered for anything."
That is literally not something that you are able to know. It's clear that you do not value the arts, period, or you wouldn't say something so intellectually dishonest.
"Not one of these performances is going to be remembered for anything."
That is literally not something that you are able to know. It's clear that you do not value the arts, period, or you wouldn't say something so intellectually dishonest.
26
Ballet is so two centuries ago.
Heck, most of the "established" plays were written one to two centuries ago, for that matter.
Heck, most of the "established" plays were written one to two centuries ago, for that matter.
27
This post and the comments got me thinking about jealousy.
There's a difference of opinion on how artists are valued, and how much art is worth. And similarly, whether the job of an artist is "real work" or not.
Some people value what art as a whole brings to a community. They don't have to like every single piece in order to find a tiny public investment worthwhile. Other people who think that art is fluffy or ephemeral (aka worthless) and that an artist should "get a real job" become jealous when they imagine *others* getting paid by the state to create it. This jealousy is often expressed by comments about improper spending of "my" tax dollars.
This difference of opinion stems from the very *subjectivity* that marks art interesting to begin with. Some people understand the value in seeing life from another POV. Others dismiss (or fear) such things.
Thus, this debate will always be with us.
There's a difference of opinion on how artists are valued, and how much art is worth. And similarly, whether the job of an artist is "real work" or not.
Some people value what art as a whole brings to a community. They don't have to like every single piece in order to find a tiny public investment worthwhile. Other people who think that art is fluffy or ephemeral (aka worthless) and that an artist should "get a real job" become jealous when they imagine *others* getting paid by the state to create it. This jealousy is often expressed by comments about improper spending of "my" tax dollars.
This difference of opinion stems from the very *subjectivity* that marks art interesting to begin with. Some people understand the value in seeing life from another POV. Others dismiss (or fear) such things.
Thus, this debate will always be with us.
28
I'll point out, PC@7, that the late Mayor Richard J. Daley of Chicago, about as white and working class as you can get, made a point in the 1960s to attract major artists to design and install public art in his city. The most notable example was Pablo Picasso. I'm guessing he commissioned no studies on the net economic benefit, nor was there any articulated "percent for arts" policy. He just believed strongly (and this is a guy from the South Side of Chicago), that good public art makes people proud of their city. And he was not about to let Chicago take a back seat to New York or Paris in terms of its arts scene.
We can talk about bad examples of public art, but that's a different debate.
We can talk about bad examples of public art, but that's a different debate.
29
Will in Seattle:
Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, Brecht, Pinter, Tony Kushner...these are established playwrights from the mid to late 20th Century.
That said, why did you post that comment?
Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, Brecht, Pinter, Tony Kushner...these are established playwrights from the mid to late 20th Century.
That said, why did you post that comment?
30
@16:
As I understand it, your facts about Washington Film Works are wrong. Although WFW technically is funded through contributions by "investors," those entities then receive a B&O tax credit. So it may be laundered through another group, but there's a 1:1 cost to taxpayers for every $1 of incentives.
Further, the idea of creating "incentives" to keep businesses from going elsewhere is exactly the kind of short-sighted policy that produces a downward spiral of revenue and encourages corporate types to play localities against one another.
And capitalizing your favorite words in a post doesn't count as citing sources for your made-up "facts."
As I understand it, your facts about Washington Film Works are wrong. Although WFW technically is funded through contributions by "investors," those entities then receive a B&O tax credit. So it may be laundered through another group, but there's a 1:1 cost to taxpayers for every $1 of incentives.
Further, the idea of creating "incentives" to keep businesses from going elsewhere is exactly the kind of short-sighted policy that produces a downward spiral of revenue and encourages corporate types to play localities against one another.
And capitalizing your favorite words in a post doesn't count as citing sources for your made-up "facts."
31
Lots of good points about why PC is wrong, but one thing to add is that it's absurd to draw a bright line between artists and working class folks. A lot of artists are working class.
32
@31 well said. It's just a bunch of inflammatory culture war bullshit, and it also carries the condescending (and totally unsupported) assumption that "working class" people don't like art.
33
This is the wrong argument. Art is not about generating money within a society. Society generates money so it can have art. Art is the end game of the economy. The red herring is popular media that has merged art into the economy. The performers, writer, painters, sculptors, etc. came first. These are the artists who used stage, radio, TV/film, paints, photographs, wood, stone, glass etc. that eventually became Hollywood, advertising, buildings and you know, the world we live in.
You don't build a house to live in a cave.
You don't build a house to live in a cave.
34
@30:
Except of course that private taxpayers don't pay the "Business & Occupations tax", businesses do. So, it's not a "robbing from the taxpayers to pay film companies" scenario, as you attempt to imply, rather it's a process whereby the state gives these select businesses (mostly those in the film & commercial production industry) a credit on their B&O taxes in exchange for their contribution to WFW precisely because it recognizes that their investment helps bring in far more tax revenue TO the state than is represented by the offsetting credit. In short, by allowing businesses to take a tax credit for contributing to WFW, the state ends up receiving even more tax revenue, due to the increased economic activity generated by the incentives, than it would if it simply took the B&O taxes in the first place.
And while your analysis of incentives in general represents the ideal, the simple fact of the matter is that this or similar types of incentive programs already exist in 36 states, plus most Canadian provinces. You can debate the relative merits of such a system, but in this case, consciously electing NOT to participate doesn't benefit the state in any way shape or form, since these productions (and their associated revenue streams) could easily find another state or province that would provide them an incentive. The system you decry is not going to go away just because we decide not to play ball; the only result of that kind of intransigence is that the money is going to go somewhere else, no matter what. Since you can't beat the system, it makes far more sense to USE the system to leverage additional revenue for THIS state, rather than letting it go to another, especially when there's a proven net economic benefit to be gained by doing so.
More...
Except of course that private taxpayers don't pay the "Business & Occupations tax", businesses do. So, it's not a "robbing from the taxpayers to pay film companies" scenario, as you attempt to imply, rather it's a process whereby the state gives these select businesses (mostly those in the film & commercial production industry) a credit on their B&O taxes in exchange for their contribution to WFW precisely because it recognizes that their investment helps bring in far more tax revenue TO the state than is represented by the offsetting credit. In short, by allowing businesses to take a tax credit for contributing to WFW, the state ends up receiving even more tax revenue, due to the increased economic activity generated by the incentives, than it would if it simply took the B&O taxes in the first place.
And while your analysis of incentives in general represents the ideal, the simple fact of the matter is that this or similar types of incentive programs already exist in 36 states, plus most Canadian provinces. You can debate the relative merits of such a system, but in this case, consciously electing NOT to participate doesn't benefit the state in any way shape or form, since these productions (and their associated revenue streams) could easily find another state or province that would provide them an incentive. The system you decry is not going to go away just because we decide not to play ball; the only result of that kind of intransigence is that the money is going to go somewhere else, no matter what. Since you can't beat the system, it makes far more sense to USE the system to leverage additional revenue for THIS state, rather than letting it go to another, especially when there's a proven net economic benefit to be gained by doing so.
35
@34:
Again without any citation to real numbers. Did you use to work for the Sonics or something?
Again without any citation to real numbers. Did you use to work for the Sonics or something?
36
And further, my point was to address your claim that the incentives are funded by local businesses, not taxpayers. I suppose you can claim that a tax not collected is not the same as funding an incentive, but the bottom-line impact on the budget is still the same - especially this year, when decreased revenue led to huge cuts throughout the state. Unless you want to drag out your unsupported voodoo economics argument again.
37
@35:
All of this is very easy for YOU to look up on your own, and I'm sure you KNOW how to do it. You want the numbers, then I suggest you flex those fat, Cheeto's-encrusted digits of yours and spend the two minutes looking them up yourself. I think my track record is already well-established on SLOG re: my ability to produce the numbers and citations, but I'm not your fucking mommie here to hold your hand every time you whine about my BLOG COMMENT not passing your lame-assed passive-aggressive peer review process.
Besides, I've got better things to do - like going outside.
TT4N
All of this is very easy for YOU to look up on your own, and I'm sure you KNOW how to do it. You want the numbers, then I suggest you flex those fat, Cheeto's-encrusted digits of yours and spend the two minutes looking them up yourself. I think my track record is already well-established on SLOG re: my ability to produce the numbers and citations, but I'm not your fucking mommie here to hold your hand every time you whine about my BLOG COMMENT not passing your lame-assed passive-aggressive peer review process.
Besides, I've got better things to do - like going outside.
TT4N
38
@37:
Except the numbers don't exist. They're all based on a hypothetical "productions that MAY not have existed." At least now I have a new mission to work on between now and the next session - killing this trough of crap that keeps you employed.
Except the numbers don't exist. They're all based on a hypothetical "productions that MAY not have existed." At least now I have a new mission to work on between now and the next session - killing this trough of crap that keeps you employed.
39
yeah, cause you know the arts add NOTHING to the economy...oh, wait, they do? Millions and millions of dollars? Billions, actually if you consider the role the arts contribute to tourism. or, art = design = commerce.
oh...
never mind.
oh...
never mind.
41
I'm looking at doing a performance art piece where I lay Republican incumbents end to end and run over them with a steamroller.
naturally, there will be no protective devices, since they don't believe in that.
what could possibly go wrong? I think it will be keen.
naturally, there will be no protective devices, since they don't believe in that.
what could possibly go wrong? I think it will be keen.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (41) RSS