wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

All of those possibly soon-to-be employed people in the arts DON'T vote for Replutocrats. That's all that is about.

'...And, is the money going to people making art, or to "administrators"?'

As an artist who worked as an administrator in the performing arts, figuring out what the artists could be doing, hiring artists, paying artists, guess what? They have a term for artists without some form of adminstration or management involved, "producers of excess inventory," or, in a word, "unemployed." From an economic point of view, a warehouse filled with art inventory is mostly just a fire hazard.

Sorry, but some one has to know how to sell the inventory. Beyond that is laying in out on a sheet out on the sidewalk, that is. And hoping that someone will buy it. Oh, right, those guys are selling bootlegs.

Based on the record of achievement, there is an argument that schools have less to do with education than you might think. Not a good thing, but given the failure rate, ...

And as any achievement in an Art (that's worth a damn) does tend to involve an understanding of oh, so many other areas, like say History, well, don't slight the Arts by putting them in a some phoney barnyard brawl with Education.

When it comes to the Arts, it's been my experience that they supply more of a reason for being educated than sports.

Possibly an old, and thus out-dated, statistic, but last I knew the Arts in NYC were a larger industry than Sports. As I said that might have changed.

Fact of the matter is also, Baseball, the American Pastime, doesn't account for much in the way of exports. After all they aren't selling bootleg World Series games in the streets of Beijing, now are they?

Bottom line for the Replutocrats? If it included tax breaks for yachts, that would go without comment.

Though I am not sure that the NEA is all that good a vehicle. States arts councils would appear to be more efficient. After all the NEA also tends to give money to them that has it.

Who has been teaching arts + culture in the schools after the teachers were let go? Artists and arts orgs have come in to fill the void.

The skill sets that corporations have identified as missing from current graduates are all things that the arts cultivate: collaborative skills, problem solving and innovative thinking. The creatives will be the driving economic force in the new 21st Century economy.

I think that the 7:1 return on investment in the arts is telling -- never mind the esoteric considerations of why arts matter. I'm an artist myself so I'm on board for arts already.

The argument for the stimulus money is that this funding will go to work right away and generate a 7 fold return in our communities. Even Joe the Plumber can understand that!

The restaurant worker, the parking lot attendant and the baby sitter are all working because the theater in the community is putting on performances. This is seed capital.

please talk about how so many reporters are ill-trained to talk about the economy.

there was a story in the paper that said car sales are the lowest since DINOSAURS walked the EARTH!!! (or something like that).

if car sales are down that means that repair shops should probably stock up, no?

Zoos and aquariums do not have anything to do with "the arts." As a matter of fact, they don't have anything to do with education either, beyond an excuse for a day-long field-trip for shrieking rug-rats to tease imprisoned exotic animals.

Love the arts. Love artists. The arts enrich our lives immeasurably.

But if the decision is between cutting arts funding and cutting teaching positions, I'd rather we spend money on teachers.

Maybe we could do with fewer new sports stadiums?

Believe it or not, not all artists are secretly rich kids living off trust funds. Artists need jobs just like everyone else. When the economy tanks, the arts tank with it. Brandeis University has chosen to liquidate the Rose to stay afloat. In the Great Depression we had the WPA. This generated many life-saving jobs for artists who went on to make some of the most important work of the century - work, i might add, that wall street CEO's pat themselves on the back for bidding on at auctions.

Marie in Indiana

#22

He actually cited his source verbally. Re-listen to the pod-cast.

Have been in the arts all my life and believe when money is tight there are far more important needs to be addressed.

Without the help of the NEA and other funding umbrellas, the arts would only be accessible to the more elite. Grants to community arts groups and projects make those programs affordable both to participants and their audiences. Without grants, participant dues and expenses would prohibit many from getting involved and ticket prices would have to soar to cover costs. Many programs and performing ensembles would have to fold under financial pressures until the only available arts would be by the professionals, at ticket prices only affordable buy the rich. Somehow that seems to defeat the very core of what Art is and does.

My paycheck comes from the arts. That money gets spent at the grocery store, to buy clothes, on medical bills, etc - that's the economy. If I lose my job, that money goes away. Arts funding is directly stimulative to the economy.

More Americans go to live cultural events than go to sporting events. The arts are important to our lives - they're not pork.

i don't understand the debate over NEA funding, stimulus. a job is a job, right? because it's a job in the arts it's less of a job to most americans? these ignorant legislators are representing themselves and their constituents who are equally as ignorant. bush was elected twice- this is our populus.....ignorant, short sighted people.
one more thing- the waterfalls were ridiculous, by the way....the spray from these dumb things killed all the trees in bklyn bridge park. i understand it brought in some tourists but who the hell approved that bad idea?

Ditto to another person's comment about creating a WPA for today. I was laid off from my staff magazine job, and I'm a writer. Lots of writers, artists, etc. have been laid off from publishing jobs. There is no work. Is there a way to use people with publishing and other skills to teach kids or create needed publications for organizations that can no longer afford in-house depts.? Could there be a Job Core (rather than an arts core) of people who can do real work and be paid a living wage?

It seems to me that the reason there are objections to arts funding in the Congress, despite all the proven economic benefits, is because of censorship a.k.a. "The NEA Four".

What we remember best and value most from the WPA was it's arts - the murals, photography, oral history, etc.

The caller who claimed that the waterfalls exhibit brought such a huge amount of money to the city should have been asked how they knew this. Sounded very fishy.

Can someone provide reference to the studies that show that the waterfalls, etc. produced net benefits to NYC?

I'm curious to see just how that conclusion is arrived at - for instance, did these people come to NYC just to see these public art projects?

Never mind the fact that I personally think these large "corporate" art projects... well... suck.

And, is the money going to people making art, or to "administrators"?

I'm a freelance technical editor for a large museum. Every time Wall Street caves in, I end up with a year of unemployment. Exhibition catalogues are shovel-ready, and these funds can keep them online. The museums also cut back on guards during a downturn, and almost all guards have alternate lives as musicians and artists. The museums have many, many lower middle class employees.

i think hard-hit rustbelt towns that have recently discovered that the arts are good business would speak up in favor of this relief. can you and your guest speak to why it is that republicans see the arts as an easy target?

I think the resistance to arts funding in the stimulus package stems from an unimaginative idea of what a job is, based on children's books: Do you want to be a fireman? A doctor? A policeman? !!!

People in the arts are exceedingly well trained professionals doing what they're good at. Why not help them through hard times? Our lives are better with arts in them, and if that doesn't matter to a person, then they should consider the loss of collateral income when artists can't launch their projects.

From a stimulus perspective, funding performing arts organizations would be highly effective. As a former General Manager of a prominent symphony orchestra in NYC, I know firsthand that of our approx. $5 million annual operating budget, more than $3 million of that went directly to wages and benefits for a full-time administrative staff of about 10 employees, PLUS more than 200 professional freelance musicians - some of the best in the world. Of the remaining $2 million, the vast majority of this went to small local businesses such as printers and graphic designers, or directly to purchasing office supplies, or directly to the stagehands and production staff at various rehearsal and performance venues around the city.

As for the appropriate amount of stimulus for the arts, for it to really make a difference to a small organization, it really needs to be about 10% of the budget. For example, a $5 million budget organization would really benefit from a $500,000 grant. Anything less would certainly be helpful and relieve the burden of fundraising from individual donors, but it would not be enough to ADD work to a season, or ADD employees to the staff, etc.

I am a theater artist, and teach workshops for artists that touch on the economic impact, so I'm on your side. My question is really one of strategy.

The right is still making the same arguments that they were 15 years ago - "degenerate art; immoral bohemians seeking handouts for nothing," etc. - and people who listen to them are buying it. How do we change the argument and make some of this creative economy information more widely available and digestible?

The money goes to organizations that serve the public and rarely goes to individual artists. These organizations serve people. It is easy for the obstructionists in Congress to say it is going to radical individual artists. It never does.

Brian-

I love your show and your even-handedness but to accept Republican talking points about programs in the stimulus package that are 'just pork' does you no credit.

The government spending is BY DEFINITION stimulus! It is irrelevant if it is highway construction or arts funding.

I think ALL the stimulus money from the government should go to non-profits. We are in the business of spending money. For every dollar that is given to a non-profit it goes back out into the economy by way of salaries, fees to purchase goods and services. When the first stimulus happen and went to the banks, they kept it because that is their business. Our business is spending money. The NEA has already vetted the arts organization they give money to. We have the stamp of approval by the federal government.

This is the definition of "shovel-ready." Hundreds, even thousands of arts organizations are already doing the work that these funds would support. NEA requires matching funds and low overhead, so it's cost-effective. It's also great for New York City because of the wealth of arts organizations there; though the effect would be felt nationwide. Finally, $50M is a pittance compared to the other components of the stimulus package.

I don't know if it's so much about stimulus, but the NEA needs to help arts organizations to keep them alive. It's about a rich and varied national culture. My chamber music series is in the process of becoming non-profit, and this is the worst possible time to be reliant on private and corporate donations. The country shows its values are in the right place by not letting arts organizations live or die by the free market. Everyone knows that the arts are the first thing to go when times are tight, and the last thing to go when things turn rosy again.

We need to fund long-lasting art: Statues, outdoor murals, frescoes and details so buildings won't be so ugly, landscaping, etc.

Performance art and people who take pictures of jars of urine should not be funded.

Of course the arts should be included in the stimulus bill. As an underemployed writer, I'm praying that Obama will look to FDR's writers project as a way to help create jobs in the arts community, too. Roads and infrastructure are important, but so is the conveyance of information through words and art.

I still don't have a clear idea what sorts of activities "stimulate" the creation of jobs. I agree that as Mr. Lynch explains it, the NEA funds would create jobs for a variety of people. Even planting new grass on the Mall would employ the people who grow the sod, deliver it, and plant and water it. Aren't those jobs?

If those are not jobs, what are?

It seems the best art tends to come out of troubled times. Why not capture culture in its down times?

I'd much rather have $50 million of tax money go toward the arts than a new 12-seat jet for Citibank. Anyone who lives in NYC knows that every cent spent on the arts in this city is returned 10-fold by property tax revenues. Those new chic neighborhoods wouldn't be so chic if artistic communities (that have now been priced out) hadn't formed there first.

did he say $50M for 100,000 non-profit organizations? is my math off, or is that $500 per org?!?! WTF is that supposed to do? that will pay a fraction of a salary for about 10 minutes.

It's very important to keep the tax subsidies to the film industry in New York, it's been successful at bringing on more money than it costs and supplies lots of jobs.

Thanks,
Chris

If the Stim' includes $50 mil for the NEA and that gets out to the artists, what will artists do for money after that is spent? Will programs be created that have no future income to sustain them?

what about jon stuarts trickle up theory? use the stimulus to pay off consumer debt, that money goes to banks, people are freed of crippling financial burdens, and the sytem begins to work like it never has before....