Ed McPherson

I participated as a dancer in the Mid-States region one year when I was dancing at Interlochen. The Mid-States region I hear from friends is much different than the Pacific. No contracts are ever awarded as a result of the performances done. The dancers just arent at that level. None the less, I think it was a wonderful thing to do. The kids still get the same benefits, meeting other dancers, taking classes from quality teachers, etc. When mature enough, It's a nice way for studio owners to meet their peers and share ideas as well.

RDA started a podcast this spring, I wrote a blurb about it in Onward and Upward

One thing, I never understood the difference between RDA in most of the country and SERBA in the south? Can anyone shed light on that. I think SERBA stands for South East Regional Ballet Association.

He just recently joined up with Kristin Sloan on her blog the Winger and is contributing pictures and comments along side hers now. Its a great peek into his life and ABT, www.TheWinger.com

I published a post on her, along with some nice pictures I found, in my blog in Feb.

http://linkstosome.blogspot.com/2006/02/dai-ailian.html

Helene,

ahh thanks. I didnt even think to look, pnbmom and I exchange PM's on Ballet Talk for Dancers...

Inside View,

Welcome to BalletTalk, whether you're de-lurking or have just found the site its nice to have new voices posting. I hope you'll drop me a line at the theater sometime.

PNBmom I was going to shoot you a PM but your mail box is full/disabled?

There was a time a few years ago when John Munger at Dance USA would publish a list of all the ballet companies in the country whos annual expenses were over $1 million. After 2003 there were about 75 companies on the list. I would be interested to see how it’s changed, if there are fewer on the list now, if the difference in spending between the top 10 and the rest has widened. Numbers aren't everything but oftentimes they provide a very clear picture. I've emailed John in the past to try to get the most current list. Perhaps someone with more clout could get a hold of it?

you can get the FY03 one here http://portfolio.iu.edu/emcphers/1MillionP...etCompanies.xls

John Munger, Research and Information

1451 Holton Street

St. Paul, MN 55108

Phone: (651)-646-8076

Fax: (651)646-7971

email: jrmdance@aol.com

didnt Denis Nehat just move the company to San Jose from Cleveland?

I posted on Ohio Ballet's closure in my blog when it happened. Since then they've taken their website down. But you can find the details highlighted here

We've just been recently told that Elise Borne will be staging selections of Who Care's at Indiana in a few weeks. I did a quick search on google but couldnt find much information on her. I thought you guys might be able to cue me in a little?

sounds wonderful! thanks for the update

i dont think i can add to the population of blogsville, but I do have a blog down the road in blogsburgh

I like to present and editorialize on aspects of the nations ballet news that interest me most. Somewhat like the links thread here. I'd like to think its worth checking out

http://blog.edwardmcpherson.com

Ohh, I am glad Katita Waldo is doing a show of Grand Pas :rolleyes:

Hello,

Just wondering if anyone remembers hearing about or seeing numbers on Colorado Ballets ticket sales from last winter in comparisson to previous years. If i remember right they were dealing with the Rockettes. But they also have a relativly new version of the Nut, last year might have been its second year?

Anyways, I ask because I have been following the Pittsburgh Ballet in the news a little bit this year. The NLRB is supposed to rule sometime in the next week or so whether they must use live musicians or not.

I am wondering how hard we might expect them to be hit in ticket sales due to the Rockettes, and in the back of my mind curious about what the finances are going to look like at the end of the year if they are forced to use live music as well.

sandik-

It means a lot to me that you took the time to really get into this! It’s the type of discussion that can only be good.

----

you are right in recent years individual grants have been restricted, almost eliminated.

http://www.aau.edu/budget/04IntSumm.html

Bill language is once again recommended under Title III--General Provisions, retaining provisions in last year's bill regarding restrictions on individual grants, subgranting, and seasonal support (Sec. 309);

It is a false comparison, that of private and public business because they are subject to different rules, if you will. But that was sort of part of one of the points I was trying to make. Private business tends to be more efficient. In the spirit of limited government we have traditionally only given the federal government responsibility over the aspects of life we feel the private sector would deny. It is sort of a fundamental thing, whether you believe in a larger or smaller sized government. I dont think the arts would wither away without federal funding so I don’t see a reason for the inefficiency, I dont think it serves the country best.

You are completely right, federal money does act as a seed. This is a red flag to me. I see it as the mild yet disconcerting encroachment of a larger federal government. The NEA puts their stamp of approval on an organization and all of a sudden private money is a whole lot easier to get; and its not that it is only easier to get. This means that if you dont have the stamp of approval it is that much harder to get funding. This opens an avenue for manipulation, and I am not saying this has happened in any serious way. But, it means if an administration wanted to push one perspective they could to some degree do it by giving grants to organizations that fit in with their agenda. Private money would follow; the NEA has a lot of rapport. All the art on the other side of the federal agenda would be undercut, because funding would be that much harder to get, given the dominance NEA approval affords. But to me that is the small part of it.

When the government acts as a seal of approval it means that private organizations don’t have to do the research themselves, we've outsource all the hard, and IMHO most rewarding work, to the government. Private organizations can go through a list of NEA sponsored organizations and pick one that looks good to them, who knows if they will become actively engaged in the organization, or just send a check.. If the NEA didn’t have this type of influence it would force the private sector to find the arts organizations they donate to on their own. I think it would inspire a lot more interaction between arts and non-arts organizations looking for organizations to donate to.

Maybe its a trite thought, but I think the government should spend its time and money focusing on the larger issues that only the government is in a position to remedy. I dont agree with Bush's plan for social security reform but I think political time and money would be best used there, issues of mandatory entitlement spending. There has been a lot of talk about rising health care costs and the rising cost of living for people over the age of 65. If that demographic decides they are too financially stressed to give to their local arts organizations I think we would be in quite a bit more trouble. If we must have the NEA why not promote growth within the audience instead of the performer?

Estelle-

You are right on. The glass escalator implys that there is an unseen trend and cultural perspective that leads or tracks men in female dominated professions to administrative positions (read as, more traditionaly male jobs). In contrast the glass ceiling, is thought of as the unseen barrier that keeps women out of those same jobs.

bart-

No i think you are correct, men do tend to dominate those administrative roles in companies. But even in nursing where the majority of nurses are female their bosses, William's suggested that their bosses are generally male. Williams says they are the men that entered the workforce as nurses and were tracked into administrative positions. Williams used school teachers and school principles as another example of this (although I grew up with female principles).

When i think of female administrators in ballet off the top of my head I come up with Stoner Winslett at Richmond, Jill dont know her last name at Charleston, and Francia Russel at PNB. There muse be others?

in regards to the young boy on Long Island, my mom was telling me a similar story about a boy in my brothers 4th grade class. He learned the dance sequence from the movie Napoleon Dynamite and did it at the schools talent show, everyone thought it was the coolest thing. It is neat to hear about these things.

I think this might inspire some dialogue. I took a sociology classes last semester at school and wrote this paper on men in female dominated professions. By no means is it definitive, just the perspective of a young adult that is relatively new to the field. I had to use some of the sociological vernacular... In regards to that www.wikipedia.com might solve any questions that I dont.

----------

Sex and gender, two words often used synonymously when approached closely leave much room for interpretation and deviation. For better or for worse American culture inexorably ties and binds our perception of sex and gender. Americans undoubtedly are males with penises and females with vaginas, and while there are other perspectives on sex and gender they find little acceptance in the black and white reality that so clearly defines a distinct American zeitgeist. In The Glass Escalator Christine L. Williams chronicles her cultural exploration and underpins a note taken in class; that sexism relies on biological explanation. Williams interestingly exploring the difficulties men face in female dominated professions.

I read The Glass Escalator with great interest. As a ballet dancer my life is a female dominated existence. Williams’s does a wonderful job of exploring such an atypical subject. She shows an impressive and refreshing depth of understanding and insight into the challenges men face in female dominated workplaces. I’d like to take these three pages to examine my field and workplace through the lens that The Glass Escalator affords, concluding on the effects of stigmas in the workforce of the field I am familiar with.

Williams’s explanation of the tracking that men receive into high level and traditionally male administrative positions made clear sense to me. While ballet is most definitely an evolving form of art it is like most of the classical arts steeped in occasionally nearsighted tradition. Men dominate the executive, administrative, and artistic positions of nearly every ballet company in the United States. When women are found in administrative and policy making positions it is not unusual that they might have been accompanied to such levels by their husbands. I found the application of the glass ceiling to the hierarchy of a ballet company interesting. Within a company setting dancers are very removed from administration. Age and education cut clear lines as most dancers are under 30 and lack a college degree while administrators are generally older with some form of secondary education. Of course the politics of upward movement for women and men in ballet companies are simple enough as long as genders are not cross represented on stage. Men and women generally do not compete for the same artistic jobs.

However when you look at the acquisition of administrative jobs there is very little formal protocol to suggest how one should make a serious application. Williams says notes on pages 346 and 347, “Subtle forms of workplace discrimination push women out of male dominated occupations. In particular, women report feeling excluded from informal leadership and decision making networks and they sense hostility from their male co-workers.” This rings very true in the field of ballet. The requirements of ballet companies and their board of directors in regards to how and why administrative positions are awarded vary greatly. There is no standard procedure aside from perhaps the typical creation of a search committee. How this committee acts and what they value is balanced and checked by none as there is no clear benchmark or standard that I am aware of. This creates an infinite array of problems. As Granfield suggested in his work Making it by Faking it, the upper circles that typically constitute a board of directors are usually a smattering of the wealthy and socially elite. Thus, they are predominantly white and male. The guarantors of the ballet discuss administrative hiring’s and engage in politicking at their country clubs and informal outings, not at a desk. With these circumstances in mind it is easy to understand the difficulty a young, beautiful, and in broad terms un-educated women would have in successfully presenting herself.

The concept of the glass escalator applies weakly to men in ballet as there is little competition with women for jobs. What is notable however is that, there are positions in instruction that have been traditionally and are even today nearly exclusively male and female. Rarely does one find a male instructor of Pointe work (dancing on ones toes), but as men are not required to perform or study en pointe some allowance of discrepancy should be made. It is alarming however that it is equally as rare to find a women that teaches pas de deux, (partnering). There are two distinct perspectives in the act of partnering, that of the man and the women. While men who teach these classes can and sometimes do put themselves in the position of the women it is impossible to assume a complete understanding of the females circumstances. The old argument used to justify the disproportional amount of men teaching pas de duex was that men could dance like women and generally understand their perspective but women could never lift other women to gain a full enough perspective of the man’s circumstances. It is a shame that such flawed thinking still holds respect and rapport within an entire workforce and culture.

In discussing the working environment Williams among other things interestingly pointed out that men often find solidarity in their fellow male peers while females in male dominated professions do not. I strongly identified with this conclusion, as I feel that quite often men in ballet do have stronger ties with their male colleagues. We are so generally unaccepted by the typically socialized male that I believe we hold onto a larger amount of the male friendships we are able to create. Their value in the sense of their rarity is much more than those of our female friends.

It is of course impossible to talk about men in ballet without approaching the subject of homosexuality. Paraphrased Williams said, “Gay men may encounter less favorable treatment at the hands of their supervisors. And Administrators may desire heterosexual staff thus leading to an exaggeration of masculinity in the work environment.” It is interesting to note I have experienced somewhat of the opposite effect in my experiences. In consideration of Williams mentioning the common unease single men feel when socializing with married women for fear of giving the wrong impression, the unease a typically socialized man would have talking about, creating, and doing sexual and intimate choreography with a married women are quite forthright and expected. Thus, there is a practicality and ease of social strain when a homosexual man works closely and intimately with a woman. However, true or untrue, there is an understanding in the field that heterosexual men are better experienced and suited to do this type of heterosexually geared work. This creates a simple acknowledgement for straight men leads to a very complex code of unwritten ethics and understandings meant to keep social order in what would be to a typically socialized male very stressful, confusing, and morally deficient situations.

As noted earlier Williams comments on the exaggeration of masculinity; I have experienced an opposite effect amongst ballet dancers. While masculinity is appreciated due largely in part to its rarity within the field, it is in many cases looked down upon, creating something of a Catch 22. Its rarity upon this knowledge and closer inspection becomes more understandable. The difficulty in maintaining a type and forms of masculinity that are acceptable on a scale that is constantly changing in response to particular environments and settings, is for most men not worth the challenge. It is important to understand there is only so much adaptive socialization that can occur to make traditionally unacceptable interactions between men and women more comfortable. This is to say, social sanctions and ideals can not be magically lifted and taboos suddenly justified. Blatant displays of masculinity in most situations cause enormous amounts of discomfort and ill-ease to women in a culture that is vulnerably open. While I don’t have an extremely qualified first hand understanding of typical male masculinity it is in my experience in the most general terms on a public level the simplification of displayed emotion and on a private level the internalization of un-displayed emotion. Such propensities are from the beginning socialized out of a male’s disposition and treated as compromising.

I chuckled when reading Williams thoughts on outsider stereotypes as I wondered when a stereotype loses its fabrication and become a valid element of the truth. I don’t think male sexuality has ever been queried within the field but I believe it is safe to say it runs between 40%-60% either way. My roommate’s opinion dictates 60% gay 40% straight. I am unaware of any consensus. Numbers aside, “gay” these days stands for so much more than sexual preference. It carries with it cultural implication that in itself defines to some varying degree many of the men in ballet. I hesitate to call the assumption that, “men in ballet are gay” a stereotype. It has become my understanding that people of the mind to say such things, haven’t looked close enough at their subject to determine sexuality. Their reaction is not to sexual preference but to what they simply don’t realize is the culture that most often surrounds homosexual men. There is the common lack of understanding that heterosexual men adopt this culture as well.

In this sense it is no surprise I have been subject to outside discrimination. Assumptions that have varied on so many levels; that I am gay, that I should for that matter should be perky and happy, that I am stupid, that ballet is a hobby and therefore I have less ambition than is desired in a male. Such assumptions bothered me immensely until I re-aligned my socialization. For the most part I’ve been able to personally remove myself from the reactions my job receives. There are days when I don’t want to handle the questions or specific instances where a lie belays amounts of social unease that I am not comfortable handling alone. But I generally enjoy the reactions I receive. They are usually a clean judge of character.

Williams concludes that social stigmas do push men out of professions but that they could be a good thing. I initially balked at her statement wondering how any social stigma could be perceived as positive. After adopting a functionalist perspective I realized that; while we don’t pick the general type of person we are to become, that is done when we are socialized, we do have the choice of choosing how we respond to the social stigmas that invariably confront each and every one of us. It is how we shape our responses that make us unique and define our individuality. Thus, it is through these social stigmas that we are truly exposed to ourselves. This, the exposure that defines the character in each of us.

Again, thanks to Dirac for the Links page! Posted today a recent article on the decision to use recorded music in the fall production of Carmen

Aug 2 Links Page

Oakland Ballet used recorded music for their Nut and sping rep shows. After taking time to restructure they are doing ok, hopefully it will be similarly temporary.

In the article John Munger mentions there are currently 77 ballet companies over 1 million, this is up from 76 in the FY03. He has done those 1 million+ lists for awhile, (I have an old one for 2003) does anyone have the most recent one?

Very interesting is the talk of a possible merger between Pittsburgh Ballet Theater and Pennsylvania Ballet.

Very interesting! I just couldnt see it happening. My friends and I always joke about adding that ficticious year at SAB to our resumes before sending our tapes to Penn Ballet. In all general terms they just wont look at you unless you have some SAB or NYCB in you. So them with Pitt? It would involve massive compromise.

Love it Kathleen, I didnt know you were into Macroeconomics?

If i remember right? Edward Villella taught ballet classes to the men and West Point?

Perhaps offereing a free ballet class for our elected officials at the capitol around lunch time would be a nice investment.

I love what you guys have been saying. To echo cargill I think the educational component is very important. Its one thing to grow up and then learning that you enjoy going to the ballet, opera, or the symphony. I have friends in college that come to see me dance and never fail to say afterwards, "wow, that was cool I thought ballet would be boring." But it's another thing to grow up appreciating the arts and what they can do for you as an individual. We get so wrapped up in supporting the product that is created by professionals, I think the educational process in school is the most beneficial. For the individual producing art the process can often be the most rewarding part. And when I say that, forget about professional artists, I am talking grade school artists. When you take time and make a real effort to produce a piece of art in school that is when you reveal yourself, you cant help but be proud. It inspires self-confidence, some thing we are always looking for in our children. Aside from that, I think people are more appreciative of "professional" art when they have done their own, be it recreational or professional, work in the same medium.

I have heard AD's and ED's talk about the need for a company to grow and educate its audience. Maybe the government should take a larger part in that growth.

I wrote a paper for my US Government class on the NEA. I am a ballet dancer and went to a boarding arts high school, regardless of the fact that everyone things I should be more liberal I believe that the organization shouldnt exist. I think some might find it interesting. Unfortunently, the footnotes did not transfer.

taken from my Blog

The National Endowment for the Arts

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) states that their organization is, “the largest annual funder of the arts in the United States. An independent federal agency, the National Endowment for the Arts is the official arts organization of the United States government.” Its opponents state that the NEA is, “an unwarranted extension of the federal government into the voluntary sector.” The NEA was founded in 1965 as part of president Johnson’s Great Society initiatives. In more detailed accounts, opponents of the NEA note that, “…few federal agencies have been mired in more controversy than the NEA. Nevertheless, steadfast partisans of “welfare for artists” continue to defend the Endowment…” Critics also stress that the National Endowment for the Arts does not promote charitable giving as the organization promotes a very small and defined portion of America’s artists. The NEA says this about itself, “Before the Establishment of the NEA in 1965, the arts were limited mostly to a few big cities. The Arts Endowment has helped create regional theatre, opera, ballet, symphony orchestras, museums and other art organizations that Americans now enjoy. In its 38 year history, the NEA has awarded more than 120,000 grants that have brought art to Americans in communities large and small.” Conservatives and Liberals fight over these basic issues: whether the arts are a “voluntary sector”, whether the NEA brings art to people who otherwise would not be exposed to it, and whether NEA sponsored art is enriching and inoffensive.

One of the NEA’s major claims is to have increased public accessibility to the arts. The number of nonprofit professional theatre companies in the United States is an example that proponents cite frequently. In 1965 there were roughly 50 nonprofit theatre companies; there are now 600. The NEA does not hesitate in taking responsibility for this proliferation in the arts. Conservatives argue that the arts ability to flourish is not due directly to the NEA’s activities, but to a growing and more affluent and culturally attuned population. What is clear is that the NEA has been largely successful in distributing grants and money throughout the last half of the 20th century. The majority of NEA grants have gone to creating art that is enjoyed and respected by most Americans. The uncertainty surrounding the quantification of the NEA’s ability to facilitate greater public accessibility to art makes it impossible to put numbers and absolute values on the impact of the NEA. This makes any sort of calculations on the arts dependence on the NEA equally difficult. These two unanswerable questions and sticking points have given American politicians much to debate about. This peripheral frenzy has allowed the political system to guilefully ignore the true ideological question it faces; whether the federal government is responsible for supporting and subsidizing American art.

The NEA distributes its funds through grant giving procedures that are highly controversial and have been routinely criticized by both parties. All government subsidies have criteria, and obtaining NEA grants is extremely difficult. It is understood that the NEA cannot distribute grants on a random basis; thus it is dictated that the biases of the agency, whether they be liberal or conservative, are inevitably seen in its granting process. Senior Editor of “The Progress Report,” Mr. Fred E. Foldvary, makes an interesting point when noting, “Since some art is controversial, grants necessarily discriminate. As The Brooklyn Exhibit shows, if the works [controversial] are subsidized, it forces taxpayers to finance art they find revolting.” The NEA has acknowledged the desire to avoid the promotion of a canon of ‘politically correct’ art. With this in mind, liberals argue that if works like the Brooklyn Exhibit do not receive funding it unfairly denies controversial artists an equally opportunity.

The NEA as a branch of the, highly equal opportunity, federal government has walked a fine line in granting money to individuals and projects that include experimental work. The NEA distributes approximately 4,000 grants a year. At this rate, with even a slightly flawed system, demographics within the population are bound to be offended by a few radical works that are mistakenly or unmistakenly funded. It is the vocal minority that has been so exploitive and damning of NEA sponsored art that is labeled offensive. As a way to ensure continued existence and funding, the NEA should acknowledge these minority groups and adopt an openly discriminate stance in their granting process. Stating outright, what types of art they wont support and for what reasons. Furthermore, out of political self preservation the NEA should reconsider supporting artists who have a history of producing art that is offensive or based on subjects deemed generally offensive such as religion and sex. The NEA should quickly condemn artists who use their NEA granted money in the creation of highly controversial artwork so as not minimize the offense taken by others. The NEA might best serve itself if it let controversial artists utilize private sources of capital. For those that champion highly controversial artwork, it is not unreasonable to assume that if the NEA were to adopt an openly discriminate stance, against controversial artwork, it would surely stimulate a wave of innovative retaliatory art.

For years Republicans and Democrats have argued over the financial effectiveness of the NEA. Republicans have singled out this issue as the key point in their fight to disband the agency. Democrats have worked vehemently maintaining that the NEA serves a crucial arts sector that would be left defunct if federally neglected. By the standards of most large charitable institutions the NEA is a staggeringly ineffective agency. Twenty-five cents of every tax dollar that goes to the National Endowment for the Arts is lost in bureaucratic overhead. The NEA as an established agency is fully entrenched in the federal bureaucracy. The NEA’s lengthy period of existence suggests that the rate of overhead is as low as it will ever be given its organizational circumstances. It is inexcusable for an organization that simply redistributes money to lose 25% of its revenue to administrative costs . The American Film Institute operates on revenues of $21.2 million a year. The institute’s administrative costs have been held to 11.2% of their total budget , less than half of what the NEA incurs. The American Film Institute is not alone; at 10.9% Public Radio International also shares low rates of administrative overhead . Some organizations are not as prudent, nevertheless their costs do not equal those of the NEA. The Smithsonian Institute for example engages only 18.2% of its budget in administrative costs . Similar to double taxation, when money is awarded through the NEA it is exposed to the administrative costs of two organizations, those of the NEA and those of the organization it goes to. Thus, for every tax dollar distributed by the NEA anywhere from 35-45 cents of it is lost, the intent of the tax payer left unaccomplished. In in current climate American tax payers cannot be asked to shoulder these astronomical costs, and more importantly unnecessary burdens.

The results of the NEA’s granting process are geographically disturbing to congressmen and women of all affiliations. Thirty percent of the NEA’s monetary distributions go to six cities . In addition another 25 percent is granted to organizations in the state of New York alone. Leaving only 34% of the NEA’s seemingly token sized budget for the rest of the country, it becomes easier to understand claims suggesting that the NEA panders to small and defined areas of the country. On the subject of the NEA’s geographical representation Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan noted in a televised debate that, “The arts were thriving before the National Endowment for the Arts was established; they’re thriving now…come to my district, 143 other congressional districts around the country get no money directly from the National Endowment for the Arts and the arts are thriving.” Upholding the just nature of the NEA, Senator Jeffords of Vermont has said that, “Art has flourished and especially in the low-income areas of our cities. I’ve also see programs like in New York City run by the Endowment that help with therapy for kids that have had experienced traumatic events…the Endowments help make sure that those people who wouldn’t otherwise be able to participate be able to let the nation know about the duties that they can create.” In the struggle to maintain the NEA’s position proponents often note that children involved in the arts can see as much as a 59 percent improvement on SAT scores.

The NEA’s inability to fund the nation in a geographically diverse and representational way highlights something aside from the pragmatism that would suggest a large portion of Americans are not getting back what they deserve. The geographical weight shows a Federal endorsement of the belief that art should be centralized in national meccas. This is a clear statement by the federal government that art is not a service all people are equally entitled to. The implication that those people in 6 large cities and the state of NY are more entitled to federal funds than the large majority of people elsewhere is laughable. It has been said that the best proposals come from these areas, and that is why they receive the majority of grants. This is not a valid argument. Rural schools routinely under-perform and we would never argue that this demographic of students is any less deserving of funding than their suburban counterparts. It has been argued that in fact the rural parts of the country, those with limited access to the large institutional donors of the big cities need federal funding most. These are large obstacles the NEA must overcome if it wishes to exert a positive impact on American society into the future. The federal government should more closely regulate geographical distribution and either allow the NEA to become a large player in arts funding or have the agency phased out.

The NEA has become a cultural icon in the American landscape and when suggestion of its disbandment arises often the first reaction is strongly against the notion. However, often the perception is that the NEA is larger and exerts a larger influence on the arts in America than it truly does. This is to say that it is not out of reach to suggest that the private sector and the arts industry could assimilate and accept the financial responsibility of the NEA’s roughly $105 million dollar annual budget . A look at the fundraising targets of a few of the major arts organizations in the United States shows how trivial the NEA’s annual budget is when placed into perspective. The New York Times reports that The Metropolitan Museum of Art is looking to raise $300 million, the New York Public Library $430 million, the Museum of Modern Art $300-$450 million. Three of the nations larger arts organizations alone expect to generate roughly ten times the NEA’s annual budget. It is quite clear that the NEA is only dabbling in arts funding. The numbers speak for themselves and clearly show that the NEA’s influence and impact could be easily assumed by the private sector.

The NEA in its current form is a token agency of the federal government. Its budget is trivial, and used poorly. The small size of the NEA illustrates that the government has hesitated to fully support the arts. A clear consensus on whether it is the government’s responsibility to fund art in America has never been made. The public and federal government must decide whether the arts fall under the federal government’s umbrella of responsibility. If the conclusion is that the arts are a federal responsibility the NEA should be allotted at least $1 billion a year, enabling the agency to carry our arts organizations into the future operating at their fullest potential. If arts funding is not the government’s responsibility, the agency should be dismantled over the next 5 to 10 years. Either way, current ideological ambiguity that the NEA operates under cannot be accepted as a long term solution.

Ideological difference is the base of continued Republican and Democratic squabbling over the NEA. Liberals feel strongly that the federal government is responsible for subsidizing artists and art in America. Conservatives tend to believe that the constitution does not directly or implicitly dictate that arts funding should be done through the federal government. Democrats argue that the NEA funds individuals and small organizations that would otherwise wither away. The NEA is fiercely proud of their availability claiming to be only organization in the United States that will accept all monetary proposals, thus providing any and all Americans a chance to have their work funded. Republicans counter that the NEA’s concern for small individuals and organizations is false citing that only 5% of the budget goes to individuals.

In the face of continuing budget crises the White House and Republicans have looked to dismantle the NEA completely. Although, this isn’t likely it is helpful to know what compromises the Republican Party would most likely be willing to make. If required to compromise Republicans would like to continue offering tax deductibility and limit grants to only national organizations. Republicans are largely opposed to the federal government sponsoring regional and local activities, “We shouldn’t focus on trying to pick winners and losers in Vermont, winners and losers in Michigan…let’s focus on national treasures, not trying to pick local winners.” One must remember though that even this is a compromised position. Conservatives will go on to explain that our “national treasures” don’t need federal funding. The Metropolitan Opera for example, to replace its NEA annual grant of roughly $875,000, would only need to raise its ticket prices $1.50 each. This would be at the maximum a 1.2% raise in its starting ticket price of $125. Not only is this a nominal change in value, even for the few working class patrons of the opera, but for the majority of well-to-do opera patrons such a raise in ticket prices would mean absolutely nothing. Americans need not support a federal agency that spends much of its money subsidizing art venues of the wealthy in ways they hardly notice or need.

In recent years the NEA has escaped from the political spotlight. Largely due to the effects of terrorism and America’s increased international involvement, the nation’s focus on domestic arts policy has been sparing. As the United States wraps up it’s presence in Iraq the American consciousness will refocus on domestic policy. The re-emergence of a Red and Blue America and the new “American divide” will be analyzed. Republicans will emphasize that NEA funding falls primarily in Blue America. The Republican controlled legislative and executive branches will undoubtedly raise the concerns we have heard and thwarted so many times before. In the end we need to answer the hardest question of all: Should the federal government support the arts?

The federal government should never directly support the arts, especially in its current fashion. The NEA, is for political reasons, unable to support the smaller institutions that need outside assistance the most, and although the NEA’s support of larger institutions is a nice gesture, it is unnecessary. The arts organizations regularly sponsored by the NEA are often the most prestigious and expensive. The majority of American tax payers have been priced out of the events these organizations present. It is clear that the NEA’s $105 million budget is a mere dime in the arts industry. With proper care the $105 million budget could be easily replaced with private funding. If the public is demanding in its desire for Federal support the White House should issue block grants to each member of the House of Representatives. This would on a more local level equally distribute arts funding throughout the United States. More importantly it would bring the traditionally most arts objecting branch of the government into direct contact with the arts and its positive influences.

What can we, as individuals in this great country, do to resolve the issues surrounding arts funding? Create a dialogue, between your friends, family, and local representatives. Consider and discuss who should be responsible for deciding which arts organizations get funding and how those funds should be delivered. And finally after you feel comfortable with the issues make decisions. Donating to the arts is a form of self-expression, do you have the time to give support to your favorite arts organization or is this something you feel the government is best suited to do for you?

I've been doing lots of editing in my mind of thoughts on this subject. I wonder how many of you also frame most of your ideas as articles or essays....?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have been wondering the same thing. Its one thing to lay out an opinion on BT another to really present it. Rachel Howard just mentioned a few days ago that she is thinking of creating a simple guide for wishful writers. It came up at the bottom of the piece titled "Critical Mass"

www.RachelHoward.com

Perhaps someone at BT would have an interest in sharing how they organize and present their thoughts?

Ran into the Ballet Austins listing for one production of the Nutcracker on Ebay today. I think its hallarious and a wonderful idea. Only question, will anyone bid on it?

Ballet Austin Auction

Might be fun to make a sport of it? Anyone have predictions as to when and if it might be sold?

My two cents…

I agree whole heartedly that the Russian technique asks for more technical exactness than a more American style would. I spent my first years of professional training at an institution being taught that there is more than one way to do anything in ballet. We were asked to choose the way that best suited our bodies, taught to use the Russian style as a default. I think that as a younger dancer mentally and physically this was the best way I could have been introduced to dancing at a very serious level.

I have since moved on, having had the opportunity to take classes from Danny Duell and Violette Verdy two great American teachers I have thought a lot about my previous training, I use less of it now. The conclusion I have come to in one small example is that if I had not first been taught how to use the floor in a slower and more precise Russian-esk way I never would have been able to approach the American style with such a clear understanding of the need to still work for that technical perfection even though it may be literally impossible with such quick movement or dynamicism. It kills me to see people tendu (or for that matter do anything) without ever relaxing the foot into the floor, something I either correctly or incorrectly attribute to an incomplete American based training. I think I would be doing that, the person that dances on top of the floor, without understanding at a very basic level how to use the floor to its fullest advantage if I had not first been exposed to a more Russian approach.

On a side note, am I right in thinking that the Colorado ballet is one of the only full sized ballet companies in the United States that is very Vagonova based?

Another thing; I am young and haven’t had the chance to watch any old Russian video tapes. Even when I was in a Vagonova setting in men’s classes we would poke fun of what we thought of as the classically huge Russian thighs, the extreme masculinity and the ostentatious preparations and pirouettes from second. I watch recent videos and don’t see much of this. Where these misconceptions, or has the technique continue to evolve?