Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

44th US President - Arts & Culture Policy?


Recommended Posts

Re: The Obama Biden platform for support of the Arts.

No, we probably aren't going to see increased funding in the next couple of years, but hopefully down the road, there will be increased attention to arts funding. We can fantasize anyway!

"The real purpose of arts education is to create complete human beings capable of leading successful and productive lives in a free society".

I find this very encouraging. I'm especially pleased by this emphasis on the value of arts education, rather than the usual justification of supporting arts only because of economic benefits.

It would be wonderful if USIA tours were resumed. They made a real impact in areas where the general image of the US was negative. I remember letters sent to the embassies in countries where we toured expressing surprise that America produced sensitive and humane art. It really did change some negative views of the US. They were also a huge benefit to the Co.s, and the dancers in them, ( the per diems were based on what gov. employees got, and were very generous. Since dancers don't eat as much as foreign service types, we were able to come home with a nice little nest egg! )

"streamline the visa process for artists" Yes! It has been a nightmare for artists and those who would present them since the 9/11 changes.

Link to comment

The administration creates a staff position in the White House to oversee cultural affairs.

Mr. Ivey, a former chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, said he expected that the job would mainly involve coordinating the activities of the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services “in relation to White House objectives.” Although there have been staff members assigned to culture under past presidents, they usually served in the first lady’s office, Mr. Ivey said.
Link to comment

Michelle Obama speaks on the subject of the arts today.

Mrs. Obama described the nation’s creative spirit as critical to its ideals and its identity and said the arts needed to be nurtured even during difficult economic times. She noted that her husband had included $50 million in his economic stimulus package for the National Endowment for the Arts.

“The arts are not just a nice thing to have,” said Mrs. Obama, adding that the arts “define who we are as a people.”

Nice words. But somebody please tell the woman to start crossing her legs at her ankles. Dear me.

Link to comment

After her appearance at that Met, Mrs. Obama crossed town and addressed the ABT's Opening Night audience at the other Met. Introduced by Caroline Kennedy, who called this a night of firsts (notably the first appearance of JKO students on the stage of the Met), the First Lady made a first of her own, giving a curtain speech that was more than the boilerplate self-congratulatory pep talk. She spoke of ABT's commitment to bringing ballet to underserved communities and how, in so doing, broadens children's worlds. She noted that if we want great leaders, arts education is critical.

Link to comment

Money is critical, too. Let’s hope she follows up and we get an increase from that $50 million, a tiny amount when you consider the billions of taxpayer dollars the Administration is hurling at various parties. Rocco Landesman seems like the kind of man who's not afraid to bang his spoon on the high chair for attention, so that's good, too.

Link to comment

At least there was not a cut in funding! And adding "only" 50 million dollars is not insignificant. The budget for the NEA has ALWAYS been puny compared to other national programs like subsidies to businesses or the Pentagon.

True, fandeballet, and thanks for posting, but there’s puny and there’s puny. $50 million sounds like a lot, but given the savage cuts the NEA has borne and the prominence Obama gave the arts in his campaign platform, it’s not as much as some expected (and it is a tad self-serving of his wife to trumpet the figure as if the fifty mil was a really bold sum). Given the economic climate, the government really needs to lead from the front on this issue. Early signs indicate that the Obamas will, so let’s hope this is just the beginning.

Link to comment
At least there was not a cut in funding! And adding "only" 50 million dollars is not insignificant. The budget for the NEA has ALWAYS been puny compared to other national programs like subsidies to businesses or the Pentagon.

True, fandeballet, and thanks for posting, but there’s puny and there’s puny. $50 million sounds like a lot, but given the savage cuts the NEA has borne and the prominence Obama gave the arts in his campaign platform, it’s not as much as some expected (and it is a tad self-serving of his wife to trumpet the figure as if the fifty mil was a really bold sum). Given the economic climate, the government really needs to lead from the front on this issue. Early signs indicate that the Obamas will, so let’s hope this is just the beginning.

When you consider what the previous administration thought about the NEA, it is definitely a step in the right direction.

Don't forget that this $50,000,000 was probably as much as Obama's Admin. could get anyway with the way alot of our

dear members of the House and Senate feel about funding the NEA.

Link to comment
Don't forget that this $50,000,000 was probably as much as Obama's Admin. could get anyway with the way alot of our

dear members of the House and Senate feel about funding the NEA.

We have a Democratic majority now, and there are Republicans who would be receptive to the idea of greater support for the arts, as well. Times are changing.

Link to comment
Don't forget that this $50,000,000 was probably as much as Obama's Admin. could get anyway with the way alot of our

dear members of the House and Senate feel about funding the NEA.

We have a Democratic majority now, and there are Republicans who would be receptive to the idea of greater support for the arts, as well. Times are changing.

I agree with fandeballet. I'm not seeing a changing attitude among most Republicans toward what they like to call "special interest spending." My dear congressman (gag) Pete Olson sent out a mailer to make sure that his constituents know of the specific measures he disapproved of in the stimulus package, and in bold he listed the 50 million for the NEA.

Link to comment

Old Fashioned, I’m thinking of Republicans like Olympia Snowe, who voted for NEA funding in 1999 when the Republican majority was intent on cuts. There aren’t many but they’re out there. (There are also many Republicans on the state and local level who favor supporting the arts.)

My fear is that the time may already have passed for any big boost. Congress is already spooked about high spending levels, and not without reason, and with the government prosecuting two wars and the financial crisis, I suspect that even Democrats may not be willing to hand out much more to the arts, relatively small though the amounts are.

Link to comment
Old Fashioned, I’m thinking of Republicans like Olympia Snowe, who voted for NEA funding in 1999 when the Republican majority was intent on cuts. There aren’t many but they’re out there. (There are also many Republicans on the state and local level who favor supporting the arts.)

My fear is that the time may already have passed for any big boost. Congress is already spooked about high spending levels, and not without reason, and with the government prosecuting two wars and the financial crisis, I suspect that even Democrats may not be willing to hand out much more to the arts, relatively small though the amounts are.

That is what I suspect as well, so there is no disagreement there. Your earlier posts seem to suggest that the Obama administration should and could have pushed for even more funds which I don't think is possible at this point no matter how much they may want to.

Link to comment

What I'm seeing in Congress/Senate is more and more of what the NY Times described, in reference to restructuring student loans and grants:

"Republicans have generally criticized the plan as an expansion of government, while Democrats have been divided."

http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05...pell&st=cse

I wouldn't count on the Democrats, with a solid majority, to push for real funding for the arts.

Link to comment
Your earlier posts seem to suggest that the Obama administration should and could have pushed for even more funds which I don't think is possible at this point no matter how much they may want to.

Quite so, because it was what I thought, and I don't think it's an unreasonable position. It's a matter of opinion. :) I also seem to recall at the time the amount was announced that some observers were disappointed because they expected more, so I don’t think I was quite alone. William Ivey, a former head of the NEA who supervised the handling of the arts agenda on the Obama transition team, asked for considerably more than the $50 million. There is no doubt that even that small sum attracted criticism from the usual suspects, but since that criticism was inevitable no matter how minimal the rise in funding, why not ask for more while Congress as a whole was convinced of the need for more spending? Obama has said that he would restore funding to the NEA to the levels reached before the draconian cuts of the Nineties, and such spending could have been justified in terms of the stimulus.

I wouldn't count on the Democrats, with a solid majority, to push for real funding for the arts.

It's not really a question of the Congressional Democrats pushing, although some might as individuals. On this particular issue leadership is going to have to come from the White House, because the Democrats as a group will want to avoid what most would doubtless regard as an unnecessary squabble. I think they would back the WH if the administration really wanted to make a point of it, except for some of the Blue Dogs.

Link to comment

I DO agree that 50 million is not enough. Esp. with alot of performing arts orgs. in dire financial. I wish they would have jacked up funding 200-300 million. It use to be (in NYC anyway) that for every dollar city hall would give to The Arts (Fine & performing) the city would get eight or nine back. Too many politicos don't understand that it is a stimulating ripple effect for the economy. One of the first things cut is funding The Arts. In dire times u need to keep funding The Arts, because of its effect on tourism.

Heck, we needed to bail out The Arts. How about a one billion dollar budget for the NEA. What would that be? One-thousandth of 1% of the Fed. Budget? We spend that much on the two wars per day?

Link to comment
Too many politicos don't understand that it is a stimulating ripple effect for the economy. One of the first things cut is funding The Arts. In dire times u need to keep funding The Arts, because of its effect on tourism.

So true, fandeballet. This country has never gotten over viewing the arts as a luxury item.

Link to comment

This article in the UK Times on Mrs. Obama and the arts is quite revealing, although perhaps not quite in the way it intended.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle6350094.ece

The heads of New York’s most prestigious cultural institutions are in no doubt that she intends to play an active policy-making role in the arts world after they were summoned to meet her last week.

“She was speaking in a way the minister of culture would speak, even though such a position doesn’t exist in America,” said Peter Gelb, the manager of the Metropolitan Opera in New York. “It was as if she was almost an arts policy-maker on behalf of the White House and the president. It was highly unusual.”

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...