by Robert Maniscalco

With the economy stagnating and huge deficits looming it has once again become fashionable to cut arts funding. Clearly, we have some serious problems; across the board cuts are something we all must endure. Governor Granholm has been placed in the terrible position of having to make deep cuts in every area of our government. I commend her courage and integrity in dealing with this harsh reality. My only objection is that the arts have once again become the poster child for fiscal excess. The fact is that arts funding, even in good times, is such a small fraction of the entire budget that any funding cuts have little real effect on the bottom line. Nonetheless, arts and culture have traditionally made a tempting target. After all, why should hard working citizens pay for a the elite's creative time? I'm being a bit dramatic, but it's still a very important and difficult question.

Governor Granholm's recent efforts to move more arts support to the private sector is an earnest attempt to resolve the issue. Such a transition makes a great deal of sense. In a recent letter to her, however, I was compelled to point out that state arts funding should not be looked on as an "extra" or as "pork." Just before she announced the 50% cut in arts funding she asked residents if they would be "willing to sacrifice things like grants to arts and cultural endeavors." My response was to suggest to her that there is no point in building a house if you don't plan to include heat, water or furniture. The arts define who we are. Creativity and inspiration are so fundemental to our existence that we actually forget they are happening all the time. They are the stories we tell when we get home from work, the lessons we learn from lost love, the memories of our mother's caress. Most people take the aesthetics of their lives for granted. Those who are not exposed to the arts grow up with a huge hole in their soul. The unique way each of us expresses ourselves, moment to moment, gets to the heart of being alive. It's what drives us and WE are what drive the economy. Ok, I didn't write ALL that to the Governor!

But still, after all is said and done, after all the arguments in favor of including art in our lives, is it really the government's responsibility to provide arts funding? I deal with this question every day. I own a commercial art gallery, which is driven by the market. I am also President of the Wayne County Council for Arts, History & Humanities, a non-profit organization which currently derives 80% of it's funding from government sources. Each of these types of organizations (commercial and non-profit) is motivated by fundamentally different economic forces yet each plays an important part in a healthy cultural life.

A few years ago, myself and a few other entrepreneurs opened for-profit galleries that were not dependant upon local, state or federal funding. The idea that developing a healthy artists market, one that is not subsidized by tax dollars, that is driven by the market, is very appealing. Just like any other part of our society, artists and galleries must be responsive to the real market, not some made up utopia. The only problem with this very sensible idea is that there is no room for error. If the work doesn't sell the gallery and the artist go a little hungry. But who really cares about a bunch of folks throwing paint around, anyway? The real question, in terms of our society, is where do new ideas get developed? How do people learn about their creative potential? What do people of other cultures do when they're afraid, in love, confused? Where will our comfortable world view be challenged? Where's the space for experimentation? How is our intellectual, spiritual growth to be nurtured? If all we have are artists trying to satisfy the market, what will eventually become of our society? What will become of us? The list of words that come to mind include stagnation, apathy, sterility, uniformity, atrophy, anger, intolerance, bigotry, chauvinism, moral superiority -- sorry, that's two words.

Don't get me wrong; I firmly believe there is a tremendous, untapped market for art that is challenging, controversial and mind-expanding -- work that is produced by serious artists. The Detroit Artists Network (DAN) is currently grappling with this very issue: can fine art be both serious and marketable? Clearly we cannot rely solely on the market to produce the educational opportunities that our non-profit arts organizations are attempting to provide. Should the corporate sector pitch in extra to make our world a better place to live by providing arts funding? Of course. Will they? Based on the moral vacuum demonstrated by recent corporate scandals, I tend to doubt it. The private sector is fundamentally motivated by profit. This is not meant as an indictment; it's just the way it is. We need to appreciate the distinct and important roles the commercial and the non-profit sectors must play in a healthy society.

The conversation around arts funding is too important for art spirits to become polarized, purists on one side and "sell-outs" on the other. Finger pointing and self-righteousness is what keeps the arts separate from society. Most people have no idea where their art-tax dollars are going, let alone why on earth they might want to experience live theatre or buy a work of art. It's hard to expect public support for something with which most people have scant experience or understanding. Artists and arts organizations have to roll up their sleeves and reach out to where the people live. We need to commit ourselves to finding a common ground where a healthy arts community can thrive, despite changing fashions and fortunes.

List of Essays