Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Visual Arts / State of the Arts Georgia senators get D's in art
Posted by Debbie Michaud @DebsMichaud on Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:35 PM
Well, yes and no. In some ways, the rally was a triumph, in others though, it "masked a massive failure" as CL's Cinque Hicks noted in a column last August.
We needed the protest at the Capitol because an entire system of arts advocacy failed to deliver when it should have: before there was a crisis in the first place.Like every other red-blooded, short-attention-span American, we in the arts community are impelled by crisis. We wait until the well has almost run dry and then panic when there’s not enough water left to go around.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Susan S. Weiner, executive director of the GCA, says that legislators are starved for information on what’s happening in the street. And artists are undeniably the experts on the social benefits of having a robust state arts agency. When no one shows up in legislators’ offices to push for the arts, they understandably conclude that no one cares.
Today, the Americans for the Arts Action Fund, a non-profit arts advocacy group, released a Senate report card, dolling out grades from A to F to U.S. senators according to what kind of support they've shown the arts recently. It "used criteria like casting votes in support of the arts, joining the Senate Arts Caucus, and more. Senators had three opportunities to vote on the arts during the past two years — from ensuring jobs and infrastructure projects in the arts could receive economic stimulus funds to supporting public art around our nation’s highways to ensuring museums received federal funds. All U.S. Senators had the chance to stand up for the arts."
So how did Georgia stack up? Well, we didn't make the Dirty Dozen, a group of 12 who got big fat F's (the offending parties' cheeks turn red when you mouse over their faces), but we weren't far off. Our Republican senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, got a D and a D+, respectively. Clearly these gentlemen could use some prodding. As Hicks put it, "if rank and file artists don’t advocate for change no one will."
I bring all this up because of the AAAF report, but also because election Day is this Tues., Nov. 2. Chambliss isn't on the ballot this year (he was just reelected two years ago) and Isakson is seeking reelection in a race that's practically a gimmee.
As this week's editorial puts it, "if we want to further our self-interest, we need to focus on the very real threats facing our communities right now." And that includes the arts.
Check out CL's endorsements for our picks in key statewide and local races. In particular, Fulton County residents might want to acquaint themselves with the commission candidates, given that the Fulton Arts Council has been the largest single government granting agency in Georgia, including the state itself.
Comments (11)
Showing 1-11 of 11
I know I'm stepping in it here, but what the hey?
Taxpayer funding of the arts is akin to legalized robbery. I'm walking down the street. Guy stops me and says, "I'm putting on a play. Give me some money to help me stage this play." And I say, "I don't go to plays, buzz off." Or I say, "Well I like theatre but I'm going to wait, see the reviews, see what my friends say, then maybe I'll buy a ticket." Guy says "No. you can't wait," or "I don't care if you don't go to plays, I need the money now." There's this cop there and if I don't give the guy some money (pay my taxes) the cop will arrest me.
Can someone please explain to me the moral justification for the government, at the point of a gun, to force one guy to give another guy money?
like
dislike
Hey oydave, nobody is pointing a gun at you. Chill out about that, okay? It might it a little easier to think if you didn't have imaginary bullets whizzing around you.
One of the cool things about the enlightenment is that some people decided that contributing as a society to making society a little less shitty is probably a good idea. Public funding for the arts is the eventual result of some of those ideas.
If you're desperate to not pay the pocket change that amounts to public arts funding in Georgia, I'm pretty sure you figure out how to stiff the taxman out of a few bucks a year. Consider it your own personal line item veto for public arts spending in Georgia. Think of yourself as a winner. Then stop talking like some broke community theater is holding you at gunpoint.
Taxpayer funding of the roads is akin to legalized robbery. I'm walking down the street. Guy stops me and says, "I'm building a road. Give me some money to help me build this road." And I say, "I don't drive or have a car, buzz off." Or I say, "Well I like to drive, but let me wait and see if I get a job along your road, see if theres a lot of traffic, see how the average speed is, then maybe I'll contribute." Guy says "No. you can't wait," or "I don't care if you don't drive, I need the money now." There's this cop there and if I don't give the guy some money (pay my taxes) the cop will arrest me.
They are called externalities. Whether you use it or not, society has determined that the public benefit of funding such projects (be they roads or arts) benefits the public in such a way not directly reflected in the private transaction between two parties. If you disagree that art is in this category, and many people do, it is your decision. But some people disagree with you.
ethix - that was perfect. I was waiting for someone to do exactly that with my little exercise. There is a difference, though. We CAN'T run communities without public funding of roads, or at least, it would be difficult. We absolutely CAN run them without public funding of the arts. True art will out.
Wyatt - try not paying your taxes and see how quickly you have a gun pointed at you. Curious that your solution for me is for me to cheat on my taxes. I'm not interested in cheating. I'm interested in government performing the legitimate functions of government and leaving art to the private arena.
To be clear - I'm advocating for specifically you to cheat on your taxes so you can lower your blood pressure and stop talking about guns. If you make a few transactions in cash this year, you'll have stiffed the state on enough sales tax to cover whatever measly amount they pay out to artists. No one will point a gun at you for making those transactions in cash. Any fantasy you have otherwise is totally delusional.
Somebody is delusional here. My blood pressure is just fine.
OK forget the guns. We'll go with forcibly collected. I'm not hung up on guns. "At the point of..." is just a way of making the point that you are forced to, in essence, buy a ticket for a performance.
And I know it's a minuscule tax amount overall. It's a democratic republic so if more than I want to send tax dollars to this, cool. I'm just pointing out that it ain't right.
Still waiting for that justification. The question holds.
The point is, people like Dave (who clearly don't value music, movies, a good book, etc.) aren't knocking down anyone's door lobbying for the arts - the burden of proof is pretty much on the artists, arts lovers/orgs/supporters. This moment is an especially good opportunity for folks to have their voices heard. Do something. Vote.
oydave: Because both roads and art benefit society in a positive way that cannot be measured in private transactions. Thats why both receive public funding. Certainly it would be more difficult without roads than without arts-- hence the reason roads receive exponentially more funding.
If you would like more information, maybe you could do a 5 second search to find a range of arguments for public benefits of art, one of which I included here from RAND.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG218.sum.pdf
Let's see. I want the arts to pay it's own way with no largess from the public treasury so that means I don't value music, movies and books.
Are you really that dumb?
arts improve your memory, cognitive ability, and observation skills. all of this encourages the development of learning abilities--you become more educated, more observant, more cultured and aware of your surroundings when you are involved in the arts. Please look it up--also, look up the negative effects of having art in a community. Other than possibly creating artists who have a skewed sense of reality (as an artist, I have not seen it a prevalent problem among my peers), how much negative impact does it have on a community? How much positive influence does it have?
Not dumb Dave, just sarcastic. Of course you value all those things, IMO it's just too bad you don't see the bigger picture value in helping them thrive.
Latest in Fresh Loaf
-
Drawing dance at the Decatur Arts Festival
CORE, Beacon highlight dance offerings
-
Paul Luna isn't finished with PARKatlanta 1
Chef files another lawsuit claiming private parking-enforcement deal violates city's charter
-
That poor baby beluga died 3
Experts say beluga deaths are unavoidable, but deaths in captivity are
- More »
More by Author
-
The Wizard of Oz gets folked up at the Alliance 1
Lively folk art adaptation hews close to the film, for better and for worse
-
The Godfather, Deliverance to screen at 2012 Coca-Cola Summer Film Festival
Fox Theatre's line-up full of hits
- More »
