Neither a borrower nor lender be;

For loan oft loses both itself and friend,

And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.

Shakespeare (Hamlet)

I recently received an invitation to attend a meeting called by the Arts Council of Greater Lansing. The stated intent was to discuss ways to avoid the funding cuts to arts programs proposed by the State of Michigan and to find ways to “better advocate for funding with its legislators.” The message also said that a variety of “action steps” are being proposed which will “include signing up for group legislative visits, a personalized postcard mailing campaign, and other actions that will help mobilize the greater Lansing region as a group in order to keep arts funding in our state.”

It was assumed that I, as an artist, would be enthusiastic about this effort. I am not. I believe it is both naïve and insensitive. I believe this cry for government support will prove counterproductive—it will be perceived by the public as proof the arts community is out of touch with the realities of Michigan’s current economic condition. In my opinion, it is unseemly for arts organizations, or any other special interest group, to ask for special consideration at this time.  Arts organizations should be offering solutions and alternatives not asking to be treated as sacrosanct. In the face of rising waters they should be building boats, not waiting to be rescued.

Michigan’s legislators are being confronted with extremely difficult choices—unprecedented choices—stark choices. They have not capriciously decided to slight the arts community.

An Associated Press article written by Kathy Barks Hoffman, appearing In the 12 March 2009 edition of the Lansing State Journal reported that the expected February tax revenues for Michigan were “coming in almost $100 million short of earlier estimates.” Earlier this week, on March 5^th, Mlive.com carried another Associated Press report. It stated that unemployment in Michigan topped 11.6% this January. According the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, in February of this year job losses rose by 716,000 bringing the national total to 7.7 million people unemployed!

Michigan and the rest of the nation are staring into the maw of an economic and social crisis approaching that of the Great Depression. Although conditions have not reached the dire circumstances of the dust bowl, it is not inconceivable they will. There is no quick fix in sight and no guarantee that President Obama’s stimulus package and bailouts will be enough. Many people who once had retirement savings have lost them. Many people in their senior years, their seventies and eighties, are now compelled to seek whatever employment they can find just to survive. Food banks are struggling to meet demand.

Why then should the State of Michigan be expected to fund Arts programs when it cannot fund its schools, repair its failing infrastructure and assure that every resident of the State has access to basic health care! 

Of course the arts are important. They are fundamental to civilization. They nurture the soul, delight the senses, inform, provoke and teach us important lessons. But the survival of any particular arts organization or artist is not more important than feeding hungry children or assuring that the elderly and infirm receive the assistance and dignity that they deserve.

The loss of any arts organization, however lamentable, is never the loss of art. Art will survive. It always does. Jazz came into being without government funding. Painting existed long before there were galleries, grants and arts councils. Drawing is the very basis of written language—the making of marks to symbolize ideas and observations—a way of thinking and communication as fundamental to humanity as the ability to vocalize. Artists are resourceful and resilient.

 Religion and art spring from the same root and are close kin. Economics and art are strangers. Willa Cather

I suggest that the members of every Arts organization ask themselves “is my organization really advocating for Art or the organization?” I submit that too many Arts organizations have confused and conflated the value of the art object with the value of Art. To them the Arts are inextricably tied to money and they seek to justify the existence of their respective organizations on the basis of how much money the “Arts” bring into the economy.

This American penchant for monetizing everything has objectified, diverted (and perverted) much of the arts into entertainment and commodity—something to be performed, exhibited, marketed and sold—something to be acquired as a badge of sophistication and success—something to be collected as an investment—something to be valued principally for its market value.

Over the last 50 or so years we have seen the growth of a large business/bureaucratic structure, comprised of federal, state and local arts organizations. Most of them claim to encourage the growth and appreciation of Art, when in fact they principally exist to further the art business—the selling of art products, performances and themselves.

Art means nothing if it simply decorates the halls of power that hold it hostage.
Adrienne Rich

What is often forgotten, or intentionally ignored, is that the greatest value of art is found in the experience of its making and its appreciation. Art—the arts—are everyone’s birthright. The impulse to make art is innate and everyone has permission to make it, regardless of quality. A degree or license is not required, only imagination, courage, desire and the willingness to learn and practice.

Art making is play, discovery, expression, meditation, work and protest. It is the affirmation of life and the assertion of meaning—the artist’s decision to matter. Therefore it may be said the art experience is priceless and nontransferable from one person to another—I cannot experience your experience. However, the art object can be priced.

But even if there were no economic crisis, arts organizations and artists should question the wisdom of depending upon government funding. It always comes with conditions and genuine artistic freedom is rarely one of them.

© Michael Maurer Smith 2009