US Government Funding Policy for Arts
Posted 28 March 2005 - 07:32 AM
Why is it that ballet and most art programs are not supported by the government here in the states like it is in most countries?
It's a heavy topic, but it's important and probably best answered the government.
It seems that the USA loses great performers and choreographers to countries that have art supported and funded programs.
Posted 28 March 2005 - 09:28 AM
Posted 28 March 2005 - 09:11 PM
The USA lacked a royal court and is afflicted with a widespread anti-intellectualism.
Posted 29 March 2005 - 01:00 PM
Posted 29 March 2005 - 07:35 PM
Frankly, Americans are unwilling to pay taxes and would rather donate money to the specific organisations that they identify with. And the tax system here promotes that, of course.
Posted 29 March 2005 - 07:46 PM
Europe has a long tradition of government arts funding going back to the days of royal courts.
You know, I think there is something to this -- I agree that you have to seek an historical, rather than a rational or a psychological, explanation for this fact.
That said, let's back up for a second. Is the alleged "fact" really true?
We don't have a "Royal" or a "National" Ballet or Theater company. But both the City and the State of New York contribute to NYCB's budget and possibly to ABT as well. And as for an alleged lack of public support for the arts in general, it's possible that a great deal of public money goes to the various arts in this country, but that it's incredibly fragmented in where and for what it goes, tracking somewhat the rather fragmented and local structures of our government.
Posted 30 March 2005 - 05:39 AM
Posted 30 March 2005 - 07:01 AM
Speaking for myself, as I'm not wealthy enough to sponsor Ethan Stiefel's performances with ABT and have to carefully allocate the money I donate, this year a sizaeable proportion of the money I donated went to the genocide in Darfur and to tsunami aid. So if that's what I did, I can only imagine that other people who aren't 'arts lovers' gave an even smaller proportion of their money to arts and culture.
I will qualify this by saying that perhaps Americans who are used to this system from childhood are better at managing their donations than I am and probably also do it much more automatically than I did. It took me a year to understand that the NPR stations really do rely on my money in order to continue broadcasting!
Posted 30 March 2005 - 03:55 PM
Posted 30 March 2005 - 04:52 PM
Posted 30 March 2005 - 09:35 PM
I had no idea that getting off the couch and attending all of these ballet and opera performances -- not to mention skating competitions -- would fulfill my exercise quotient
Your average american would rather sit at home and watch a reality TV show than see something real before their eyes on a stage. No wonder the obesity epidemic is growing.
Posted 31 March 2005 - 11:21 AM
Starting with some of the international tours in the 50's, sponsored by the USAID, very tentative steps were taken to support dance (and other performing arts), but the real momentum came with the establishing of the NEA, along with state, regional and municipal agencies that funnelled public money directly to performing artists and their companies. It's been a rocky process (especially after the content controversies in the 1980's), but there's really only been 50 years of history so far -- perhaps we will get better at this with time.
(that's me, the optimistic one.)
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases. (If it doesn't appear below, your computer's or browser's adblockers may have blocked display):