Obama’s Arts

Yesterday’s Times had published an article by the excellent art reporter Robin Pogrebin that infuriated me. Not her terrific reporting by any means, but its content — which seemed to suggest that any money thrown haphazardly at the arts — is a good thing. Although I’m a big fan of Obama, I’m finding his arts policies irresponsible in these dire financial days.

The story quoted multiple arts administrators — who traditionally (working through non-taxable non-profit organizations) collect salaries many times that of the actual artists and creators they claim to represent — nobly swearing on Obama’s arts legacy regarding the relatively few dollars he’s earmarked for public arts policy.

As was the central topic in my first book, “Mozart in the Jungle,” the rise of public arts funding and policy has traveled a wild and wooly road since it began in the 1950s. And yes, Virginia, the book wasn’t about sex or drugs. It is about the rise of culture in America. When the issue of government arts funding arose about 50 years ago, many maverick creatives actually argued against it — claiming that government funding would have a chilling effect on artistic innovation.

I feel peculiar arguing against public money for the arts, but I am disillusioned by what has happened in the wake of JFK’s enthusiasm for American creativity. At times it feels like some sort of government bailout for unqualified people who can’t act, sing, play an instrument, or paint, but have somehow carved out an existence and large salary “speaking” for those of us who can. The public arts world seems to have become largely about the people who administer it, not those who DO it.

There was one very disturbing graph in the story: Robert L. Lynch, the president of Americans for the Arts, a lobbying group, called the requirement limiting. “There are 100,000 arts organizations out there,” he said. “They’re all in need.”

Maybe there should be fewer arts organizations if no one’s interested. Just because people like me would like to make a living performing doesn’t mean my neighbor needs to pay my salary through taxes. And guess what Mr. Lynch earns from this “non-profit” organization? Approximately a whopping  $700,00 in salary and benefits. The top base salary for the top orchestral musician — which includes the poor schmuck having to take out a loan to finance an instrument costing as much as a house — is just over $100,000. Am I pissed off for my compatriots? You betcha.

We’ve got to stop this simple-minded whining about government funding for the arts. So much of it is going to all the wrong places that have little effect on bringing the arts to the public. I don’t believe increasing public art budgets will make a significant difference in this stormy ecoomic climate, while real changes in funding for education, poverty, and social services will serve the real warriors of the arts in a true manner. It’s time for artists to band together and find a way to make our commercial voice be heard.