“That’s some great and beautiful music we’ve been playing the last four years,” President Reagan boasted at a rally held for a group of the Administration’s political appointees after his January inauguration. “From here on in, it’s shake, rattle and roll. We can change America forever.” The music reverberating through the corridors of the Executive Branch, however, amounts to only so much dry scratching in the minds of arts professionals and arts advocates alike.
The President’s proposed budget for fiscal year 1986, which includes an 11.7 percent reduction in the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts, quickly spawned considerable debate in the national media. The first loud volley was sounded on the front page of The New York Times even before the budget was officially released. Then economist Robert J. Samuelson, writing for Newsweek (Jan. 28), responded, “The new year is only a few weeks old, but there’s already a good candidate for the most overplayed story of 1985.” Referring to the Times’ coverage of the proposed slash in NEA funds (Jan. 15), Samuelson noted, “I think the story is important: it symbolizes the mentality that has given us big budget deficits. We have overused government to support almost anything that seemed worthy.” Should the federal government support the performing arts? “No way,” he asserts. “In the American tradition, government is—or ought to be—about society’s collective needs.” In Samuelson’s mind, the arts are outside the common societal good and the public interest. Rather, they are “a form of entertainment and expression not unlike, say, rodeo. There’s no more purpose in subsidizing (artists) than rodeo riders.”
While the necessity of balancing an out-of-control federal deficit cannot be disputed, the means of doing so is the major issue facing the new 99th Congress. Theatre Communications Group director Peter Zeisler, in a letter to Newsweek editors (Feb. 18), countered, “The arts cuts proposed by President Reagan would have absolutely no mathematical impact on the deficit. The total amount saved would run the Defense Department for about 27 minutes. Furthermore, the arts are not ‘secondary activities.’ They are a collective social need. In the long run, civilizations are distinguished mostly by their cultural achievements. At a cost of 71 cents a year per American (compared with more than $1,300 per person for defense), the arts are a great investment.”
Following considerable national interest generated by Samuelson’s Newsweek article, USA Today devoted a full page to the debate on Jan. 31. In its lead opinion piece, the paper came out of the corner noting, “Respect for the visual and performing arts is fundamental to humane society. While the proposed cuts would have a minimal impact on the deficit, they could ruin many small arts efforts. Without aid, the curtain could fall on music and drama in dozens of smaller communities across the USA. The arts are too important, too enduring for us to inflict short-sighted cuts for temporary fiscal gains. Artistic expression, a celebration of the human spirit, enlightens and enriches all of us. That’s something we can always afford.”
The opposing view was taken by jurisprudence and public policy professor Ernest van der Haag of Fordham University, who boldly exclaimed, “The arts do fine, perhaps better, without government subsidy. To be sure, art is healthy, enjoyable, and even socially useful. So are sex, baseball and religion. We do not subsidize any of these. Why art? We take money from taxpayers who do not go to concerts and museums (they may prefer baseball) and subsidize those who do.”
Professor van der Haag’s assertion was countered by guest columnist William P. Blair, a lawyer and past president of the Canton Symphony who now serves as chairman of the American Arts Alliance. Blair observed that the dynamic growth in arts audiences “is due in large part to the arts being made more accessible to the whole population through public policies. Free concerts, educational programs, and activities for the poor, aged and disadvantaged have all helped to insure that the arts will no longer be the province of any one class or segment of our population.”
Channeling the debate in an entirely different direction, guest columnist Samuel Lipman, publisher of The New Criterion and a Reagan-appointed member of the National Council on the Arts, maintained that the role of the federal government in supporting the arts hasn’t so much to do with how much money is available for the National Endowment programs, but rather, how that money is used. “The usual howls from the recipients of reduced subsidies are being heard. Prominent in this chorus are backers of what is now so nicely—and ambiguously—called the ‘arts.’ No real attempt is made to justify most of the Endowment’s grants as artistically productive or even necessary,” he contended. “Instead, emphasis is put on total spending, as if the size of the budget rather than aesthetic results was what mattered. Indeed, in their crusade for arts spending in general, rather than for any artistic creation in particular, arts lobbyists seem to echo Lord Melbourne’s words about the English Order of the Garter: ‘I like the Garter; there is no damned merit in it.’”
Lipman asked (and answered) what he contends is the real question at the heart of the issue of public support: “Is the present National Endowment for the Arts policy of concentrating support on art as either present or potential entertainment justified? I am one who maintains that the responsibility of federal cultural policy is to educate rather than to entertain, to assist civilization by teaching its achievements rather than providing arts experiences for largely passive spectators.”
The next round in the ongoing debate centered on the House Subcommittee on the Interior hearings, which were scheduled to begin Mar. 19. Rep. Sidney R. Yates (D-IL), who chairs the subcommittee responsible for establishing recommended funding levels for the NEA, as well as the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum Services, acknowledged the complex issues involved in arriving at an appropriation figure for 1986. In accepting an award at the annual Opera America meeting in February, the congressman said that the Administration’s proposal for the NEA budget in 1986 was “generous” in light of widespread cutbacks in domestic spending programs. At the same time, he reinforced the importance of the federal government as a partner in arts support when he asked, “How long can companies last without help from outside sources, including the United States Government?”
Following testimony of outside witnesses before the House subcommittee hearings (which will include new committee member Rep. Tom Bevill (DAL) succeeding Connecticut’s William R. Ratchford, who failed in his re-election bid), the next step in the process is set for Apr. 24, when Arts Endowment staff members will appear before the subcommittee. On the Senate side, Arts and Humanities Endowment hearings are scheduled for Apr. 28, when NEA chairman Frank Hodsoll is expected to appear before the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee.
With congressional consideration of the Endowment’s 1986 budget just getting underway, it will be some time before the final appropriation figure is determined.
—Robert Holley
Arts Cuts Are Global
The erosion of government arts support took on international proportions recently as three other countries in the English-speaking world joined the global trend. In addition to the arts reductions recommended by the Reagan Administration, the governments of Great Britain, Australia and Canada have recently announced subsidies that may well curtail arts activities substantially in all three countries. In each case, the rhetoric surrounding the announcements has a familiar ring to American arts advocates.
Following a smaller-than-usual increase in parliamentary appropriations to the Arts Council of Great Britain, the National Theatre announced its intention to close its 400-seat Cottesloe Theatre later this month. The National, which is the largest recipient of British government largesse, will receive only a 1.9 percent increase in 1985-86 to $7.5 million (U.S.), which represents a cut in real terms due to the current 4.5 percent inflation rate.
Sir Peter Hall, director of the National, said the company would need another $1 million just to break even. In sharply critical statements to the press, Hall said the Council had “betrayed” the British theatre and is not fighting for the arts but rather acting as “an instrument of government policy.” Arts Council secretary general Luke Ritter acknowledged the hardship the cuts would inevitably cause the National, along with the other three major national companies affected—the Royal Shakespeare Company, the Royal Opera and the English National Opera. However, Ritter termed his position “powerless,” stressing that the Council can distribute only what the government provides.
The English National Opera has already announced a ticket price rise effective this spring and says it may have to close altogether if it also loses its annual subsidy from the Greater London Council, another target of the Thatcher government; the prime minister has already announced plans to abolish the London Council, from which the National Theatre also receives roughly $800,000.
Hall told reporters that he had considered resigning but decided it is better “to stay and fight.” Instead, he said the National is taking dire measures to deal with the crisis, including the hiring of a management consultant firm to investigate abandoning the company’s present Thames-side home in favor of a less expensive facility.
For the past nine years, the National has occupied a modern, three-theatre complex which it does not own, but for which it must pay some $3 million annually to maintain. “I would sooner put on plays than run buildings,” he said.
Hall also announced plans for sharp reductions in staff-some 100 of the roughly 700 theatre employees were to be let go—as well as the termination of all tours that are not fully subsidized. The National has habitually toured 15-20 weeks a year in Britain itself, in addition to occasional forays outside the country.
The Cottesloe, which will go dark on April 20, is smaller than the National’s other two houses-the 1,215-seat Olivier and the 900-seat Lyttleton. The small theatre, which has earned a reputation for innovative productions, most recently presented five plays in repertory, including two American plays—Glengarry Glen Ross by David Mamet and Sam Shepard’s Fool for Love. The lack of increased government funds also threatens to curtail the number of new productions mounted in the Olivier and the Lyttleton, and to create a dependence on longer runs.
Ironically, the National’s management had presented a confidential report to the Arts Council as recently as January, pressing for an additional $1 million for 1985, arguing that otherwise the theatre would risk a “perilous decline.” The plea was also based on plans for a major new artistic initiative that would have established five groups of actors, each to mount three productions a year under the guidance of separate artistic leaders or directorial teams: Hall, Bill Bryden, Peter Wood, Ian McKellen and Edward Petherbridge (who is currently appearing in the Broadway production of O’Neill’s Strange Interlude), and David Hare and Richard Eyre. It appears virtually certain that the new plan will be another casualty of the company’s lack of increased funding.
Maior arts organizations were also the target of reduced government subsidies Down Under, when the Arts Council of Australia’s Theatre Board imposed freezes and cutbacks in grants to eight of the country’s largest arts organizations, in favor of achieving “a more equitable distribution of funds” to smaller, struggling groups. Because of the limited funds available, the board said it had to take from one to give to the other. Australia’s five largest theatre companies, including the Nimrod, Queensland Theatre and the State Theatre Company of South Australia, along with several other performing arts organizations, had their subsidies reduced by amounts that represent an aggregate loss of $350,000 (U.S.) for 1985 and $630,000 for 1986.
Leaders of the major organizations say they do not accept that Australians favor withdrawal of support from the major companies. The managements claim they will be forced to reduce seasonal production activity and raise ticket prices, and contend that the cuts will discourage other supporters. An acrimonious split between the large companies and the smaller fringe groups reportedly developed. While representatives of the major companies were meeting to demand an urgent review of federal funding, representatives of more than a dozen companies called a press conference and hailed the reallocation policy as “historic.” The major companies maintain they have no objection to funding for small companies but believe that “to treat the major companies as expendable in the pursuit of diversity is to risk the destruction of 20 years of hard won artistic achievement” that, they say, will lead to “mediocrity in Australia’s cultural life.”
Similar problems are currently plaguing our neighbors north of the border. The Canadian government first announced a reduction in the Canada Council’s forthcoming budget last November. While the details of this decrease are not yet fully known, it appeared in February that the Council’s 1985-86 arts budget would be reduced by $1.5 million (U.S.) from $92.6 million to an estimated $91.1 million*. The Council must also cut $1.35 million from its administrative budget by terminating services previously provided to the Canadian arts constituency. Services eliminated are likely to include fund raising and subscription advisory services to performing arts organizations, closing of the Atlantic Regional Office, abolition of the Arts Advisory Board which advises the Council on matters related to the various artistic disciplines, reduction in services of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO, and cutbacks in the Council staff and other administrative areas.
Council chairman, opera singer Maureen Forrester, said she is distressed over the cuts. “This is the first time in the Council’s history that we’ve taken a cut. We haven’t been keeping up with inflation for years, but this is an actual reduction from the previous budget,” she stated. “I’m deeply concerned about the effects the cut will have on our artists and their audiences. We, as a Council, must obviously live within our reduced budget. But I, as an artist, must now speak out on behalf of all the arts in Canada, but especially for the young artists and the new companies just starting their careers.
––Lindy Zesch
Uncharitable Proposal
In the wake of the Treasury Department’s end-of-year recommendation to eliminate the above-the-line tax deduction for charitable contributions by nonitemizers, legislation was introduced in January to make the deductions a permanent part of the U.S. tax code. The Senate version of the bill was introduced by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) and was co-sponsored by a number of senators from both sides of the aisle. The House bill was introduced by Congressmen Richard Gephardt (D-MO), Robert Matsui (D-CA), John Duncan (R-TN) and Bill Frenzel (R-MN).
The proposed elimination of the charitable contributions proposal would, according to many experts. have a severe impact on contributed income for all nonprofit organizations. In an unprecedented show of support, the National Council on the Arts, the NEA advisory body, adopted the following resolution on Feb. 4:
“Resolved, that the National Council on the Arts, recognizing the importance of private support for the arts and the need to preserve, stimulate and increase such support, both for existing institutions and the founding of new ones, urges that no action be taken in the tax area which would weaken the overall system of incentives for private support of nonprofit institutions.”
The National Council resolution is an important recognition of the strong role that the charitable contributions deduction has played in the increase in private giving to arts organizations since 1981.
Independent Sector, a Washington-based coalition of more than 600 nonprofit organizations and philanthropically minded corporations, has organized a nationwide effort to defeat the Treasury proposal. In addition to calling upon voters to contact their legislators and express support for the charitable contributions legislation, Independent Sector organized a national rally in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 28. More than 200 nonprofit leaders from across the country went to the Capitol to talk with legislators about the pressing needs of the country’s nonprofit organizations. Sen. Bob Packwood (R-OR) urged supporters to pursue the issue actively: “Prove the case of fairness and you’ll win, because fortunately Congress is still a grassroots organization. We do go home. We do listen, and if every time we go home, if at every single place we go, someone says, ‘I don’t think it’s fair to limit charitable contributions, I don’t think it’s fair, fair, fair, fair,’ that message will come through.
*The numbers have been corrected: In fact, the Canada Council faces a reduction of $796,000—from $49.7 million in ’84-85 to $48.9 million in ’85-86.
