Oscar E. Remick: The Arts & The American Way
THE ARTS AND THE AMERICAN WAY
Throughout the world, arts and culture are central to the human experience. In the United States, arts and culture play an essential role in our democracy. They serve as a manifestation of the liberty that lies at the heart of our civil and pluralistic society. They reinforce the spirit of free inquiry and action that animates and strengthens the practice of America’s political life.
- Center for Arts and Culture
Some Preliminary Considerations
Numerous, complex issues regarding the significance of the arts and their support in American society continue to beg for resolution. Circumstances surrounding the greater Pittsburgh region’s Herculean efforts to secure for itself a remodeled economic foundation adequate for the 21st Century realities propitiously provide an opportunity once again to address this peculiarly American dilemma regarding arts and culture in our shared life. This paper is intended to encourage a regional dialogue among all citizens to the end that together we might achieve a greater consensus about these matters.
The post-World-War II growth throughout the United States of the arts, including commercial, not-for-profit, and unincorporated, has been nothing short of phenomenal. Prompted by concerns that in the midst of such expansion not-for-profit arts organizations were not being adequately supported by "the market," the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations’ initiated higher levels of funding of the arts, prompting other foundations and corporations to join the movement to support with ever more dollars the expanding arts and culture endeavors. Audiences and ticket sales grew at a comparable rate. In 1965, the Federal Government, led in part by a few courageous political leaders, voiced a vision of a national responsibility for promoting arts and culture. Thus was established the National Endowment for the Arts, without, however, the needed basis of a public policy formulated through national discussions.
The policy vacuum notwithstanding, states followed the federal example and began to provide within their respective domains tax-dollar support for arts and culture in ways that tended to reflect the nation’s geographic and demographic differences. With the growing awareness and celebration of America’s diversity, the focus of such support became increasingly centered on geography as well as ethnicity and race.
Created perhaps more by circumstances than design was an implicit governmental (public) and private partnership for support of the arts, one which has yielded impressive results. Today, according to a recent report of the American Assembly (a national educational institution affiliated with Columbia University to examine issues of vital public interest), across the land the infrastructure of support for the arts includes fifty-two state arts councils, six regional arts associations, and some 3800 arts organizations at the local and community levels. Further, over the last quarter of a century, the number of individuals who identify themselves as artists has tripled. Fifty-eight orchestras in 1972 are now two hundred and thirty. The twenty-two professional theaters of 25 years ago now number four-hundred and twenty. Dance companies, once catalogued as thirty-seven, now total two-hundred and fifty. Opera companies’ growth is comparable: Twenty-seven in 1972 and one-hundred twenty today. Translated, this pattern has meant that in 1995, the arts in all their diversity represented a $292 billion enterprise&endash;4% of the Gross Domestic Product. Of this amount, $6.5 billion, or 2% of the total, was attributable to the not-for-profit arts sector.
This amazing evolution has raised the question (one most recently voiced by then NEA Chair, Jane Alexander) of the sustainability of this growth apart from serious planning at all levels&endash;local, regional, state, and federal. One thing is quite clear: How adequately to fund the arts, particularly the not-for-profit and unincorporated arts, has become a serious question at the national, state, and local levels even if there is not yet a broadly-accepted answer.
The valid concern about funding the various arts organizations in the greater Pittsburgh area must be placed in such a context, one which is made even more complex by several other related developments. At the national level, there continues to be an uncertainty as to the long-term continuity of the federal government’s modest funding of the National Endowment for the Arts, a situation which reflects the enduring vacuum of public policy for arts support at the federal or, for that matter, any level of government. Additionally, as the philosophy of decentralization of the federal government’s functions results in a devolution to the states of certain responsibilities once fulfilled through Washington’s bureaucracies, the growing pressures on state budgets make uncertain the level of resources that states may be able, let alone, willing, to allocate to arts and culture&endash;ever unprotected by a broad consensus as to the role and responsibility of government in this area of American life.
Too, one cannot overlook the shifts in the patterns of support by corporations and foundations, making even more questionable their continued investments in the arts at the previously established levels. Finally, and perhaps the most important of all variables because of its broad and deep impact, there is the transformation of the economies of our nation as a result of the force of international markets, causing seismic shifts in the social structures and patterns of many states and communities&endash;of the kind experienced by Southwestern Pennsylvania. America’s adjustments to a global economy will continue to entail serious debates about public priorities and resource allocations at every level of government. Support for the arts will not, cannot, escape the consequences of this unprecedented development.
It is this latter change, namely, the steady emergence of a global economy, which has made Pittsburgh a microcosm of the economic challenges faced by so many of America’s cities and regions. The debate about the value and role of the arts in our individual and collective lives as well as public support for the arts, both in our region and nation, cannot be productive apart from a consideration of this reality. To Pittsburgh we now direct our attention.
Pittsburgh
Any description of the arts in Pittsburgh cannot fail to conclude that it has mirrored the national growth of arts and cultural entities. In 1991, the latest year for which data has been compiled, it is reckoned that 4600 individuals donated to arts-related causes some 423,000 hours which translate into a $4,897,212 contribution. Further, arts activities of all sorts generated in taxes for local government approximately $6,913,828 and for state government, $10,169,885. Expenditures by arts organizations totaled more than $271,590,667. Over 8,144 FTE employees made the arts "happen" in our area. Personal income of these individuals surpassed $204,000,000, money that continued to circulate through the economy. Another indication of both the size of the arts and cultural enterprise and its economic impact on the area is a reference in the 1995-96 Pittsburgh Cultural Trust Directory to 185 not-for-profit arts organizations within or in service to the greater Pittsburgh region.
The story continues to be written with impressive figures, as indicated by the 1997 study completed by Tripp, Umbach & Associates. An analysis of the economic and social impact of the not-for-profit arts community on the city of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County looks at just 63 arts organizations representing all of the large and mid-size arts groups, together with a preponderance of smaller arts organization. Highlights of the report include the following information:
- a total economic impact (both direct and indirect) of $368 million (of which $251.2 relates to Pittsburgh alone;
- payrolls (salaries and benefits) of $47.8 million for 1,138 FTE employees;
- total attendance at I;63 arts institutions/organizations of 2,507,213, greater than the 2,583,440 combined ticket sales for the Pirates, Steelers, and Penquins;
- $12.7 million in taxes paid to the county and the city;
- $5,813,782 invested in the community by the arts organizations in programs characterized as intervention, education, outreach, community development, and social consciousness/advocacy.
The greater Pittsburgh area arts and cultural "industry" was not always this big. Between 1962 and 1998, a mere 36 years, we have witnessed the rise to international prominence of the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra, continued growth of the Pittsburgh Opera, and the birth of additional choral groups and music ensembles, including, but not exclusively, the Renaissance and Baroque Society, Pittsburgh New Music Ensemble, early music ensembles, and the Manchester Craftsmen’s Guild and Mellon Jazz Festival.
Thirty-six years ago there were the Nixon Theatre and Playhouse, the Civic Light Opera at various locations, and CMU’s Kresgee Theatre. Today, the city is also the home of Pittsburgh Public Theatre, the City Theater, and numerous smaller theater companies. The Pittsburgh Cultural Trust District, adding three performing arts facilities beyond Heinz Hall to downtown&endash;including the Benedum Center, Byham Theater, and Harris Theater, with a fifth theater, the O’Reilly, under construction.
Nor is the growth in dance any less remarkable. Thirty-six years ago the city enjoyed occasional presentations of national and international dance companies at the Syria Mosque. Today, in spite of contraction and expansion of the discipline, we point with pride to the nationally recognized Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre, Dance Council, Dance Alloy, and a range of small companies and independent choreographers.
In less than four decades, the Carnegie Museum of Pittsburgh has expanded to include the Carnegie Science Center and the Andy Warhol Museum. The Three Rivers Arts Festival Center for the Arts have also expanded. The Mattress Factory and Pittsburgh Filmmakers have opened, as have the Frick Art and Historical Center, the Society for Contemporary Craft, the Silver Eye, the Pittsburgh Regional History Center, and the Wood Street Galleries.
In summary, what has been a national phenomenon in terms of the expansion of the arts is also Pittsburgh’s record. In fact, it is likely that there are today few cities of comparable size with more arts activities per capita than is the case in Pittsburgh, the results of the approximately 225 arts and cultural organizations (not-for-profit, incorporated, and unincorporated) in the greater Pittsburgh region of Southwestern Pennsylvania.
These are among the entities that face the impact on the area of a global economy. The Pittsburgh metropolitan region today ranks among the lowest in the nation in terms of key indicators of economic health: value-added productivity and investment in the manufacturing sector; and change in total earnings. There are reasons for this rating. In the seventies and eighties, the Pittsburgh region experienced a loss of 54% (157,00) of its manufacturing jobs, the most severe manufacturing decline of any major metropolitan area in the nation. Nor have these losses been replaced by high technology jobs which collectively in the five-country area represent merely 6% of the employment. Coupled with the fact that the growth in service jobs is the lowest in the nation, these developments become significant components in the current Pittsburgh economic picture. In addition, a history of chronic labor problems and one of the highest net corporate income taxes in the nation make all the more challenging any efforts to counter these declines by redeveloping economically Pittsburgh and its surrounding regions.
This is the situation which has contributed to the 12.21% decline in population, a statistic unmatched by any other metropolitan region in the nation. Older residents tend to remain, resulting in an aging population. In fact, nearly 18% of Pittsburgh area’s citizenry is older than 65.
Pittsburgh and its surrounding communities have hardly been indifferent to these developments. It was reported in 1993 that the region could count more than 200 economic development organizations, although judged to be working without a shared vision. In fact, the area was described as "adrift" in activities without coordination, with civic organizations beset by increased factionalism, fragmentation, and overlapping agendas. It became broadly recognized that the area needed "a shared vision," supported by effective strategies that are relevant to the demands of a rapidly changing global economy. The role of the Allegheny Conference in initiating and coordinating major efforts has been critical. Its leadership in marshaling resources to transform "the Pittsburgh Brand," associated with an industrial city caught in the throes of global economic changes with the consequences referenced above, is to be applauded.
Too, it has rightly perceived and highlighted the enormous resources of this region as assets to endeavors to give the city a new birth which will position it well for the opportunities of the 21st Century. The Downtown complex, the philanthropic resources, corporate and university research development capabilities, a new airport, abundant industrial sites, educational institutions, the concentration of corporate and university research and development which promises steady applications of high technology to industrial productivity, and the abundance of arts and cultural resources are a few of the strengths the Pittsburgh area has as it extends the record of such efforts as Renaissance I, II, and Strategy 21 by developing new strategies for the economic renewal of the area. A key assumption of these ongoing efforts, evident in various documents produced over the last decade, is that "manufacturing is the engine of value-creation and wealth generation that powers regional and national economic development." (p.16, Marketing Strategy of Southwestern Pennsylvania (August 1997).
Of critical importance to all such visions is the objective of making Pittsburgh a city of destination for more and more tourists and conventioneers. It is argued that nothing better "sells" Pittsburgh than one’s experience of its distinctive quality of life. A metropolitan area well known for its arts and cultural resources, its adequate infrastructures, reliable and adequate transportation systems, national sports teams, and the capacity to accommodate large national and international conventions is a region likely to be chosen for the kinds of industries that will increasingly characterize the international economies of the 21st Century. Any urban region contemplating a major role in the next century must become attractive to the needs and expectations of the characteristics of increasing number of people certain to fill the productivity positions of a new era, that is, people who tend to be well educated and who have certain cultivated cultural expectations. Making this region highly competitive in increasing efforts by other areas with similar agendas will represent a horrendous challenge for the political leadership of Southwestern Pennsylvania as citizens longing for a past they cannot now reclaim are asked to support a future they cannot yet envision. The true dimensions of the political task were clearly revealed in the November vote regarding proposals that would have united this part of Pennsylvania in a regional economic renewal effort.
The continued growth of the arts as referenced above and evidenced, for example, by the significant achievements and plans of such organizations as The Pittsburgh Cultural Trust, and the increased recognition Pittsburgh has received for its arts and cultural resources during a time of measurable economic change, is not to be overlooked. And now, given the renewed determination of leaders from all sectors to give the larger Pittsburgh metropolitan area a new birth in response to the economic realities of the 21st Century, the arts and cultural resources are of necessity destined to assume an even more important role in the plans and strategies developed to achieve such a goal. Clearly, the environment sought increasingly by the professionals of the information society is one characterized by a strong presence of the arts. However, making certain the arts will be able to assume effectively their vital place in the area’s renewal efforts raises questions as to the extent of the public sector’s readiness to help make certain the arts and cultural resources are positioned to give the region the image of an ever more desirable place to work and live. And it is precisely such an observation that continues to spotlight the persistent, difficult American issues of whether and to what extent public funds should be allocated to the arts, of whether there is a shared vision among citizens generally as to the importance of arts and cultural resources to meaningful human life as well as to the vision of a revitalized Southwestern Pennsylvania.
The Arts in Public Understanding and in Public Policy
The "legitimacy" of governmental (national, state, and local) interest in and support of the arts in this democratic, capitalistic society is a complex matter. It has spawned passionate debate in which are evident enduring tensions regarding "the American way." One cannot constructively contribute to the discussions without realizing first of all that this nation was born in rebellion against government and finally established one with documented debate and reluctance. As Thomas Paine once observed, we have society because we have wants and we have government because we are wicked. Indeed, there is at the very core of American civic consciousness a resistance of varied intensity to governments’ involvement in and assumed responsibilities for the civic affairs of citizens and their freely-formed associations. That is why the commonly-held view voiced by Thoreau that government is best which governs least has been so determinative in the course of this nation’s history.
The hesitancy of many early Americans to form a federal government (in place of a loose, ineffective confederacy) was accommodated by the decision to prescribe for it carefully limited roles in such terms as establishing a more perfect union, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. If one takes a strict constructionist view of government, then the expansion (read intrusions) of government at any level into areas of civil life (that is, life apart from political and market activities), even in terms of support for arts, is viewed with alarm and resentment. To state the matter another way, the arena of life destined as "public" was with intention narrowly defined, leaving large, indeed, what is recognized as the domain of the private sector.
This heritage is expressed in a variety of ways. According to such views as are commonly held by libertarians, for example, the emphasis on individuals’ capabilities of making his/her own aesthetic choices means that there can be no justification for governmental arts subsides. In fact, this opinion was articulated by John O’Sullivan, editor of The National Review, in the September 1997 issue of American Theatre. That perspective reveals another American characteristic. Those European countries that do not share a philosophy of limited government as does America tend to perceive art as a component or function of the larger area of public good and therefore to be supported by public (tax) dollars. In America, many would view it as a private good, a part of and the responsibility of the private sector. Such views are held by even some who are today supportive of the National Endowments. During the recent debate over the future of the Endowment for the Arts, Senator Arlen Specter expressed his hope that the arts will eventually be funded totally by private dollars.
The point to be made is a simple one. If support of the arts is assessed as the unwarranted, indeed, unnecessary expansion of government into domains deemed private and therefore, by design, beyond the reach and responsibility of government, the debate over possible funding levels will be structured quite apart from the issues of the value, role, or place of the arts in our society. The real issue will be the limited responsibility of government in a narrowly measured public sphere. Governmental support of the arts in any amounts will be used as but the "occasion" for this larger debate.
In brief, public support of the arts is a matter that reveals the abiding American question of the role of government&endash;a question that has been elevated to new importance in large measure because of the impact on all levels of government revenues of the global economy and, concomitantly, the increasing costs of extant government programs. And while budget deficits and national debt are alarming, threatening realities, placing under intense scrutiny such areas of federal outlay as defense, health care, and education, one may be inclined to suspect that because these bigger expenses place them beyond the political necessity of simplicity, the NEA and the NEH are easily defined targets. In other words, they serve to support the assumption that a goodly measure of the financial problems of government at any and all levels is the result of unwarranted expansion of government into the activities of the private sector.
Obviously, such an approach to the issue of governmental support leaves unaddressed the deeper, more important question as to the nature and role of the arts in our individual and in our shared civil life. Certain political ideology, in other words, has tended to preclude the needed exploration of important philosophical questions which, regardless of one’s political persuasions, are of immense importance to the body politic. Further, one can argue, the impact on our civic life of significant social and cultural changes goes largely unaddressed. Such concerns will be addressed below.
As difficult as are the issues of our political heritage, there are other questions raised by any proposed governmental support of arts and culture. For example, is any level of public support really necessary? Why not let arts and cultural institutions "survive" market forces as would any other corporate endeavor in a capitalistic society? There are, of course, answers. Evidence of various kinds supports the claim that the needed quantity and quality of not-for-profit arts organizations’ offerings cannot be sufficiently financed through "the market" of ticket sales and private contributions. As suggested above, that is the reality that prompted the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations’ early efforts to support those very arts deemed to be placed at risk by market forces. In spite of the extent of the for-profit, not-for-profit, and unincorporated arts entities, not many are able to break even. In Hollywood, for example, it is reported that 20% of the movies make 80% of the revenues, meaning that many productions are money losers The not-for-profit arts organizations are even more financially challenged. They must generate even today at least half of their revenues through charitable contributions, revenue currently threatened by the new economic forces earlier referenced and by an expanding complexity of demands on philanthropic dollars. Like it or not, we cannot have the number, diversity, and quality of not-for-profit arts without systems of support.
Additionally, one has to ask why the arts cannot, do not, reduce costs and thereby minimize, if not eliminate, need for support&endash;public or private. The systemic financial problems of arts and cultural entities are dramatized by the following data. Costs of the arts have risen steadily at a cumulative and compound rate. For example, the Elizabethan Theatre needed less than 2 weeks to recoup the costs of a production. During the 1920’s, it took 5 _ to eight weeks. Today, the recovery of the costs of a regular play on Broadway will require around 6 years. A Broadway musical will necessitate an even longer period of time before the costs are covered. And these refer only to the successful of all the productions mounted. As a result, we have witnessed a compression of new productions, reduced by almost half during the last 30 years, and a diminution in the size of the average cast, from 16.8 to 9.3.
There are other troubling realities which reveal the tenacity of the financial difficulties. The arts, very much like education, as handicraft activities, do not measurably benefit from the technological advances used by industry to reduce labor while at the same time increasing productivity. This situation has been termed the "cost disease," defined as a steady pattern of unrelenting cost increases that persistently exceed the rate of inflation of a given economy.
This, in summary, is but a sketch of the political and economic circumstances certain to compel even a "government of restraint" to ask about the value it places on arts and culture resources. It is a matter begging for public policy. Dian Magie, in a 1997 essay, "Arts Funding in the 21st Century," written for Creative America, reveals the inescapability of the challenge. Reference is made to yet another trend, namely, the devolution of federal decision-making to states in the form of block grants, a change with consequences for America’s art agencies. "This shift," she writes, "requires arts and humanities programs to identify new avenues of local public sector funding, private sector funding, and organizational restructuring to maintain sustainability." She adds that "future sustainable and adequate funding on a local, regional and state-wide basis will require a diverse revenue base." In other words, the public policy issue regarding support of arts and culture is not merely a federal matter; it must be addressed at every major level of government.
However, there is a related issue that must be addressed if the debate is to be informative. The profile of arts audiences shows them to be made up largely of upper, upper middle income groups who are also above the median level of education. William J. Baumol, in a 1997 essay, "The Philosophy of Public Support," concludes that arts subsidies "are hardly an egalitarian outlay." Is this but another reason why a democratic government should not be involved in supporting arts programs? A response, of course, is that many in a given audience do not fit the referenced profile of those attending arts events and therefore governmental support, in effect, is expanding the accessibility of the arts to those whom financial limitations tend to exclude. Nor does the question take into account the enormous successes of both federal, state, and local support in reaching new, underserved individuals and groups, thereby increasing citizen participation in the arts. But this concern reveals an important principle: Any public policy of support by democratic governments should include an insistence that among any benefits thereby to be attained there is broadened accessibility to the arts.
As challenging as are these and other objections to governmental support of the arts, ranging from issues of political ideology to the nature of the costs of the arts and the characteristics of the audiences they draw, the debates have tended to reveal the need for a deeper understanding on the part of both citizens and political leaders as to the relationship of art to human life and, equally as important, the risks to democratic government posed by under-nurtured civil life. To such issues we now turn in the confidence that we will thereby discover a basis for a public policy regarding arts and culture.
Civil Life and Democracy
The defense of governmental support of the arts has tended to be formulated in recent times by the various art and cultural organizations and their advocates with a recital of all the good things the arts do&endash;from enriching the quality of life of an area, a state, and a nation to adding significantly to the economy, thereby suggesting that support is more an investment than an expense. While the continual recital of these benefits is to be applauded, it nevertheless fails to address the basic question as to a democratic, individualistic, capitalistic society’s governmental interest in the arts. In fact, it could be seen as comprising an argument for private support and private support alone.
However, such a conclusion would reveal a lack of awareness of the traditions of political thought. A survey of western civilization brings to light the long history of interpretations of the place and value of the arts in a given society and thus their importance to governance. The relationship between arts and politics, whether debated by such classical philosophers as Plato and Aristotle, or by "schools" of art philosophy such as the Romantic, Realist, Aesthetic, Aristocratic, etc., must be interpreted as revealing an enduring human concern, so much so that it cannot legitimately be ignored even by those who are of the minimal government persuasion. In a word, art, among other activities, has an impact on individuals in ways that have "political" consequences. A government of, by, and for the people cannot, therefore, pretend indifference to the arts.
The discussion is advanced by referencing John Dewey’s oft-quoted observation that democracy is as much a way of life as it is a form of government. "Its success," he argues, "rests on the existence and heartiness of the civic domain…distinct from both commercial and government domains." Actually, Dewey but echoes the assertions of this nation’s founders who recognized that the Republic, based as it is on a "mediated" democracy, would survive only in terms of the capacity of private institutions and entities to create civic beings out of self-interested individuals. In other words, the vitality and viability of democratic government depend on a vital and viable civil life. The founding fathers were confident that small communities, strong families, and a variety of religious institutions, among other entities, provided the requisite nurture of individuals.
Alexis deTocqueville, the famed French sociologist of the 19th Century, studied carefully and wrote persuasively more than a half a century after the founding of the Republic about civil society in America and its primary characteristic of voluntary associations/organizations which, while "private," serve essential public purposes. These entities still included the home, the small community, all manner of civic associations, churches/synagogues, charities, and, yes, entities promoting the arts and humanities. They were all to be prized and perpetuated, argues Tocqueville, because they serve to produce, among other worthy outcomes, citizenship, that is, the acquired capacity of an individual to act beyond self-interest for the sake of the common interest. Without many effective civic agencies, the sociologist concluded, a democratic republic such as America would eventually falter.
The idea made clear in certain traditions of Western philosophy, in the thought of the nation’s founders, and by several scholars of American life can be simply stated: No democratic government at any level can justify an indifference to the very foundations of democracy, that is, to the kinds of organizations and resources that comprise civil life and in specific ways shape the character of its citizenry. This is such a fundamental principal that it must once again be introduced into the ongoing debate about the extent of governments’ responsibilities and/or interests in civil life.
Michael Sandel’s fairly recent book, Democracy’s Discontent, advances and clarifies the issues under examination with a perspective from which can be drawn conclusions relevant to the question of public support of the arts. American government’s declared responsibility "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," can be heard as an inescapable, clarion call for government to maintain a vital interest in those associations and efforts on which falls the responsibility for enabling self-interested individuals to rise above that powerful self interest with which each is endowed for the sake of the common good. As Professor Sandel points out, for many years this concern drove public policy, even to the point of efforts to keep out of the country certain kinds of economic activities deemed to undermine the very foundations of an enduring Republic.
The consequences of industrialization were perceived by Thomas Jefferson and undoubtedly others to make impossible or at least unlikely the acquisition of those needed, distinctive civic qualities of the people of this land. Undoubtedly, this civic dimension of American life was greatly influenced by the institutions of religion, the family, the small community, and, eventually, the schools. And they served well the national interest, so much so, one could today claim, that they made government’s concern about civic life unnecessary. The question for us now is whether the effectiveness of these institutions warrants government’s confidence in them.
Sandel argues that America was measurably altered by industrialization and its resultant economic patterns. Local businesses became big, national businesses, giving rise to a new question. No longer was it only a concern as to what kinds of associations are needed to preserve liberty through self-government and to protect free individuals from the intrusions of a freedom-restricting federal government. The new question concerned the kind of institution(s) needed to protect Americans from freedom-restricting/denying big business. The answer that evolved, as is well known, was big government shaped more and more by the concerns of an expanding national economy.
Consequently, governments have tended more and more to govern through managing and/or addressing economic interests. American presidencies seem to rise and fall on these very issues. It is, after all, stupid, the economy.
What can be lost in this shift is the realization that the economy must depend on democracy and that, in turn, is founded on the effectiveness of civic life to develop a governing citizenship. Only thereby are we better able to sustain and perpetuate those blessings of liberty attained and preserved with immeasurable sacrifice. Regrettably, this view has been diminished by a perceived interest of government in making individuals perpetual consumers rather than good citizens. It is this country’s, a state’s, a region’s all-consuming pursuit of economic success that can place at risk the most sacred of the nation’s values, namely, a highly qualified citizenship which entails the capacity of a people to self-govern, perceived as the only alternative to the tyranny of anarchy, monarchy, oligarchy, or even big business. The point to be reasserted today is this: Democratic governments have much at stake in the quality and vitality of civil life, the arena in which citizens, the true government, are created. This vision of America’s founders needs to be embraced again by our nation.
Such considerations point to an additional risk. The dominance of our society by a materialism born of an ever-more powerful consumerism and commercialism has already measurably influenced the nature of other civic institutions and their capability to serve those earlier envisioned public purposes. For example, undergoing fundamental change are the nature and character of many homes now requiring two wage earners. Even the curricular priorities of educational institutions are pressured to conform more to the market needs of students. Eliminated or placed lower on the agendas of such entities is the time-consuming nurturing of individuals’ capacities for fuller, more meaningful life as well as the development of their abilities and inclinations to serve the common good.
An observation. Throughout the debates of recent years, an interesting political division seems to have emerged with greater clarity. Liberals are inclined to serve as Adam’s "invisible hand" to make certain that economic forces at least vaguely conform to standards of social or civic justice. Yet they tend to argue for government restraint in the critically important civic arena of American life, a realm where the issues of values, ethics, and morality so determinative to character formation cannot be escaped. Conservatives, on the other hand, want the government to stay out of the economy so as to keep it free to experience market forces. But they are obviously more willing to use the power of government to influence certain dimensions of American civic life, a part of our existence that, as stated above, is not, cannot be value neutral. While this is a classical issue, it is debated, sometimes with more heat than light, in what is now a very diverse society. We witness first hand the impact of these divergent views in the ongoing confrontations over the arts and humanities endowments.
The preceding considerations allow one to risk a conclusion. The foundation, defense, or justification regarding governments’ support of the arts is this:. Democratic governments at every level have and must exercise their legitimate, material interest in the citizenship competencies of individuals by promoting the vitality and quality of civil life. Not even a belief in restrained government can be invoked to exempt any government from this responsibility.
There is no more compelling an example of this recognized interest and governments’ developing responses than in the evolution by which the education of citizens changed from a task that was essentially a private sector endeavor to one that is today primarily a public sector endeavor. We eventually perceived education as too important to the interests of a democratic society to be accessible only to those who could purchase it or, eventually, only those who wanted it. The concern for the right formation of individuals for responsible and rewarding life in a democratic society that made education such a priority to states and, eventually, federal government, remains the basis for governments’ interest in the vitality of civic life, broadly defined to include arts and cultural entities. Such an assertion requires an explanation that entails, for lack of a better term, a philosophy of art.
Art and Culture in Human Life
The arts, defined in the broadest of terms, are born out of that which is uniquely human. As such, they have to be seen as "soul" realities. That is because to be human entails being a creator, a process by which we achieve a fuller humanity. Using language and tools as the means, we are involved in nothing less than self-creation, the results of which comprise the content of culture itself. In religious imagery familiar to Jews, Christians, and Muslims, we humans, being fashioned in the image of a creator God, ourselves must create. From such a perspective, one can conclude that culture is to humankind what creation is to God. There is something awesomely human about creativity which reflects our nature as spiritual beings.
Acts of self-creation aim for or grasp at some goal; they reach for some possibilities and as such are forms of transcendence. In self-creation, we go beyond the actual, all that is, in pursuit of what might be. Of course, all this assumes or postulates a freedom of the human spirit, a claim that makes spiritual liberty as necessary as political liberty for meaningful human existence. And therein lies the danger. That very freedom or liberty is always threatened by the imposition on it of declared limits or ceilings beyond which creativity may not go. As is well known, history is replete with illustrations of the subtle and not-so-subtle establishing of such "limits." It happens in different ways: when, for example, there are assertions that only one form of government is the absolute norm and no other types can be tolerated; when some declare that only one form of art, say, expressionism, is the norm to which all painters must conform; when claims are made that a form of architecture, such as Bauhaus, is the norm for all buildings; when some assert that only one form of economy is the absolute standard and nothing but that form can be allowed; when a religion claims to be absolute and poses as a ceiling beyond which no one can go; when a philosophy such as positivism claims to be the only right and valid one; when a form of music, such as classical, is made the absolute according to which all other music is to be composed. These are but examples of idolatry, the making of false gods, claiming absoluteness for that which is but essentially relative and conditional as each culture and its contents are. As such, idolatry is the most dreaded offense of biblical faith and for reasons not always recognized. It is a sin that threatens the human spirit in its incessant self-creating and self-transcending functions. To be human, in the final analysis, is to push beyond all the created forms and expressions of self-creation in that eternal quest for a more perfect expression, embodiment, or approximation of what is true, what is good, what is beautiful, what is holy, etc. To curtail that pursuit by imposing on it false limits is to threaten and even destroy that which is so sacredly human. Idols must be destroyed in order that the spirit may live.
In such terms one grasps the meaning, the significance of human existence itself. That our self-creativity through self-transcendence is possible only through our use of symbols, such as words, ideas, and numbers is the mark of our nature as intelligent beings. Unfortunately, we tend to view our range of symbols in limited ways, overlooking the fact that human life is expressed through symbols other than only words and numbers, symbols such as light, movement, form, tone, rhythm, colors, etc. There are, in other words, some truths that are better danced out than thought out.
No activities more adequately reveal this dynamic of the human spirit than do the arts themselves. It is artists who give formal expression to that dynamic which is operative in the everyday life of people everywhere. As such, they are of critical importance to any culture broadly defined as an embodiment of that very drive that is expressed in all creativity. They represent an indispensable component of civil life, showing us what it really means to be a human being in all its creativity and complexity. The arts remind us that we are ever the subjects and not the objects of creativity, that our being and dignity cannot be encompassed by or defined totally by anything which we create&endash;not our government, not our markets, not our philosophies, and not even our culture. Maintaining and encouraging that vitality and competency of the human spirit through education and the arts, to name but two prominent enterprises essential to the quality of civic life on which every democracy depends, must be viewed as a governmental imperative&endash;and all the more so when economic goals can become idols demanding complete submission by all who worship ever greater financial success.
The point not to be lost in the examination of a difficult idea is simply stated: there is a philosophy of the arts that accord them a role and meaning in life far more consequential than can those arguments for their utilitarian value. They reveal that dynamic of the human spirit which is the source of all creativity, common to all people of all backgrounds, and thus of all culture. An expression of our shared humanity, the arts communicate to people in ways that breakdown the barriers of language, background, and experience. In these functions they are essential to the quality and vitality of individual and civic life so important to modern democracy.
This interpretation of the dynamics of the human spirit in terms of self-transcendence through self-creation is offered as one of possible philosophical rationales for understanding art. This spiritual function, as stated above, finds expression in the contents of culture, including, of course, all forms of artistic creativity. Unavoidable are questions as to whether art that risks offending broadly-shared standards should be supported with public funds.
Clearly, it seems, a distinction must be made between the current patterns of support and the older model of arts patronage which allowed wealthy individuals to support the artists, perhaps in terms of purchasing services designed to yield a requested product. In that kind of relationship, the standards, preferences, and expectations of a patron were accommodated by any artist accepting such support. Artists did that for which they were paid. Their responsibility was based on standards indigenous to artistic creativity and integrity as well as to the expectations of the patrons, be they private citizens or monarchs who ruled by divine right, who made possible such activities. Their artistic freedom was in correlation with these kinds of responsibilities.
As the American version of democracy has moved over the last three decades to make available even minimal support of art and artists, the failure to provide such funding with an undergirding policy has left unaddressed important questions, including the issue as to whether artists assume any specific responsibilities in accepting democratic dollars for support of creativity. Must, for example, artists conform to, that is, not offend, any minority or majority mores? Is that the price for democratic support? The recent arguments about support of the National Endowment for the Arts suggest that some members of Congress and the broader publics hold such a view.
It is disappointing that shouting matches tend to replace needed dialogue. Regrettable, too, is the myopic response of well-intended defenders of artistic creativity in terms of rights, in terms of protected freedom of expression. Muffled has been any voice that would raise the question responsibility in ways that might help broader publics perceive the genius of artistic creativity with terms different from those which tend to be used by adolescents emerging from strict parental control.
Clearly, rights without responsibility are blind even as responsibility without rights is empty. No one, it is hoped, is so uninformed as to argue for one without the other. Artistic responsibility, it should be understood, is to standards of integrity and excellence of expression, to the vision of imagination, to the grasped meaning of life’s experiences of any and all humans. Indeed, artistic responsibility can be articulated in a myriad of ways. But it has not been set forth with enough frequency and intelligibility to inform measurably the public exchanges.
The creativity of the human spirit is always breaking through established norms of all activities of life, be they economic, social, political, religious, artistic, ethical, moral, etc. And such creativity will allow us even if but occasionally to glimpse the absurdities, inconsistencies, and hypocrisies of claimed adherence to such norms as well as, in some instances, of the ambiguity of the norms themselves. That same creative power revealed in biblical prophets, Socrates, Jesus, and the great reformers of our civilization is no less evident in artists. When artists and their arts fail so to function, even if on somewhat rare occasions, they have abandoned one of their essential responsibilities and should be judged accordingly. That is why, one must conclude, public, and even noble private funding, must, simply must, assure and support the vitality of the creative process even as, in spite of, yes, because of, the occasional products of that creativity keep us from a blindness that creates freedom-denying absolutes, be they those of majorities or minorities, out of standards that must be seen as ambiguous even while they are embraced as guides (not gods) for life itself.
While the debate over the National Endowment for the Arts has been for our country a rather negative experience, it could have been very positive had we injected into these exchanges the issues of artistic responsibility, had broader publics been helped to understand that public support is of a process so essential to a vibrant democracy&endash;and that, even if many individuals conclude an occasional product of that process threatens or offends commonly claimed standards idolatrously regarded as absolutes. In fact, one should be amazed by the fact that all in all, publicly-supported creativity has yielded products that have occasioned such few protests.
A public policy for support of the arts based on an understanding of their inevitable place in the life of human beings and grounded in an understanding of their resultant role in the civil life on which democracy is so ultimately dependent would certainly replace public diatribes about funding of the arts with desperately needed public dialogue.
The Case
Formulation of public policy regarding the nature and extent of governments’ interest in and support of not-for-profit arts must address several important issues, some of which are the following. A national heritage of restrained and contained government has prescribed narrow parameters for legitimate public interests and, conversely, broad parameters for private interests. Consequently, in contrast to European patterns, this tradition yields the view that the arts, regarded as solely the interest of the private sector and to be supported by it, lie beyond governments’ concerns.
Related to this ideology are the arguments advanced to support the position that the not-for-profit arts, like any endeavor in a free-market society, must be financially self-reliant by balancing costs with earned income. In this view, questions of support by public or, for that matter, private entities are irrelevant.
Further, some insist, the arts, even as private-sector phenomena, tend to appeal to those individuals whose income and educational levels are above those of the average citizen. Support of the arts by the public sector would therefore represent a subsidy of the most financially-resourced people by those less wealthy. This is hardly a defensible practice of American democracy.
An intelligent case for the arts will have to show why the arts need support, how they serve interests indigenous to those of democratic government, the nature of artists’ responsibilities, and why, therefore, the arts warrant private and public assistance.
Data confirm that not-for-profit arts suffer from what is referenced as "the cost disease," that is, they persistently experience cost increases at rates that exceed the annual inflation rate. This inevitability is attributed to the fact that the arts are hands-on activities which make them nearly impervious to the cost-reducing benefits afforded by advancing technologies. A noted consequence of this reality is the steady decline over the past decades of the number of new productions on Broadway as well as a diminution in the size of casts. The impact of this financial bind on the not-for-profit arts sector is even more severe, compelling recognitions that high quality, diverse, not-for-profit arts, will have to be provided unearned income in the form of gifts and grants.
As to the make-up of arts-enjoying segment of society, the stereotypical image of the arts as elitist pleasures ignores the significant diversity in the make-up of audiences, in no small measure the result of an implicit partnership between corporations, foundations, and governments at all levels. It also begs the question of the importance of the arts to civil life on which democracies rely and the resultant imperative that the arts be maximally accessible. There can be no doubt but that the greater affordability of the arts, made possible by such support, has not only contributed to the growth of audiences but also to their greater diversity. The evolution of American private and public support for education at all levels can be viewed as a model and precedent for the public and private funding of the arts.
However, a case for public support of not-for-profit arts must be based on additional considerations, such as an understanding of the nature of both democracy and human nature. These are considerations seldom incorporated in current debates about funding for the arts.
America’s political ideology was born in the Enlightenment which identified as the ultimate foundation of a monarchy-ousting political revolution the self-interested individual endowed with inalienable rights. Our history is an example of how revolutions destroy idols and are themselves born out of that powerful creativity of the human spirit which must constantly challenge freedom-denying idolatries. One may perceive idolatry as elevating to the status of an absolute that which is merely relative. Ironically, the philosophical heritage of our nation also saw this kind of individual as a threat to the idealized government of, by, and for the people. Democracy, in a word, would have to rely on processes by which the raw material of human nature would be modified by an acquired disposition for serving also the common interests or the common good&endash;what in classical thought was connoted by the term, civic virtue.
The founders rightly recognized that civil life, the private sector realm of family, church, small community, and volunteer associations of all kinds, must be responsible for the nurture and development in individuals of civic competencies and commitments. The quality and vitality of civil life, broadly defined, was early recognized to be of major, material interest to democratic government’s survival. Should this sector fail, it was fearfully concluded, so, too, would democracy.
Circumstances of early America fortunately made this sector vitally effective. Governments could assume its faithful and effective fulfillment of those duties which de facto devolved to it. Scholars such as Tocqueville concluded that this sector was still serving democracy’s primary interest even in the first half of the Nineteenth Century.
But America was to change. Perhaps no event has had for the nation consequences equal to those of the industrial revolution and the resultant development of national (in contrast to local, community-based) businesses and corporations. They were perceived as serious threats to the liberties and rights of individuals. Consequently, the federal government grew as the protector of individual rights from the ever-threatening tyranny of big business. Gradually the agenda of major governments were more and more shaped by economic issues relating to the vitality of a free market but one whose enormity and its consequences could not have been anticipated.
This economic evolution not only diminished the formative role of small communities in the lives of individuals, as Jefferson, for example, had envisioned, but it also impacted the character and vitality of civil life by the gradual dominance of an all-pervasive consumerism and materialism. For example, it has modified the structure and role of the family and, in certain ways, the curricula of education, kindergarten through undergraduate. Its time-consuming demands continue to modify voluntarism, an important characteristic of the American way. It may not be an exaggeration to conclude that this nation’s vitality as a democracy could never confront a threat more imposing than that represented by a civil life, broadly defined, overcome by interests that are more self-centered than common-interest centered, by interests that accord a lower priority to the care and nurture of the souls of individuals and society. The conclusion to be reached is that these are trends that put democracy at risk. No democratic government can be indifferent to them.
Let us then confidently encumber with such considerations the view that democratic governments at all levels can be indifferent to the quality of civil life. In fact, given the recent history of the Republic, there is need on the part of governments for a renewed concern about civil life in America.
Because modern democracy is based on the rights-endowed, even if self-interested, individual, governments must understand the dynamics of human life in terms of its essential nature revealed in inescapable creativity. Focusing on the individual only as rights-endowed is to overlook the more ultimate genius of Homo sapiens&endash;an oversight which poses a long-term threat to democracy itself.
That is why, one must conclude, a recital of the contributions of the arts to society, while informative, are, in the final analysis, inadequate. More importantly, the arts in the life of human beings reveal a component of our essential nature, namely, finding the meaning of our existence through a creativity which transcends all that is in endless pursuit of what is imagined as the possible and expressed in what is new or different. This function of the human spirit is the source of human cultures, understood as the repositories of all human creativity&endash;art, economics, politics, religion, etc. Not only through words and numbers but through the additional symbols of form, movement, tone, rhythm, etc. we humans communicate interpretations of life and its perceived meanings always in the process of being reformulated. In a word, it is this dynamic of creativity which yields civil life, indeed, culture. And it is on this very foundation that democracy has cast its destiny.
Therefore, in a time when the agenda of governments and the concerns of people are so measurably marked by economic goals generating a soul-denying consumerism and materialism; in a time when lack of attending to quality and vitality of civil life undermines the capacity of people to preserve democratic government; in a time when the very creativity of the human spirit, the ultimate source of culture, of civil life, is threatened by the freedom-denying idolatries which majorities, minorities, and even markets would establish; in a time when economic prowess and vitality will increasingly depend on people who can look at what is good and imagine what might be even better; in a time when that transcending capacity must be cultivated by participation in the resources represented by the arts in all their diversity; in a time when the economic base of the country is shifting from the might of muscle to the powers of the mind and the imagination&endash;in such times as these, governments must partner with the private sector to assure the quality, diversity, and broadest-possible accessibility of the arts. This must be a component of the strategies needed to make certain America’s civil life has the capacity to serve democratic objectives by cultivating in individuals not only the competencies and commitments but, equally as important, the creativity of an imagination required of ever better self-government in the midst of overwhelming, complex forces of globalism certain to pose new challenges to democracies everywhere.
Summary
Both the nation and the greater Pittsburgh area have witnessed a remarkable, four-decade growth in arts and cultural resources made possible in part by a funding partnership that evolved between the private and public sectors&endash;but without an explicit public policy for such support. And now, faced with the challenges and issues of a global market (to say nothing of a seemingly incalculable national debt), a development which has heightened to unprecedented levels economic competition between nations and regions within nations, governments at all levels are pushed more and more to assume responsibility for economic revitalization programs that are effective and sustainable. It is this circumstance that is also putting a squeeze on both corporations and foundations, forcing a reordering of previously-established philanthropic priorities. And it is this priority that is impacting the nature and quality of civil life.
Making a region attractive to prospective businesses of the 21st Century represents challenges of the first order, not the least of which is educating the citizenry as to what must now be done if the greater Pittsburgh area is to project a new image, if it is to make this region a point of destination and eventual residence for the people and businesses on which sustainable economic prosperity will depend. As is broadly recognized, achieving such an objective of necessity will require the availability and accessibility of arts and cultural resources.
Evidence abounds that the not-for-profit arts entities, plagued by the "cost disease," cannot today survive, let alone prosper, without appropriate levels of private and public support. Such partnerships have yielded impressive results in the past. But under the conditions of current economic pressures and increased competition for both public and private dollars, the need for this kind of assistance reveals at the local, state, and federal levels no persuasive public policy or even consensus as to the legitimate role and interest of governments in supporting the arts, no broad public understanding of their significance in the life of humans as spiritual, as creative beings, no grasp of their contributions to the vitality of civil life. The patterns of governmental funding during the last three and a half decades have reflected the courageous leadership of the few rather than the persuasions of the many.
Economic pressures on all levels of government have encouraged renewed debates as to what government can afford, what ought to be its priorities in times of financial constraints, what are the legitimate interests and involvements of government in American civil life. The fate of the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities as well as the debates as to the levels of arts funding at state and local levels have captured national attention and thereby have illustrated the circumstances in which we the people find ourselves today regarding such important issues.
Efforts to "defend" governmental support of the arts have tended to be a recital of all the good things that come from the arts and cultural entities/associations which dot the landscape. Seemingly unanswered in adequate and/or compelling terms is the question as to the legitimate interests of governments, increasingly occupied with economic issues, in supporting American arts and culture. In the context of the American ideal of limited, not expansive, government, and because of the new financial realities born of international markets, the arts and cultural institutions of the country have been very much on the defensive.
A philosophy of art, needed in the final analysis to explain art as a necessary, indigenous dimension of human spirituality, demonstrates the arts’ vital importance as indicators of the self-transcending creativity which is the source of all culture, of all civil life. It can be argued that democratic governments are under a mandate to preserve, protect, and enhance that creativity as a means by which can be assured the perpetuity of those very governments.
This interest is measurably threatened by the declining civic competencies of individuals as citizens and the tendencies of government to value individuals more as perpetual consumers than as either competent citizens or creative beings. Unchallenged and uncorrected, these trends will undermine a liberal democratic, capitalistic society. A government insufficiently attentive to the quality and vitality of civil life, that is, the life of individuals qua human beings, is a government at risk. Therefore, the support of education, the protection of religious institutions from government interference, the concern for functional families, the respect for all manner of volunteer associations, and a focus on the quality and accessibility of arts and culture to all citizens must be recognized as important government interests. Such considerations must serve as the foundation of an intelligent case for support of the arts in the greater Pittsburgh region, in Pennsylvania, and in the nation.
In the final analysis, political vitality and economic prosperity, even in times such as these, will continue to require a ceaseless nurturing of the dynamic, creative capacity of the human spirit to remain free to transcend all its self-creativity in all its cultural embodiments in that never-ending quest for a nearer approximation of what is true, good, beautiful, just, and holy.
Oscar E. Remick, President Emeritus
Westminster College (PA)
Immediate Past Chair, PA Council on the Arts. Summer, 1998