Should Government Fund Seattle Arts?

For more years than I remember, there has always been a question of whether any government, be it local, state or federal, should provide funding for the arts. This question always rears its head when some form of art that most people find to be in questionable taste (to put it mildly) is found to be sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts, a federally run program.

In truth, I find that some of the so called "arts programs" paid for with that agency's money have been in extremely bad taste and are not what I would call "art" at all. In truth, the NEA has sponsored many more excellent arts programs than bad ones. And, the money they have to work with, as allocated by Congress, is actually quite miniscule when you look at the big picture.

In Europe, funding for the arts is a matter of course, and the amounts we spend on it here is negligible compared to Europe's. But, in America there has never been any strong national support for arts funding. America is built on private enterprise, and the majority of people here feel that arts should support itself as everything else does. In truth, government money for arts is seen as some sort of welfare program.

I don't want to get hung up here on a discussion of the NEA and federal funding. What I really want to put on the table is local funding for the arts...local here meaning Seattle.

Seattle is the center for art in the Pacific Northwest, as LA and San Francisco are for California. We have our own superior symphony, ballet and opera companies. We also have an excellent major art museum that carries its own marvelous collection plus brings in spectacular traveling exhibitions by some of the most famous painters of all time. The city is also populated with local art galleries as well as having colleges and universities that help train new generations of artists.

Some of the larger arts programs just cannot be self supporting. They require some sort of government and private foundation funding to keep going. It is not cheap to retain over a 100 musicians for the symphony, for instance. And the Seattle Art Museum may not have been able to keep its doors open without the substantial help provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

But what about government or special taxation for the arts programs of Seattle? There is a 2% special hotel/motel tax in Seattle that was put in place to finance the arts here. Well, guess what? Most of that money was hijacked to pay of the debt of the now-demolished Kingdome. Very little finds its way to our arts.

The bottom line is that some arts program do deserve some help while other should simply be allowed to go away for lack of interest. But who makes the cut and who doesn't?

I was recently re-acquainted with these issues, thanks to a well written, informative article in the Seattle Weekly. I would like to share it with you not only to make you aware of the issues discussed here, but to better acquaint you with the art scene in general in Seattle.

To read this excellent article, go to:

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0503/050119_arts_toughlove.php