Where Does The NEA Money Go? I: Proposal

Alright, so, the last Pitching Arts to Conservatives post has really become, specifically, "Where Does The NEA Money Go?" This is a question I thought had a simpler answer, but after some questions have been raised about the charts and what they actually mean, I want to delve deeper into the issue and see if I can tease out more information.

So, to recap: with two different sets of data that were arbitrarily selected, two different pictures emerged. One picture was the NEA giving money to CA and NY and kind of neglecting everyone else. The other picture was the NEA giving money fairly evenly, but with the least-populated states getting disproportionate money.

Problems:

1. Both sets of data were from the Stimulus Bill. I don't know how the Stimulus Bill's money was distributed, but seeing as it originated from Congress rather than from the NEA, there's the possibility that it isn't representative of the NEA's normal funding in the course of events.
2. The per capita basis of comparing arts funding may skew as the population gets smaller -- $50k in Montana is roughly .10 per capita, whereas it is less than .01 per capita in California. If there's a theoretical/logistical floor to NEA spending, then states at the floor might seem over-represented if per capita is used as the measure.

Anyways, in the coming days I'm going to track down the data to try and measure a few different hypotheses as to how the NEA money winds up being distributed:

HYPOTHESES

1. The "Money Follows Artists" Theory -- Ian Thal, in the comments, as well as my mother both raised the question as to whether states that have more artists or art organizations will be favored by NEA grants. This would line up more with the first set of data than the second one. This probably means comparing NEA Funding (stimulus/normal budget; raw and per capita) to number or artists (from Census data) and number of art organizations (from...?).
2. The "NEA Fills In State Gaps" Theory -- J. Holtham, on the other hand, raised the question in the comments as to whether the NEA is predisposed to give more money to states that support their arts less, which is one theory that might explain the second set of data. I am skeptical of this one, but I want to examine it. This means comparing NEA funding (stimulus/normal budget; raw and per capita) to State arts council funding (raw, per capita, and percentage of state budget).
3. The "NEA Gives it to Big Cities" Theory -- My original theory was that arts funding concentrates in big cities, which the two charts don't really directly reflect well. This means comparing NEA Funding (stimulus/normal budget; by Congressional district) to population density (by Congressional district).
4. The "NEA as Pork" Theory -- Also related to my original theory, the idea that NEA funds are distributed to make Congresspeople happy. I am almost completely sure that the normal NEA distribution is not this way, but I am curious about whether the Stimulus bill was determined this way. This means comparing NEA funding (stimulus/normal budget; by congressional district) to total earmarks (by congressional district).
5. The "NEA as Liberal" Theory -- A minor theory of mine as to why the first set of data gave NY and CA an advantage over TX, NEA funding (stimulus/normal budget) to CPVI (a dataset that I can find immediately!)

I think those are the major theories that I want to test with the numbers. I will probably go one-by-one over the next week or so, depending on how much work it is to find each of these data sets. If anyone wants to comment with good sources for this data, I'd be much obliged.

(UPDATE: In lieu of the CPVI set, I'm going to try and get the Social/Economic Liberal/Conservative scores that FiveThirtyEight.com just used. It gets me a little more fine investigation of the leanings of state voters.)

Pitching Arts to Conservatives II

A while back, I wrote a missive (aimed particularly at Scott Walters) about how to win public support for government arts funding again:

Kingston's stance right now is, the NEA is useless to my district, so it is way easy for me to rag on it. After all, how many people in my district have any connection to or value of the NEA? Why not kick it around? What would I lose?

And if you look at the political math, if the NEA's money is going mostly to large metropolises, then it will be undersupported in the House. And probably the Senate too.

As if on cue, there's been a fight a-brewin' amongst the mainstream blogosphere about New York's status as a cultural capital -- are we snobs and cultural imperialists, or victims of our own success? It started here; if you want to follow the conversation, go read Andrew Sullivan's blog (you have to be already -- how are you not?). Here's the post that stuck out to me, though:

The question to me is not whether centers of power or culture or economy are good or bad, but whether there are appropriate checks and balances on their influence, and whether that influence then results in (cultural/political/economic) growth across the country or whether it simply saps the rest of the country of its resources. Is New York robbing the rest of the country of its art and culture? Probably not. Likely quite the contrary occurs. Wall Street, on the other hand, is a lot more culpable when it comes to our financial situation and the drain bad finance has placed on people on Main Street as it were – and there is certainly a problem with letting one industry, largely centered in one city, become so dominant.

I don't know if New York can be said to rob the rest of the country of its art and culture, but I do think New York can be said to be robbing the rest of the country of its cultural support. Here's a breakdown of the NEA's music grants from the stimulus bill by state:

(Adaptistration)

Almost 25% went to NY and CA. 18% of the population (according to Wikipedia) gets about 31% of the arts funding, and Texas (more populous than NY and with its own strong arts tradition, especially in cities like Austin) is getting about 3% of the funding compared with being 7% of the population. (Interesting to note, by the way, that Illinois is equally out of favor, despite being home to Chicago, part of the"NYLACHI" that Scott's sworn his life to balance against.

Grassroots + Power VI: Separation Between Arts and State?

A few months back, I got attacked by some drones from Andrew Breibart's big Hollywood blog because I approved of the Obama administration's realistic approach to arts policy -- basically, we'll provide what distant support we can to whatever is already going on in the field. My sense was that, given the incredible resistance to the arts from many politicians (excluding a few heroes).

At first, I was just irritated, especially by criticism that I hadn't given proper thought to the relationship between the grassroots and government. And then I decided to reflect on the relationship between arts and government for a few posts (starting from here).

The problem at the core of the criticism, which I felt it was necessary to address, was the proper relationship between mass movements and government. The right has shrewdly decided to draw parallels between the mass movements directed by government under Fascism/Nazism, whereas the left sees this government as government directed by mass movements. In the end, of course, neither is true -- my sense of the Obama Administration since it took office is that whereas it is responsive to some of the mass movement's concern, he certainly isn't bound by them, and on the other hand, the idea that the 9/11 National Day of Service indicates that Barack Obama is directly controlling artists is just ridiculous--or that ACORN is a malicious plot directed by Democrats to rig votes in their favor.

I was led to re-reflect this morning on that line of thinking by this post at Butts in Seats, about a recent TED address about a program that uses arts to address controversial concerns. The post ends:

She argues that social leaders who strive for change need to harness the universal language of the arts to bring it about.

My favorite quote: “You have treated the arts as the cherry on the cake. It needs to be the yeast.”

It struck me, suddenly, that although I have often heard the message directed towards artists that art is a powerful vehicle for social change, I had never heard the message directed towards politicians that art is a powerful vehicle of social change. And I wondered what that would look like -- politicians partnering with artists to create social change.

And then I remembered those anonymous flame messages accusing me of being a patsy to Stalinism because I thought it was a good idea for the arts to be included in a government community service program.

In other words, what has happened is that public backlash against political art has created a situation in which we have enforced separation between arts and state. Sure, Obama can go see a show (not without catching some shit) or even invite them to his house (and notice how both are considered historic gestures of support for the arts). But the idea that artists would actually work with politicians on public issues feels absurd (except maybe in the realms of film and music) and the government certainly doesn't lead art events on issues.

I am reminded of Ian's post for arts to become a partisan issues. In a way, he was just articulating something that we've articulated before, that arts needs to have political clout, but specifically he was saying that we need one party or the other to come out and say "Actually, we're the party that supports the arts."

But I wonder if it's deeper than that. Certainly, I know this unique sense of irritation that comes over most audiences if they feel you have too sharp a political "message." I get that too. They'd prefer artists not have political affiliation, but pretend to be simply presenting the world as it is. Brecht must be throwing a hissy fit as I write these words, but I think in American culture, the arts are supposed to be separate from politics.

Is that part of what has made us irrelevant? I don't think arts have to be political to be relevant. But is the fact that we flee from tackling the central issues in American culture? And I don't mean "doing plays about controversial issues." Certainly we can do a controversial play, but we certainly know that we're not actually going to influence events. Whereas there are some cultural events that have an impact.

If a group of talented, intelligent theater people wanted to create a theater event that would actually change health care in this country, what would it look like? I don't know. But I know it wouldn't be a play about a politician torn between the insurance lobby and their past as a doctor. (I can already see the poster: "First Do No Harm," the controversial new play about Health Care, going up at the Roundabout, starring Neil Patrick Harris as the doctor and Julia Roberts as the lobbyist... I should register that at the WGA, just in case).

Do we want this separation between arts and state? Does it give us integrity or make us irrelevant? Can we bridge that gap without becoming irritating, didactic, or -- at worst -- Code Pink?

Coburn Amendment

As an artist, the unified agreement around the Coburn Amendment, to guarantee that we greedy artists don't get a cent of the stimulus money, is a slap in the face to us. I mean, we're already a fairly disregarded and rudely treated bunch. Now that our industry is in trouble, don't we get any help? Parabasis has some excellent columns on the subject.

This morning, I took up a letter writing campaign. I wrote a short note to Obama (they have a 500 character limit, which is unfair). Then I wrote the following to Senator Feinstein:

Dear Senator Feinstein,

I'm a 20 year old student of theater in America. I've always had to struggle with the fact that we are not well supported in America. My hope was that, coming from college, I'd have the chance to change that. I knew it would be difficult: the Department of Labor forecasts that the average actor has poor job security and earns a medium pay of $23,400. This, despite the fact that non-profit arts create 5.7 million jobs and $9.1 billion in state tax revenues, according to HUD.

I saw in the paper that you decided to vote on behalf of the Coburn Amendment to the stimulus package bill. Reading the support for the vote, and listening to the rhetoric of its proponents, I became very afraid. I'm afraid for my future. Because if the leaders of this country treat our almost 6 million jobs and our 12 billion in Federal Tax revenues as nothing more than "pork," as a useless expenditure that's unimportant, then what chance am I or my friends going to have? The signal our Congress is sending to America is that the arts are a waste, the arts are useless.

I was not surprised, for instance, that the little bubbles in this submission form don't have a space for "Arts." It's barely a topic to begin with. But it's an important part of the economy. I work full-time, I pay taxes, and yet every week I hear another non-profit theater is going bankrupt, because the money that should be coming from the government to help support it is being cut, being diverted to more "important" job-creating ventures. Because clearly a job in alternative energies, or a job working on highways is far more important than the work I do.

I'm afraid. Are there any further cuts that are coming to the arts? Will you continue to advocate to cuts to the NEA, to state arts funding, to bailouts for museums and cultural organizations like theaters?

Your constituent,
Guy Yedwab

I will update you in a week when I get a response, I'm sure.