A thoughtful, arts-loving FrontBurnervian replies to my post, below. I encourage everyone to read the reply. It’s a forceful argument for why the city ought not to cut its arts funding. For the record, I agree with everything the FBvian says. A great city must have a thriving arts scene. Just as it must have well-maintained parks. And yet: $190 million.
Your final take on the response from Dallas Chamber Music is well noted. Covering $190 million is quite hard to do and something (in fact, many or most things) must be cut. But permit me to respond by saying the following:
From a purely tactical standpoint, if you don’t speak up, odds are you are going to be put at (or at least towards) the bottom of the list. This is true of arts especially since many people (sadly, I think) view it as a luxury. One simply can look to all of the pieces WFAA likes to trot out during sweeps week about how much a recent public art project cost the citizens to see what an easy mark arts can be. And I would doubt that anyone truly thinks arts will be spared completely. A more realistic goal is to make sure the arts budget only takes its fair share — something that, as I understand it, is not happening. So lets not criticize the effort being made even if it isn’t full of slick promotional materials.
Moving to an argument on the merits, there is real economic impact from an investment in arts funding. This funding is largely used by arts groups to employ local artists, administrators, designers, vendors, etc. And, as I am sure you know, when the money stays in the local economy, a significant multiplier effect occurs. And this is heightened when the final product being put forth by these groups (arts performances) stimulates its own form of economic activity by driving traffic to complementary services like hotels and restaurants.
It also sends a mixed message in the year we are supposed to be celebrating a new birth of arts and culture in this city with the DCPA venues opening. I don’t think it is unrealistic to assume that a handful of arts groups (likely smaller or mid-sized ones) will die when you combine these cuts along with the fact that giving is down in general. And for those that don’t go under, there is another real possibility that some arts groups could migrate to the suburbs where funding dollars are sometimes easier to come by. (Think of the Cowboys stadium move on a much much smaller scale.) This causes that economic impact noted above to be shifted outside of the city limits as well. And given that the Mayor and the City Council like to support projects, as they should, that drive the tax base, then why not support the things we already have?
Finally, there is the whole concept of preserving and promoting culture in our city. As I noted earlier, it’s easy to scoff at this — particularly when you don’t like the style. But truly, arts and culture are what make good cities great. Rarely do you think of New York or London or Paris and think, “I wonder how well their trash collection works?” or “Do they fill potholes in less than a week?” Sure, you have to cover the basic needs. But to deny this city the opportunity to be known for something other than blocking and tackling relegates it to a class of indistinct mediocrity.
So I understand that the Mayor and the City Council have a tough task in front of them and I do not envy their position. And I know that everyone doesn’t want programs that are special to them to be cut. But in this time, I think there is every reason to stand up and be an unabashed supporter for preserving arts funding – at least in correlation with other needs. It helps our economy while making our city remarkable.