tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post6338501086265380896..comments2024-02-27T16:59:54.089-05:00Comments on (The New) Theatre Ideas: If I Ran the NEAUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-62065717651352129812009-03-06T10:58:00.000-05:002009-03-06T10:58:00.000-05:00What reason would any of these celebrities have to...What reason would any of these celebrities have to change how the NEA operates? They obviously don't need the funding or the grants because they make enough money already. Neil LeBute just gives a dick response: “I would not use the extra money in schools, however, because most kids wouldn't know "art" if it marched up and slapped them in the face.” I understand that most kids aren’t up to date with the most avant-guard styles, but that doesn’t mean they deserve to have their funding revoked….but maybe he was joking, and just wasting time with a stupid response. <BR/><BR/>And N.P.H. just gives a short biography about how he learned to spell. What does that mean???<BR/><BR/>I do like Bill T. Jones’ response; “It's common knowledge now that the arts are a significant part of our economic engine and a powerful tool for global diplomacy. As the head of the NEA, I would lobby to create a Cabinet post for the arts. We must move past this notion that the arts and culture are somehow frivolous.” That’s one of the few REAL answers, which can help the arts in this nation.Dustinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03331920606862102898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-84359882144112037192009-03-03T16:36:00.000-05:002009-03-03T16:36:00.000-05:00I'm confused: are you saying that there is more th...I'm confused: are you saying that there is more than 3% of the population in the top 3% most populous counties, and that I am trying to hide that fact? If so, mea culpa: I thought that went without saying. But if are you suggesting we apportion NEA money according to percent of population, I'd take that as a friendly amendment, because that still would mean that the lion's share of NEA funds would be going to places that have been virtually ignored, and that the New York Metropolitan Area would get roughly 5.9% of NEA funds. That's a deal.<BR/><BR/>I think you misread what I was saying about educational programs: what you say is true today, so why do you propose more policing if there were more changes? That said, I think the paperwork you describe is over-stated, and focused on formal arts education programs. Community service and volunteerism does not require all that, nor would working through a university's extension service. There are many ways to provide outreach.<BR/><BR/>And you can define my proposal as revenge if you like, and promote balance, but I am proposing a more long-term view of balance. Let's make the point by analogy: when a sports team wins a game, it doesn't get to keep the number of points it won by as a starting point for the next game, but that is certainly the case in the arts. Because Lincoln Center has been overly blessed in the past, it now has huge operating needs that it feels entitled to continue to have filled because, well, not to do so would be akin to burning them down. I suggest that private foundations and corporate donors continue to bless Lincoln Center and others of their ilk at a far larger percentage than smaller companies, and that the behemoths could survive by leaning on them a bit more while the NEA makes up for lost time.<BR/><BR/>I'm not interested in the status quo, the same tired policies that got us into this mess in the first place. I'm interested in change. Do you recognize this rhetoric? It comes from your own administration. And traditional approaches to the NEA are like Republican approaches to the economy: keep helping the rich and let the poor fend for themselves.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-28895343294864986012009-03-03T16:17:00.000-05:002009-03-03T16:17:00.000-05:00oh hey, just for semi-accuracy's sake, i ran the n...oh hey, just for semi-accuracy's sake, i ran the numbers on wikipedia of the populations of US cities... and what i came up with (very roughly) is that there in urban areas larger than 500,000 people, roughly 40 million people live, which is more than 10% of the total US population. <BR/><BR/>I'll admit, i thought the number would be larger, but it's still over twice the size of the 4% number you got goin' on in your post!<BR/><BR/>I will also say, I've been to several of the cities in the 5-700,000 mark, and they're facing some lack-of-arts issues as well. You might want to at least consider hiking the population # up to a million.isaac butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07815094790605298884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-43324820046909326942009-03-03T15:43:00.000-05:002009-03-03T15:43:00.000-05:00sorry if my point was unclear, your statistic that...sorry if my point was unclear, your statistic that you quote is:<BR/>"the 96% is the number of counties in the US that are under 500K in population -- that's not cherry picking, that's a fact. "<BR/><BR/>That's true, but a large section of the US population lives in that 3% of counties. YOu make it seem like 96% of the total US population lives in areas that are sub-500K in density. That's simply not true. The top 10 US cities (the smallest of which has a population of roughly one million) account for over 8% of the US population. That number increases as you count sub- and ex- urbs. (From a social planning standpoint, you actually don't want too much that's attractive going to sub- and ex- urbs because it is cheaper, healthier and more environmentally sound to use the urban centers you have.) That's all's I'm saying. The number you're using is misleading.<BR/><BR/><BR/>As for #2: Educational programs are complicated to administer, particularly when you aren't an accredited school. YOu have to do a lot of stuff involving insurance, waivers, logistics, if you're a nonresident company you need to raise money for space and then locate the space. There's a lot of administrative work that goes into it. Most small arts companies already have over-maxed-out the hours of their staffs. Hell, this is even true of midsized companies. There's a real administrative burden created by taking out an educational mission, someone has to handle it.<BR/><BR/>Second, as to the thing you're so confident doesn't exist... I hate to tell ya, but it does. I have a good friend who works for a foundation coordinating arts education grants. In the private funding sector, arts education grants are far far more common than general operating expense grants and generally more common than work development grants. So some companies create an "educational program" largely built around filling seats to their own shows and get grants for them. The money is then shuffled when need to general operating expenses. Ugly? Yes. But it happens. And it happens specifically <I>because</I> due to our Gov'ts failure to fund arts education in schools, there's a lot of private sector money out there for arts education programs outside of them.<BR/><BR/>From the rest of your comment, I think it's pretty clear that you want <I>revenge</I> for a perceived (and quite possibly real) historical slight rather a sustainable path forward that will lead to ahealthier arts environment for Americans. You want to shut out the larger cities because you feel you've been shut out. But the reasons for this existing reality are more complex then you're willing to admit and simple vengeance is not a way forward.<BR/><BR/>I said on my blog and in my comments that the balance needed to be <I>shifted</I> more towards less populated areas, and I have always since the beginning of my writing advocated for more government funding of smaller organizations over institutions. You react as if anything less than burning down Lincoln Center and using the money to create a series of small theatre companies in appalachia is a betrayal of God and Country.isaac butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07815094790605298884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-62759532943734254912009-03-03T15:13:00.000-05:002009-03-03T15:13:00.000-05:00Actually, the 96% is the number of counties in the...Actually, the 96% is the number of counties in the US that are under 500K in population -- that's not cherry picking, that's a fact. And the people who live in that 96% deserve the arts as much as those in the 3+% that currently gets the lion's share. Basing funding on population, which seems to be what you are implying, <I>once again</I> puts urban areas ahead of non-urban areas. And while I appreciate your assertion that money has been "dumped" (nice choice of words, that) by the Ford Foundation and the NEA, comparatively speaking the vast majority of money has gone to urban areas and large institutions. Yes, the Federal Arts Project DID focus on the country as a whole, and not just the major metropolitan areas, and that's what made it so effective. A little historical research by those who would invoke the WPA is in order.<BR/><BR/>Balance? Balance??? Where has been the balance over the last fifty years? Your idea of "balance" is maintaining the current status quo, <I>which completely favors large institutions in urban areas.</I> It is time to pay some reparations to the rest of the US that has been robbed of its cultural infrastructure. And passing the buck to the SAA is a cop-out. The NEA can require certain preconditions in order for states to receive the money.<BR/><BR/>As far as #2 is concerned, I'm not certain what you mean. A small arts organization would provide ongoing educational programs to the extent that its size permitted. Its proportional. And since I indicated that everybody in the organization had to participate, I'm not certain why hiring new staff would be necessary. <BR/><BR/>And I'm certain that there are no arts organizations getting grants for educational outreach who are doing it for the money and going short on quality, usually by making sure that only the interns are required to participate. But I'm all for guidelines and assessment. Hell, I'd like some assessment of what goes ONSTAGE as well.<BR/><BR/>#4: It exists to make sure that anyone contacted by the L A Times in the future actually has something intelligent to say.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-86552421012990487572009-03-03T14:31:00.000-05:002009-03-03T14:31:00.000-05:00these are some interesting ideas! Certainly more i...these are some interesting ideas! Certainly more interesting than "i hate neil patrick harris".<BR/><BR/>(just to make it clear: my problem wasn't the lack of <I>positive</I> ideas, it was the lack of ideas period. Neil Patrick Harris is an idiot is not an idea. Neither is slagging off Teresa Eyring).<BR/><BR/>seriously tho, this is some interesting stuff! To respond:<BR/><BR/>1) sounds good<BR/><BR/>2) what about small arts organizations that receive NEA funding? By small I mean quite small. I would think ideally we'd have more 1-5 person operations funded by the NEA to move away from the Giant Institution model, but such organizations couldn't really fulfill this without a <B>very very large grant</B> from the NEA because they'd have to hire extra staff to implement it. What do you think about this conundrum?<BR/><BR/>Second, I think we'd have to create some sort of way to review the effectiveness/quality of the education programs to weed out orgs that are simply trying to get the money and don't really care about the pedagogical mission.<BR/><BR/>3) the 96% of America is geographic area, not population. Again with the cherry picking of statistics! I agree that more funding should go to less-populous areas than it currently does, but certainly mid sized cities need arts money too, don't they? Can't we all get along? Why should we decimate the arts funding in the places of concentrated population? Balance, my friend, balance. I know you're mad about the syndicate, but the Federal Project number one, the Ford Foundation and the NEA have all dumped millions and millions of dollars and countless man hours into lower populated areas of America in the intervening decades.<BR/><BR/>I think honestly your beef here is actually with State Arts Agencies. Much of (if not most of) the NEA's funding is simply regranted to SAA's. Its SAA's that are only funding the arts in their cities.<BR/><BR/>4) What is the purpose of this? I'm not opposed to it, I just wonder what eventual end you believe it serves.isaac butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07815094790605298884noreply@blogger.com