By: Ben Kitoko

Publicly funded arts, what’s the issue?

All art represents artist expression that is inextricably connected to an individual or community’s cultural experience and perspective. The essential question in debates on the validity of publicly funding arts arises from this intrinsically personal quality all art carries. Should the federal government be allowed to use tax dollar to fund and support individual artistic or cultural forms of expression?

Brief history publically funded arts

It took the United States 180 years after its establishment to make its first official commitment to the with John Kennedy’s New Frontier Program, which the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) was a product. The NEA was established in 1965 and has grown into an independent cultural federal agency that promotes citizen access to performing and visual arts through grants to local and state arts organizations.

The NEA experienced positive changes to the agency’s philosophy and approach to arts funding in throughout the 70s with the introduction the Expansion Arts and Challenge Grant programs that increase access to arts in minority low-income urban and rural communities, as well as supporting America’s primary artistic establishment institutions. In 1987 an artist by the name of Andres serrano, indirectly received $15,000 from the NEA through the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art (SECCA). The image created of a “plastic crucifix submerged in his urine…[was commentary] on the commercialization and cheapening of religion.” Serrano’s ushered in era increase scrutiny of whether individual artistic expression should be funded by public tax dollars.

The current state and differing viewpoints

In March of 2017, President Donald Trump released his proposed budget that would completely eliminate $741 million in funds to the beginning of the 2018 fiscal year.  In response to Trump’s proposed eliminations, Robert Lynch, CEO of American for the Arts said, “$148 million annual appropriations, the NEA’s investment in every Congressional District in the country contributes to a $730 billion arts and culture industry in America, representing 4.2 percent of the annual GDP. This arts and culture industry supports 4.8 million jobs and yields a $26 billion trade surplus for our country.” However, Michael Tanner, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, argues that the federal government should neither approve or disapprove any type of individual expression.