Arts jobs are real jobs

One puzzlement in the debate over the congressional stimulus bill has been the inability — or the perverse refusal — of many to include jobs in the culture industry as a legitimate concern. Politicians of various stripes, from California Democrat Dianne Feinstein to Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn, seem blind to the simple reality.

Scott Lilly of the Center for American Progress recently put it like this:

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) was typical of the opponents to the stimulus legislation who seized on the arts to discredit the overall package; he told the House chamber, “It included wasteful government spending that has nothing to do with creating jobs. As I asked on this floor last week, what does $50 million to the National Endowment for the Arts have to do with creating jobs in Indiana?” Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) was even more emphatic, saying, “We have real people out of work right now and putting $50 million in the NEA and pretending that’s going to save jobs as opposed to putting $50 million in a road project is disingenuous.”

Lilly cited a government study that showed at least 3 million arts industry workers are in support jobs —electricians, carpenters, seamstresses, janitors, accountants, publicists, etc. — and they'll be just as out-of-work as a Wall Street trader or a Wal-Mart clerk if an arts center cuts back or closes. So what gives? Why are so many blind to the simple reality that arts workers are real workers?

I chalk it up to our celebrity culture.

Funding for theater? Tim Robbins doesn't need money! Funding for art museums? Jeff Koons is rich! Funding for concert halls? Yo-Yo Ma is a superstar!

The glare of the celebrity spotlight obscures our view of the ticket-taker at Robbins' play trying to make ends meet, the preparator at Koons' museum exhibition struggling to put a kid through college or the education program coordinator at the concert hall where Yo-Yo Ma performs who has a pile of medical bills. Their jobs are at risk.

But they are anonymous, faceless. And of course, most artists are themselves obscure. Celebrity culture teaches us to equate the arts with fame, fame with success, success with money. Even in a national financial crisis, why would that need stimulus?

The distortion is severe. Whether Feinstein, Coburn, Pence, Kingston and the rest are just dumb, or whether they do get it and are cynically using the knowledge for their own political purposes is immaterial. People will still suffer, with no help from them.

— Christopher Knight

Credit: Andy Warhol, "Elvis," 1970; print. Los Angeles County Museum of Art

Comments

[Donald Frazell]

You artiste types always distort "facts" for you own desires. No way there are three million people in the arts TOTAL. This figure includes the movie and music industrys, which by the way, are NOT art, they are ENTERTAINMENT. And some will lose their jobs, but not many.

This is NOT a jobs bill, its Stimulus bill, to revive the economy, Arts do not create anything that creates wealth. Wealth is simply creating more than you consume, the arts only consume, and have turned into entertainment for the strich, the rest of us prefer sports, much more honest and truly dramatic, even with steroids.

The money is to go to things that create long term and short term revitalizaing of the econmy, not keeping people in jobs that are neither necessary nor functional. The bill is to get consumers to spend, wisely this time one can only hope, State obligations like education, health and welfare, unemployment benefits to keep people, including those who lost jobs in the arts, I know some, from losing their homes.

The arts are supposedly able bodied people, go job hunting. We have real obligations to our kids, the sickly and old, and needed services going.

Whatever happened to your beloved Kennedy's ideals? Ask not what the country can do for you, but what can you do for your country? Start doing something worthwhile and stop asking for handouts. You are far down the list of priorities, and have NOTHING to do witheconomic growth. its just shifting monies from one area to another, that is NOT creating wealth.

Go home and start reading, and stop partying.

art collegia delenda est

[Mark Scantling]

Mr. Frazell,

I have been living most of my 52 years believing that wealth is created by individuals or groups of people that create from raw materials, a product that is then marketed and sold with the intention of making a profit. This (to put it simply) is creating wealth. You stated that the arts do not create wealth. That statement could not be further from the truth.

An artist takes his or her skill and knowledge and using raw materials, ie paint and canvas, creates a painting. That product when it is sold translates the raw materials into cash. Cash = wealth. If that artist is fortunate enough to be very successful, they will create a chain of wealth - by creating jobs for assistants, accountants, suppliers and let's not forget the agent or gallery owners that take their 50% of each and every sale.

It's the same in the music industry. Singer's talent + record sales = cash. Along the way, agents, labels and every hanger on gets a slice of the pie.

The writer of the article is correct: "at least 3 million arts industry workers are in support jobs —electricians, carpenters, seamstresses, janitors, accountants, publicists, etc. — and they'll be just as out-of-work as a Wall Street trader or a Wal-Mart clerk if an arts center cuts back or closes."

Here is a fact that is NOT distorted: if my sales stop (they are not great right now) and I become effectively out-of-work, it will impact 3 people.

>This is NOT a jobs bill, its Stimulus bill, Funny, today as CNN was covering the House and Senate's agreement, is was mentioned that OBAMA had been referring recently to the bill as "a jobs bill".

> The arts are able bodied, go job hunting. Hmmm, over a half million people lost work last month. 4 million and counting. What jobs are they supposed to hunt?

> Start doing something worthwhile... REALLY? Artist of all types and the people that look to them for their employment, people who send their kids to school, and worry if they will be able to provide food, clothing, a home, healthcare -- are UNWORTHY??

You are sad.

[Richard McCoy]

I certainly don't feel it necessary to take on Frazell here, because I already have my own Indiana Senator trotting out the crazy on this one.

A big problem that "the arts" have not overcome is being really good marketers about their product. Think of the money and jobs that museums, theaters, etc. create in a city and the way that having quality institutions make cities better.

Clearly there are ways to quantify this because it's done all the time for new sports stadiums.

And, yeah, sports stadiums get just a little more than 50 million in tax subsidies. Check out what the new stadium in Indianapolis got from the taxpayers. I'm guessing Frazell isn't going to point out how particularly unqualified the Colts starting defensive tackle would be for a "real job."

What really is an "artist type," anyway?

[Heather]

The arts are a huge part of education, Mr. Frazell. In fact, for many colleges, it's a requirement to participate in some kind of "art" activity: drama, band, choir, photography, etc. Disregarding that relationship and then saying that there is an obligation to education but not the arts, is disingenuous.

Also, directed at Mr. Frazell: Mr. McCoy raises a fantastic point. Theater, museums, etc. all increase the desirability of an area to things like restaurants and hotels and tourist dollars. They employ people beyond the actor or painter, but the curator or the stage hand or the usher. Then there's the person running the art supply store or the repair shop for instruments or the film developer or the studio. People who tutor kids and teach them how to paint.

Are we really going to play the value judgment game? "This job is more authentic than that job. This job matters more than that job." As far as I know, places like Freestyle Photography and Samy's Camera and Top's Art Supplies and Blue Rooster and Raw Materials all employ people. And there are plenty more where that came from.

This all has a cultural impact, as well. During the Great Depression, many artists and writers and photographers (Steinbeck, Lange) found work through various government programs and today, their work has become a valuable record of that time. In California, The Grapes of Wrath is required reading for practically every high school student.

[Don Fraz is funny]

Don, I'm sorry you got kicked out of art school, or whatever it was that jaded you so deeply to the academic art world. You seem to wax academic, and display a weird and confused (is that an opinion? Sorry) admiration for academia. However your rage at the academic art institution undercuts the integrity of your arguments. Look, there are artists who have studied Art and its history. There are artists who are interested in reacting to such a legacy. This kind of meta-art has become a dialog. It's a discourse. Just a discourse. If you're not interested in the subject matter, that is fine. Don't listen. Buy a couple more Tom Kinkade puzzles and chill out. I don't watch NASCAR because I'm just not that interested. But academic art exists to refine our understanding and use of art as a visual and philosophical language. You can't really think that all art serves only one purpose. Does all art have to prod the sublime? Or exalt your particular brand of spirituality? You have to agree that art has the responsibility to engage as broad a range of subjects as artists can imagine. That's fitting with your anti-academic, populist-art rhetoric. I would hope you wouldn't fault modern writers for challenging traditions of literature and thereby expanding literature's efficacy as a medium, or at least its relevance and potential for innovation and novelty. I would hope you wouldn't fault physicists and mathematicians for pushing the limits of human theoretical thinking by building upon and challenging the standard models of their disciplines. Trust me, there are plenty of retired ladies in my city painting watercolors of rainbows and rivers. That, however, doesn't help add to the legacy of the human race, or intensify our discourse. Look at Lipking. Does he pander to the rich, or embrace the dignity of ancient art forms? I can't afford a Lipking. Hell, I can't even afford a Lipking book. But he isn't tinfoiling his studio. Look at the Chapmans. If that isn't anti-establishment art, then there isn't an establishment for you to rail against. That's about as populist as you can get. You have completely misunderstood your "enemy," Don. It's too bad that artist beat you up in middle school, or whatever it is that scarred you. The Arts aren't as bad as you think, and, actually, they aren't what you think they are at all. It's too bad you've put such an impressive amount of time into protesting (well, let's be realistic: condemning) the contemporary arts. It seems misguided. Of course, this forum won't actually get you to consider this discourse objectively, but that's a whole other post entirely. Have fun with your crusade, and maybe some day they'll stop teaching kids about art or they'll stop practicing contemporary art and you can say that you've won. But by that time, they'll have stopped teaching kids entirely, and stopped practicing compassion. That's what art is after all. Passion and/or compassion.

Don's soapbox delenda est

No, that sounds too bitter.

Don's stumbling block delenda est

Well, that singles out too much.

Pedantry delenda est? Yeah, I think we can agree on that.

[Monica]

Mr. Fratell,
I am a full time administrative employee for a theater. I am not an artist. Rather, I have a masters degree in Arts Management. Yes, it is a legitimate field.

While you are misguided in some of your statements, you were correct in that there are not 3 million jobs in the arts. In fact, the nonprofit arts industry supports 5.7 million jobs. And based on the Economic Impact study conducted by Americans for the Arts, "America’s nonprofit arts and culture industry also generates $166.2 billion in economic activity every year including $63.1 billion in spending by organizations and an additional $103.1 billion in event-related spending by audience. This activity...generates $29.6 billion in government revenue." So would't it be nice if the government would help the arts out a little bit, considering many of the traditional nonprofit sources of income-endowments, foundations, and other donors, have taken a real hit from Wall Street. In this pile of money, $50 million is .05%. Not a bad deal for the government if you ask me.

Again, please note that this study was conducted on the economic impact of nonprofit organizations, not the film industry, or other entertainment sectors.

[Kevin]

I agree with the comments that take Frazzell to task for his misguided, uneducated (often misspelled and grammatically incorrect) opinions. I think it is a good idea for those who have a handle on the serious truth of this issue to get the correct information out to our friends, artists and arts patrons - so that they in turn can educate their contacts and let their representatives know how they feel about this blanket arts ban. There are going to be some people, like bitter, old Donald Frazzell, that have closed their minds to reality either out of ignorance, or in a partisan effort to continue politics as usual in America, or because, as some of you have suggested, their own artistic aspirations have not lead them to the success to which they feel entitled.

[EC]

"...the rest of us prefer sports, much more honest and truly dramatic..."

Mr. Fratell, tell me who designed the uniforms of your beloved sports heroes? I believe an artists did. And who designed the teams' web sites and video games? Ah...an artist. And how about that nice chap Mr. Bruce Springstein who rocked the Super Bowl. He's something called a singer. And those people in the Budweiser commercial that always makes you laugh? They are called actors.

Please don't tell me that "entertainment" and "art" have no link. The same guy who plays the plumber with the beer-gut on TV can well be the same actor who plays Falstaff in a small Chicago stage. And the composer of the sitcom jingle can be the same musician who plays in a large symphony orchestra.

Artists are all around you and they impact your life on a daily basis. Their work creates millions of jobs for others. I suggest you start opening your eyes.

[Heide]

Mr. Frazell,

Your "beloved Kennedy" probably supported the arts more than any other president before or since. Looking past his inauguration speech, you will find he said the following (from the Kennedy Center website http://www.kennedy-center.org/about/virtual_tour/jfk_quotes.html):

THERE IS A CONNECTION, HARD TO EXPLAIN LOGICALLY BUT EASY TO FEEL, BETWEEN ACHIEVEMENT IN PUBLIC LIFE AND PROGRESS IN THE ARTS. THE AGE OF PERICLES WAS ALSO THE AGE OF PHIDIAS. THE AGE OF LORENZO DE MEDICI WAS ALSO THE AGE OF LEONARDO DA VINCI, THE AGE OF ELIZABETH ALSO THE AGE OF SHAKESPEARE, AND THE NEW FRONTIER FOR WHICH I CAMPAIGN IN PUBLIC LIFE, CAN ALSO BE A NEW FRONTIER FOR AMERICAN ART. Letter to Miss Theodate Johnson, Publisher, Musical America, September 13, 1960

I AM CERTAIN THAT AFTER THE DUST OF CENTURIES HAS PASSED OVER OUR CITIES, WE, TOO, WILL BE REMEMBERED NOT FOR VICTORIES OR DEFEATS IN BATTLE OR IN POLITICS, BUT FOR OUR CONTRIBUTION TO THE HUMAN SPIRIT. On behalf of the National Cultural Center which would come to bear his name November 29, 1962

TO FURTHER THE APPRECIATION OF CULTURE AMONG ALL THE PEOPLE. TO INCREASE RESPECT FOR THE CREATIVE INDIVIDUAL, TO WIDEN PARTICIPATION BY ALL THE PROCESSES AND FULFILLMENTS OF ART — THIS IS ONE OF THE FASCINATING CHALLENGES OF THESE DAYS. "The Arts in America,” Look, December 18, 1962

THIS COUNTRY CANNOT AFFORD TO BE MATERIALLY RICH AND SPIRITUALLY POOR. State of the Union Message, January 14, 1963

I LOOK FORWARD TO AN AMERICA WHICH WILL REWARD ACHIEVEMENT IN THE ARTS AS WE REWARD ACHIEVEMENT IN BUSINESS OR STATECRAFT. I LOOK FORWARD TO AN AMERICA WHICH WILL STEADILY RAISE THE STANDARDS OF ARTISTIC ACCOMPLISHMENT AND WHICH WILL STEADILY ENLARGE CULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL OF OUR CITIZENS. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO AN AMERICA WHICH COMMANDS RESPECT THROUGHOUT THE WORLD NOT ONLY FOR ITS STRENGTH BUT FOR ITS CIVILIZATION AS WELL. At Amherst College, October 26, 1963

I LOOK FORWARD TO AN AMERICA WHICH WILL NOT BE AFRAID OF GRACE AND BEAUTY. At Amherst College, October 26, 1963

There must be a reason why JFK's major monument in Washington is the Kennedy Center - the national center for arts for our country.

To dismiss the arts as unnecessary and unworthy of funding during this time of financial crisis is to ask the country to set aside it's soul while we try to figure things out. It's just ignorant and preposterous. I think Kennedy would agree.

[Donald Frazell]

Please post this as my final response
Thank you

Again, for the economic guy above, and the many whose drivel is unreadable after wards, CASH is not wealth, capital is, Thats investment, that which leads to further growth, not the bubble speculation that happens from time to time, and when the rules ignored, a disaster, like todays economy. Cash is wealth for pimps and artistes, cash is just units of energy. If you spend it, it is gone. If you invest it in a business that produces growth, whether material, technological which saves labor, or building that eases transportation time and costs, for time is money, and transfers goods and services well, THATS wealth. Art is not. it is a luxury, period. Its one we need, and part of being human, however, the art world as it is now is NOT part of humanity, has its own agenda, and ignores the needs and desires of US, to glorify Me. This new economy crap is how we got in this situation, and justified all sorts os stupidities. Economics don’t change, peoples intelligence does.

And again, your FACTS are skewered to show your arts benefit, when you do not look at the big picture, you look only at yourself, mister arts administrator, and not an economist. You look at it in a way to make you look good.

Fact no way in hell are the 5.7 million jobs, unless you include movies and music recording, which is far and away entertainment, which is the opposite of art.. And many jobs in places like operas and such are no full time, but hired people who come in, there is no need for a full time set maker, or most support positions, it is a part time gig, except for a few supervisors. Many are volunteers.

Now, there are hundreds of thousands of art school grads out there sitting on their asses in their studios, choosing to be "creative' artists" rather than developing a useful skill, now whining about not getting monies off the government. YOU chose a lifestyle like that, you KNEW what it was like, but your arrogance and laziness told you that you were impervious to the real world. And have never had a real job. Too bad, go back to daddy. There are far more "Fine" artists than necessary, I work in the arts field, but applied arts, and doing decorations for Academy awards parties right now. I dont want any money from the government, certainly not to the owner, who will just pocket it. I want the economy growing, so people sell better products, and need the advertising and works to promote it. Thats what is true growth, and produces wealth.

These numbers you give are horribly skewed, and would include me in the print production business, we are NOT artistes, but do have skill they dont have, knowing all Adobe applications, you know, tools that make things in creative hands, and produce them for our visual needs. The numbers you show are those spent on certain small areas of the country, most of it from government spending, and grants from wealthy peoples tax break funds, which will be diminished. Oh well, happens. Adapt or die. Very little is generated from ticket monies, and certainly does not come anywhere near to paying the bills, that comes form government non profit tax breaks, and many no profit heads are most certainly in it for money, look how much the guys who ran MoCA into the ground got paid, that term is a misnomer, its strictly about taxation, not focus and intent. Most are about getting monies in tier pocket in any way possible, including from all levels of government, and fundraising among the rich, ass kissing them, into giving and and telling them how they will be immortalized through the arts, marketing BS.

That is NOT wealth creation, its taking funds from other places and spending it on one spot. on YOU. So of course you want this, its your salary. But the monies could be spent much more efficiently, as arts always operate at a loss, and create not just jobs directly, not just from you stupidly wasting it on restaurants and hotels and parties, those areas employ folks too. But creating wealth themselves, goods and services that make us wealthier, which is a simple idea, that art has no part of. Wealth is creating more than you consume. art does nothing but consume, takes monies from other places, and creates only a show, a building that produces nothing, but pays salaries from others sources, not generated from within.

THATS wealth, and what this bill is about. It is NOT spending on things we want, but what we need go start growing again. Go talk about arts appropriation in May, when the budget comes up. NOW is NOT the time, again, its not all about you. Its about us, and no one cares less, and talks more, about humanity than the arts. Its a tiny subset of humans, who think they are above the rest, and so, far less.

art collegia delenda est.

This is why Feinstein and others voted for the Coburn bill, because all pork must be halted, the overall deficit is frightening, and very dangerous. All partisanship had to be put aside, and this is what this Stimulus Bill is all about halting this dangerous slide into anarchy, arts will just have to wait., They do deserve spending, take it up in June. Just no more individual grants or the like, completely wasteful, and crated this horrible spectacle of bad arts we see today.

The reason my words SEEM contradictory and wrong a re because they are the Truth, and you have been conditioned, and eagerly accepted, the lies and distortions that get you thinking in straight lines, ones that lead directly to you pocket book. Art IS the one area where the seeming contradictions of life are resolved, because we are so limited in intelligence and knowledge, they really aren’t. THAT is an artist job, to resolve these supposed opposites, which are really part of the whole. The bigger you think, the more you learn, the deeper you feel, the more you can find truth. There is none in the lies of the art academies, an industry in itself, interested only in sustaining itself, producing hordes of you fools, where very few jobs actually exist, it’s a medicine show., And you are the ones who are born every minute. Truth.

Read my article on how we got here, and soon, Art and Purpose, where we should be, and will be, this being a great opportunity to return to arts sole role. Google me

Reflecting life to man. Defining Mankind. Exploring Nature. Searching for God

All completely neglected by Contempt Art, which fed the vanity of man, and led to where we are now..

[Bob Ragland]

Art jobs are real jobs.
How about the framers, the art suppliers, the conservators,artist/teachers,set designers, photographers?

We artists don't have to have a handout, we make objects that often are purchased by people, then we go out an spend the money in he local and national economy.

Many artists are full timers and not hobbyists.

I am a NON-starving artist in Denver, I heat and eat from my artistic effort and will continue to do so without any bailouts or grants.

Listen to my NPR interview-NPR.org/bobragland 12-27-2008 and you will get my drift.

Art is my real job.

Artfuly,
Bob Ragland

www.freewebs.com/bobragland

[Donald Frazell]

The jobs you listed are workers, skilled crafstmen, I used to be a photogrpher, but my work far to advanced and so an artist. Those are different things, and the only way skilled artisans get work is if the economy is strong. So no grants to them, but they will get work as the spending grows. They benefit from the stimulus bill, if it works, and there are no guarantees, we are in a terrible situation, the defict may destroy any attempt to revitalize.

the money is so the private sector can grow again, those jobs dependant on the government are not productive,. And so not part of this bill. Valuable perhaps, but something different. Giving money now creates a dependancy, this is a one time thing, go to the budget debate in the spring for yearly spending, which will be cut on all levels, There is no money people, the deficit is growing, if the economy revives, through wealth producing jobs, then we can eventually get back to talking about things like arts funding.

[Alex Novak]

Something not-so-funny happened on the way to a stimulus bill: the U.S. Congress voted specifically to kill all such funds for the NEA, the arts and our museums. It was called the Coburn amendment, and you will be shocked at the so-called liberal legislators who also voted for this travesty. By the way, the pitiful amount cut? $50 million, or .00006% of the total currently being spent on this bill. Yes, those are the right amount of zeros after that decimal point. The fight should have been over the pathetic funding instead of the need and the impact.

Frankly, $50 million is a tiny amount: it is 1/600 of the $30 billion allotted just for roads and bridges. Is not art as important as out-of-date modes of transportation that only contribute to further energy and environmental problems? And these are truly pork projects that have often been associated with payoffs, kick-backs, graft and bid rigging, unlike the arts. Perhaps that's the reason this Congress chose to put the money where THEY may get more out of it themselves. Just look at the mess up in Alaska for some good examples (but I also remember some recent past beauties in New Jersey and Illinois).

Only the U.S. spends so little on the arts compared to any other developed country. The German government just allocated the equivalent of nearly $2 billion dollars. The French government, $4 billion. The Italian government spends more on opera houses than our government spends on ALL the arts--and that minuscule bit was just cut out completely! The amount the U.S. spends per capita on the arts is a joke, and yet such spending provides some of the most bang for the buck.

According to Americans for the Arts, art is a great economic investment. The organization notes that each year nonprofit arts organizations generate $166.2 billion in economic activity, support 5.7 million jobs, and send almost $30 billion back to government in taxes generated through the process. The brain-dead congressmen (and it was men, by the way) who took easy pot shots at the arts never considered this fatal error in their thinking. And an investment in the arts has a quicker, more direct effect on the economy and is more job-generating than nearly any other alternative.

The fact that funds for museums, artists and the arts were specifically banned from the so-called stimulus package is a disaster. In the current economic environment, this is a matter of absolute survival. Just look at Brandeis, which was going to close its art museum, fire the staff and sell off the art (only now are they backing away gingerly, while still trying to do those very things).

Museums and other art institutions are facing the most serious crisis that they have ever faced. Their endowments have been slashed by 25-75%, and most of their operating budgets are legally tied to a set percentage of these endowments. Foundation and donor money has also suffered the same cuts or even worse, which further exacerbates the situation. Museums have and will start to lay off staff, sell off art (despite the museum association's rules, which will be changed--mark my words on that; and legal limitations from donor restrictions), and cancel all funds for purchases.

This decision will ultimately cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and is the worst hit on art and culture ever for this country.

And if you think the Congress will get funding for the arts passed later on in this environment, you are dreaming. It may never happen because Republicans and Conservative Democrats will probably kill it, and the so-called Liberals are frightened of their own shadows--even President Obama, who did nothing in the conference to support the arts. Both my senators here in Pennsylvania voted to ban this money--and they are considered Liberal/Moderates.

Every one of us in the art community must email and fax the President and our individual representatives immediately to get this money back into the stimulus bill right now. Let them know that you will not contribute funds to or vote for any one who voted for the Coburn Amendment unless they publicly support the arts and vote on reversing the cuts in funding measures for the arts immediately.

Neither side seems to have grasped the real message of the last election: this is not a time for the same old approaches. It must be a time of transformation if we are to survive.

[DMc]

So Mr. Frazell my administrative position at a museum is not a job because it's in the "arts?"

Our institution is short-staffed due to lack of funding - more funding equals more available jobs. AND not just employment for those with a college education. Jobs for support workers have been cut too.

Get a clue!

[Don Frazell Doesn't Read Many Books]

You presume way too much, Don. It belies the agenda that undercuts your arguments. The contemporary arts (I think the only contempt is in your arguments) engage all of those things that you hold dear and attempt to corral the entirety of artistic thought into. Sorry if I sound off topic, but you presume to know everyone's circumstances and motivations, and it only displays your ignorance to the topic you are raving pedantically over. Learn some artists, study contemporary thought, then develop your attitudes and rhetoric beyond your current incoherent, fringe, politically-charged drivel. When you are ready to talk intelligently then I would certainly like to converse with you, but you have a way to go. Once you can talk knowingly about the art philosophies you condemn, then your arguments will sound like more than the ranting of a jaded, conservative art critic. And that's leaving the politics behind.

As for your other arguments (the ones pertaining specifically to this article) I cannot fault you for your opinions, although I don't agree with them. That is objective discourse.

Don's Presumptions Delenda est. And also his constant begging to be Googled. I get it. You wrote something. Now read something.

[Michelle]

As a mid-level arts manager (yes, a publicist), I've been fascinated, hopeful and at times dismayed by the level of discourse surrounding the Coburn amendment. It's abundantly clear that my industry has not been entirely successful in framing the conversation and making a case for its worth. Not for lack of trying--Americans for the Arts is really outstanding, but I think part of the problem is that we don't have a regular mobilized core...we only get hyped up when there is a crisis.

The GREAT news is that I've heard that the $50mm may be back in, as Mike has so diligently reported: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/02/arts-money.html.

For those who are interested, this string of postings has inspired me to start an open group on Facebook. It's called 'Arts=Jobs...and so much more." Check it out, and consider continuing the conversation, not just for this week, but far into the future.

It's been a decade or so since I've studied Latin, but...Ars in perpetua?

[R.B. Gold]

About this Frazell character: For someone so intent on denegrating the economic impact of the arts, he appears to have skipped some of their most basic elements in elementary school: spelling and grammar. He should spend some remedial time at this but, according to his invented theories concerning the size of the arts, where would he expect to find a teacher?

Oh, by the bye, regarding his claim that sports are more popular than the arts, he should compare the actual paid attendance of the National Football League to that of the top 40 professional orchestras in the USA. NFL = 23 million, Symphonies = 27 million (and that is just the top pros, not the more than 1,500 total orchestras). Of course, that would assume that he has ANY experience actually looking up facts before mouthing off.

So, Don, it's okay to provide enough funding for someone to go work for a video distributor, shelling out DVD's which will be purchased by the consumer for $20, but it's not okay to fund a theater where the same consumer can go spend $20 to see a play? Wherever money is spent, capital increases. There are cities in this nation which would go belly up if not for their signature arts institutions. Oh, and you can forget about going to your favorite Kennedy museum/library. That will shut down, too.

[Danielle Brazell]

Congratulations to the thousands of advocates who voiced their support of the arts to their Federal legislators. On Friday, the Senate removed the Colburn language, included the $50 million allocation to the NEA and passed the stimulus bill. Well done!

[Tara S]

I'm a real person that is out of a real job. I was laid off from LA Opera along with 17 other real people. I'm really collecting unemployment from the real government now.
I'm a musician, but I also have a master's degree in arts management from Carnegie Mellon. That's a real education, by the way, much like an MBA but focused on not-for-profit management.
I really want to produce, contribute and create. As a not-for-profit martyr, I'm really not asking for much compensation. That's not our m.o. in the arts world. Maybe the lenders that helped create the subprime mess could learn a real lesson from not-for-profit accountants and bookkeepers.