Obama expected to sign bill to increase cultural funding

For once, some good news on the cultural funding front.

President Obama is expected to sign a bill this weekend that will increase funding for the nation's main cultural bodies to their highest levels in nearly 16 years.

This week, Congress approved the Interior Appropriations Bill for the 2010 fiscal year. Among other things, the bill provides funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities at $167.5 million for each agency.

Earlier this year, Obama had proposed a 4% increase in the NEA's 2010 budget, to $161.3 million from its current level of $155 million. The agency's new 2010 budget goes beyond what Obama had proposed, representing an 8% increase over this year.

But Congress nixed the president's proposed $171.3 million budget for the NEH. The agency will receive the same amount as the NEA for 2010.

The NEA has also received additional federal funding through Obama's economic stimulus package.

In June, the House of Representatives approved budgets of $170 million for both the NEA and NEH. But a Senate committee called for $161.3 million each. The final budgets were negotiated this week in Congress.

Rocco Landesman, the new head of the NEA, told Culture Monster recently that he didn't think that his agency would receive more funding than what had already been proposed.

Christmas in October, Rocco.

-- David Ng

Photo: President Obama. Credit: Joshua Roberts / EPA

Related stories

Can Rocco Landesman make the NEA relevant again?

U.S. House hikes arts and humanities budgets

Comments

[hero1119]

The best president of US

[Ken]

Good! Now hopefully he'll sack Lee Greenwood, Bush's appointee to the National Arts Council, and appoint a more suitable replacement. You know, like maybe someone with talent.

[Mitch Paul]

What a waste of our tax payers money. The arts and other programs like that should be self funded. If people would craft products that people want to see and watch, then people would pay to go see them.

$161.3Million for each?? Using this money for this purpose makes no sense.

[MarK]

Those artists who, in Mitch Paul's words, do nothing but "craft products", should definitely be self-funded. Real artists, on the other hand, will appreciate any financial help they can get because what most people "want to see and watch" is, unfortunately, not real art.
If artists start limiting themselves by producing only what masses "want to see and watch", the culture will die pretty soon. Enlightened societies must support those of their artists who create real art, regardless of whether it is popular or not.

[Donald Frazell]

True Art reflects humanity as a whole, not the self interested cliques of flakes, fools and f...... who populate the art scene. True art has always found buyers, there were no government funds for Cezanne, Gauguin, Braque, Picasso, Miro, or Klee. They were thought radical at the time, yet still found buyers, just not among the powers that be, who always look for that which will keep them in power. Adn as all govenment funding does.

Art comes from the outside, where true life is. Not some art colony of wannabes and effete pseudo intellectuals. If it cannot stand on its own, it isn't creative art. It is the burreaucracy of art organizations that stifles creativity. As it is about them, and their desires, not humanities needs.

But only the "enlightened" "educated"(like Pavolv's dogs) rich folks of the west and orient are highly evolved enough to understand "real" art, right MarK?

LOL!!!
Proof again, art collegia delenda est
Fine art collegs must be destroyed.

[MarK]

Thanks for asking, Donald Frazell, but no - i would not agree with that statement the way you have phrased it.
The society we are living in now is very different from Western-European societies of a hundred years ago. The place of fine arts in our society is not nearly the same it was in early 20st-century France, for example. By the way, if i am not mistaken, in this discussion the word "arts" is meant in its broad sense and includes all visual and performing kinds.
Relying exclusively on private support of the arts would be wonderful, but i don't see any evidence that we have enough of it at the moment, particularly for those talented artists who produce works that do not appeal to popular tastes. That is why i believe that if government can play a leadership role in supporting arts - and do it the right way, of course - it can be a very positive development that may lead to more private support in the future.

[Donald Frazell]

And what, pray tell, is the "right" way? YOUR way? Whose? I dont mind dance and group arts of the past being supported, those that have proven their worth. Though Ruth didnt get any public support for the Jazz Bakery and its gone now, how many hard core jazz venues here in LA? But new, creative arts must be done alone, with no strings, with no paybacks, with no bending to patrons desires. It is not about self expression, but being able to follow truth, no matter where, no matter who it offends. Though its certainly neednt, shock value is just juvenile.

Truth is what is lacking, god, history, building on what came before in "our" society. Of whom? It doesnt represent many people, a very small segment, maybe 1% with theatres for dance and plays included, but not "new" art". That is for the small segment of the rich, not humanity. If anyone from anywhere can get it, feel it that means, and want to pursue why it does so, then it aint art. Pretty darn simple. And overlooked. becasue it doest jibe with what those who control want. To continue to control, more.

art collegia delenda est

[MarK]

Actually, Donald Frazell, "my" right way of supporting the arts is very close to yours - with no strings attached and no bending to patrons' desires. Sounds great to me.
Private support, just as governmental kind, often falls short of such requirements, but this does not mean that a better way is impossible to achieve for either or both.
My only objection here is to the notion expressed in one of previous comments - that none of "our tax payers money" should ever be used for any cultural purposes.

[Donald Frazell]

There should be strings with government monies, it is OUR money. Artists should do commissions, but if their idea and abilities don’t match the project then someone else should get it. Having a goal often inspires creativity, makes one take on new challenges, and new ways of doing. Few can do that anymore, as witnessed by the string of cowsplats in downtown LA.

I just hate and distrust boards, though I have a Judgment Chapel design before the Vatican for the next Venice Biennale, at Archbishop Ravasi's suggestion, and fear the worst. I can get to people, those who give a damn about the world, and not their career first. It’s the bureaucrats and rich old blue hairs on committees, and "cool" metrosexual art scene types that worry me. They are cut off from life, the one I see all around me. I am not stuck in Hollywood or WLA or those tiny inbred centers of self worship. Though I do work there, god help me. One must know ones enemy. My allies are legion, all the rest of LA outside of these centers of vanity.

Creative art is not about the individual, it is seeking truth, which can never be owned. We continually learn more, it must be added, not used alone. Seperate, it is nonsense, it has no foundation and is but bells and whistles, all surface and not substance. And so we have contempt art. Which is all about the medium, and silly academic literal messages. Not revealing what is. Art is a exploration of life, of nature, mankind and god. Not tender feelings of missing mommy or wanting to relive our spoiled childhoods. Grow up already.

I don’t mind spending on those cultural institutions with proven worth, that which has over generations shown its value. But there is a weeding out going on now. If the communities cant or wont support their orchestras and theatre, then the need is not there and therefore should no waste precious funds on for a few egos. It is up to each market to prove itself, and a true need. Ruth should have gotten some of that. But got only private grants, which dried up and Culver City has been greedy lately raising businesss rents by backing landlords for local tax revenues. This I know, business had to move. Too many Neverland artistes there now, ruining a nice city.

Bad architecture that is held up as great industrial design, and so we get Gehry. If that metallic surface hadn’t been invented he wouldnt be ,er, anything. Damn architects since FL Wright have thought themselves sculptors. They aren’t, and they suck at it. Cold, inhuman, awkward, sterile does not make for creative art. I aint no midget like them, FLWs houses for hobbits, i am 6'2" and a man, an athlete, not a wimp. Though his sons Wayfarers Chapel is gorgeous, got married there. Mankind, god and nature together, now THAT’S art. As are the Watts Towers, though artistes to scared to go there. Wimps.

And artists do come from outside the "educated" world, which has been ruined. Or otherwise you would have to send your dear "Dude" back to Venezuela. All artist must have a strong foundation in the streets. Not spoiled brats in art colonies, false versions of manhood. Art must be raw, as well as sophisticated. One can learn stuff, but cant live it through others. One must live before doing. There is no life in contempt art, its worse in the visuals, but music and architecture and writing and theatre all are at their nadir now.

A few cable shows OK, but they are entertainment, not art, and they are NOT the same thing. Its time to tear down the Bastilles of art. The academic thinking of career and pleasing the rich, the few, the vain. Hardly the few, the proud, the Marines, like my eldest in Guantanomo now. Soon to start his medical education. They do their job well. The arts are the ones who have failed. The military protects US and of those from all ethnicities, backgrounds and even nations. The arts only think of themselves. The few, the spoiled, the white, and the self absorbed.

No, there should be very little funding for the arts, look at what they got in England, YBAs and pickled sharks. Outside of a few cultural institutions presenting proven works, no. Creative artists alive should never take public funds except for commissions. To be given grants makes you beholden to that board of dried up old hags and wannabes, and focused on career. Not the art. It cannot be done, and never has been. Nor can the creation of art be institutionalized, again never has been. Except in the applied arts, which is fine. Goya did some great work as court painter, but most of his great works were outside of it. And later in life, not some snot nosed brat out of art school waving their MFA and screaming, “Look at me! I am an artiste!”. He went through hell, and only then understood life, one must have one before one can paint it. Mind, body and soul.

Art collegia delenda est

[MarK]

In my opinion, reasonable amount of financial support for talented artists who need it is money well spent.
Exceptionally talented individuals can certainly appear from practically anywhere. For example, former music director of the Los Angeles Philharmonic Zubin Mehta was born in India, but he did study conducting in Vienna for several years starting when he was 18. The current occupant of the same post Gustavo Dudamel, who is definitely an exceptionally talented man, has benefited greatly from a strong musical education in Venezuela. Later, in his early twenties, he was wise enough to spend considerable amount of time in Europe where he further developed as a conductor by collaborating with and learning from several great musicians - most notably the two latest principal conductors of the Berlin Philharmonic (Claudio Abbado and Simon Rattle) - both of whom were musically trained in Europe and have always been living there. So, Gustavo is in fact extremely well educated, musically speaking, and we should definitely try to keep him here in LA for now.

[Donald Frazell]

All great musicians and artists seek to develop their langauges and techniques, to excell not to express themselves, but to master the fundamentals so well they no longer need to actually use them, but imply them through hidden structure. Miles, Coltrane, Dolphy all had classical educations and could feel the blues, but Miles like Wynton left Juliard for the real eduction, with true artists themselves, not interpretors. Which is all classical music is now, the new stuff truly boring, just showing off. Nothing to do with humanity, a dead language that cannot be resusitated. But useful like Latin.

Like Ballet in dance, it is a fundamental, as is jazz now. It must be learned, but built upon, not used to promote oneself. All artists learn from other artists, not schools. Those are glorfied mediocrities, few great artist have ever taught, if so, only for a short time, like Matisse and Klee. These guys had lives before being caught up in teh academic world, but still are too much of it. Their work is over refined, not of the street, like Bach, beethoven, and Mozart still were.

Academia is sterilized and safe life, its not real, its a fantasy. NO great artist has ever graduated from one, or if they did, took years top eject its safe and mediocre principles out of their system, like Klee had to, and most others.

One must be a part of life, not apart from it. One must have access to great creative art, and it is easily found now if one truly desires to. But not be a slave to the system that promotes the industry that lives off of it. Click my name and learn why, the Vatican did, and is calling a conference on the 21st to deal with why most religious art now is tacky, and so called Fine and Academic art is so sterile and has rid itself of god. It is about the glorfied individual, not creative arts true focus, defining mankind, exploring nature, and searching for god, which all great creatve art dose, that which survives the generations and fashion of the vain.

art collegia delenda est

[MarK]

Fortunately for humanity, classical music is alive and well, and in no need of resuscitation.

[Donald Frazell]

Its not if it requires huge infusions of government monies. Orchestras are dropping like flies, because they do no serve the needs of their communities, and so be it. These concert halls must be opened to more types of music, I would far rather hear musicians from Cuba who finally get released from their captivity than some over thought, passionl;ess drivel of academic creation. Those things are for the books, not the mind, body and soul.

art begins with passion in the creator, and must end with it triggered in myriad ways in the viewer/listener. Where they feel their own responses, not told what to think, feel, and connect to. Technqiue is but a vehicle, it is nothing in itself. As long as it is viewed as the thing itself, it will remain sterile and more about control and power to those who go to it, as classical has become, than a living thing.

Art without passion is not art, and that cannot be taught, or grown in sterile confines of academia. One must live life first, the constant cattle drive of the pop industry taking young talent and retarding its growth for its own purposes exists in the classical as well. Eggheads do not make good artists. Test tubes await them, not hearts.

art collegia delenda est

[MarK]

We agree that pop industry is not helping - no, mostly hurting actually. It certainly makes life tougher for creative artists. But tough life is sometimes uniquely conducive for unleashing potent creative forces.
The fact that the number of professional orchestras is down in this country does not mean the end of classical music in the entire world. It only means that new times require different approaches. We all know that we can't continue doing the same thing and expect better results.
That is our challenge - to become better and more interesting, therefore more nourishing for mind, body and soul. It is doable. Negativity is not going to help us. Hard work is what's required.

[Donald Frazell]

But the system that has been created is as a museum, it does not make it accessable or relevant to today. The past of course created great music, but european musics could never become modern, Schoenberg probably the last major figure, ever. Those since have been interesting, at best. It of course deserves to be played, but is no longer a creative force in the world. Orchestras are made of actors, interpreters, not the true creative forces, the writers in theatre. Actors come and go, plays live on.

Same with current "classical" musicians. technically incredibly gifted, but are at best interpreters. It used to be a battle between those behind Horowitz and Rubenstin, the perfect technique and senstivity, vs raw power and passion. Obviously Horrowitz had incrdible tehnique, but used it for emotional intsnsity of drawing the listener into a living world. Since, it has been a world of the past, that no longr lives, but was. Certainly worth listening to, but no longer vital. Horowitz listened to and was friends with Art Tatum adn Oscar Peterson, they would go to each others concerts. he passed the baton off to them. And from them to the likes of Herbie Hancock and McCoy Tyner. Who is playing locally soon, but a shadow of his former self.

And they hopefuly will to someone else, to something different but built off both of the classical musics, of Europe and America. But that cannot be forced, that comes as a result of huge societal changes. of who we view ourselvse, adn our place in the world. That time is upon us, but we need to weed the fields, and let it grow. The earth is choked with marketed crap, we are at a time as Cezanne faced in the late nineteeenth century, where the Salon and Academy perverted truth for career and sales to support the status quo.

This is what we must look for, but let it grow naturally, not forced into old ideas, but allowed to grow from then, built on them, do not limit youth. Let it live and breath, or we will be stilted, and continue our decline. Creative art in all its forms are needed. To let them be is the best, and support when needed, but stop controlling, It is killing creativity. The Producers are in it for themselves, not for humanity. Let it grow or die, let it fail, let it succeed. Hands off. but buy and support when it arises. Seek it when mature, stop trying to control it

art collegia delenda est

[MarK]

The "system" may have to adjust, but the substance will remain. Lots of good music has been written by composers born after Schoenberg and continues to be written by those living today. Of course, there is more mediocre crap than true masterpieces being created, but it has always been like that and always will be. Performers are interpreters by definition, but, fortunately for me and my colleagues, music - any kind of music - does not exist without people performing it. That's why they are called performing arts, you know.

[Donald Frazell]

And thats why the best performers are almost always, 99%, of the time, those who compose the work. I would by far love to hear a flawed rendition of Bach by Bach, than some academicaly trained and flawlessly skilled interpreter of today. Obivously not possible, but sheet music was invented for business purposes, to sell works and make money, it is not how music is composed by the best musicians, unless it is to orchestrate for a large group. Thats why I almost always prefer smaller ensembles, it cuts to the chase without the extra padding. But bigger is better, right?

[MarK]

Bigger is definitely better. Except when it isn't, which is about 50% of the time.
Hearing composers' renditions of their own works is often educational and therefore interesting. But musicians who are more skilled as performers are able - and often do - project to the listeners more depth and substance of the compositions, which is the main point of the whole thing. It would be fun to hear Bach play his music, but there is no doubt that he himself would prefer to listen to Glenn Gould instead.

[Donald Frazell]

Only if he were a creative artist himself, and he isnt. When someone like Coltrane gets a tune like My Favorite Things into his hands, he doesnt play it, he recreates it, as a cubist painter does the subject before him. It is an entirely differnt beast by the time he has done with it, it is his work, not the original composers. Not so with European based musics.

And that music could never truly enter the 20th cethntury, it died with the world it reflected in WWI. It was real and true, but could not reflect our world, it does not have the rhymic complexity that Cezanne brought into painting. Which as much unified all things, being made of the same stuff, as layering and creating as one mind, body and soul as it had become the unification of philosophy, science, and theology.

Bebop was analytical cubism, its musical equivalent. Synthetic was Coltranes sheets of sound and went into expressionism. Miles was Matisse, all beautiful long lines and sonorous tonalities of color. Jazz is modern music. But it too is over. We may get people who use their idioms to create true creative art, but our world is going through a new phase, an end of materialism, the end of the age of excess.

A new sound and sight is called for. It cannot be forced, it cannot be taught, it must arise naturally. Leave it alone. Stop stunting its growth with previous ideas. All true creative artists create their own languages, new sounds that are necessary, built off the old, but not the old itself. We create techniques that reflect truth as we know and feel it, they are not preordained. Leave them alone. Fine art colleges and music schools beyond the fundamentals must be destroyed. Let the young explore on their own, its the only way. Always has been. Stop lookng for yesterdays news. Feel, and you will find.

[MarK]

Performers of Glenn Gould's quality can be called creative artists in a sense that they create new experiences for listeners by the originality of their interpretations. It may in fact be harder to do what they manage to achieve time and time again - reveal different aspects of a musical piece without changing a single note in it - than it is to take a tune and make it a basis for a new composition, as jazz musicians often do. Classical composers have been "performing" this latter trick for centuries - it is called variations or sometimes "a fantasy on a theme".
The strength and longevity of classical music is based partly on the fact that it has no limitations - there are no rules anymore, really. It is only limited by how far the aural imagination of composers is able to take them.
There was plenty of wonderful music written after WWI - one only needs to listen to it with open ears. When it comes to mind-boggling rhythmic complexity, classical music of the last 100 years has it in abundance - have you ever seen a score by Pierre Boulez or listened to his music? Rhythmically speaking, Cezanne would seem like Schubert - in other words, a century behind - in comparison. And so would most jazz musicians as well.
New sounds keep being brought into the realm of classical music - one just needs to keep listening. And i don't see anyone here saying that new generations of creative artists should not be allowed to explore.