Summary: The Argument Of Public Funding

The Argument of Public Funding for the Arts

In 1965 former President Lydon B. Johnson stood before the nation and signed into effect the National Foundation of the Arts and the Humanities Act, creating the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (Howard). The mission of the NEA is to be "dedicated to advancing artistic excellence, creativity, and innovation for the benefit of American individuals and communities." As the largest single funder of arts across America the NEA receives most of its public funding from a combination of other federal, state, regional, and local agencies from across America (United States). However due to the expressive nature of the arts many across the nation have

In 1965 President Lydon B. Johnson created the NEA as a hope that it would create a more fully developed society in America (Genoways). Since then it has become the largest single funder of arts across America with the majority of direct public funding still flowing from a combination of other federal, state, regional, and local agencies. This funding is characterized into three divisions, direct funding such as the NEA, other public funding direct and indirect such as federal departments and agencies, and finally private sector contributions, like individuals, foundations, and corporations (United States). Given the graph below, almost half of the funding received for the Arts comes from the earned income of Americans and only about fourteen percent from the regular income of the endowment. Without public funding, the arts would simply be very cooperate based and not a truly developed

Some believe that if the art is dignified by supporting a business than it is already payed for. David Marotta uses the argument that if a coffee shop pays an artist to perform there in order to gain more customers, that artist is already being supported and doesn't need public support as well. The main issue with this argument is that the Arts are a very opinion-based subject so not everyone can receive funding with this method. If the world relied on private funding, select, well-known artists would receive most funding leaving many out of the spotlight and struggling to make a living for themselves (Marotta). Unfortunately, the NEA is an easy target for our government because it mainly benefits small areas and while the impact is extraordinary in that area it often isn't seen nationally. To many government officials it can look very easy to eliminate or reduce the public funding for the arts and solve many of our nation's economic issues. However, if that was done the effects would be seen nationally and we would lose much of the uniqueness of our culture today