Spotlight on Arts Funding in Georgia

Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Daisy Fancourt

In recent decades, there has been an increasing number of national policy and strategy papers discussing arts in health in countries around the world. Some of this activity has been driven by national arts bodies, championing the value of the arts in health and wellbeing and advocating for their inclusion within core arts funding and practice. Other activity has been led by health bodies, including health departments within governments and health services themselves. This chapter explores some of the most influential documents and considers their implication for research and practice. It draws on case studies of activity within Ireland, the UK, the USA, Australia, and Nordic countries.


2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 193-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tal Feder

AbstractThis article studies the socioeconomics of government public expenditure for the arts and the normative foundations of state intervention in the arts. I pose two interrelated research questions: (a) what is the relationship between the public funding of the arts and their consumption? and (b) what mode of justification and what perception of the place of art in society is reflected in this relationship? Based on the philosophical work of Alan Badiou, I develop a novel conceptual framework to delineate three types of normative justifications for the public funding of arts organizations: romantic, didactic and classical. Using data from the public funding of 92 orchestras, theaters and dance troupes in Israel between 1999 and 2011, I estimate a cross-lagged panel data model to study how arts funding both affects and is affected by the levels of consumption of the organizations’ productions. The results of the study show a complex pattern of different relationships between funding and consumption that accord with the three types of normative justifications for public arts funding.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clinton J. Walker
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
pp. 9-30
Author(s):  
Daniel Sheehy

What happens when an ethnographic, cultural relativistic approach to arts funding runs head-on into a “fine arts” approach governed by assumptions of excellence, appropriate targets of funding, and methods of distributing funds? This chapter, based on twenty-three years (1978–2000) working at the National Endowment for the Arts, will respond to this question through my personal conceptual and methodological challenges and experiences. When the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities were created in 1965, there was talk of creating a third endowment for folklore. This effort was unsuccessful, but it points to the belief at the time that American folk art traditions would not be well served by the federal endowments. There was much truth to this, as I and my colleagues regularly bumped into “glass ceilings and walls” that silently worked against us in supporting our field of hundreds of cultural traditions and thousands of art forms. My ethnomusicological training and experience were invaluable, not only in understanding the art forms and responding to their needs, but also understanding the biases of the institutional culture in which we were housed. At the same time, while certain aspects of my training at UCLA helped in navigating the waters of arts funding, much of the knowledge I applied to my work was learned “on the job” in extra-academic activities and mentorships rather than in university courses and seminars. This line of reflection will yield observations and recommendations to improve training and to increase ethnomusicology’s applicability and social and cultural relevance.


2020 ◽  
pp. 183-204
Author(s):  
Michael Sy Uy

The epilogue discusses recent developments in arts funding and philanthropy. The divergent paths of Rockefeller and Ford—where the former discontinued its arts program and the latter rebranded its cultural work in terms of addressing “inequality”—is a revealing outcome of the increasing social and economic legitimation of arts funding. The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) experienced its first budget cut under President Reagan and then, amidst the culture wars, Congress slashed its budget further. Private contributions have increasingly taken up the slack, but not without their own challenges. New philanthropists are exploring limited liability corporations, donor-advised funds, and metrics and outcomes-based funding. With increasing economic and political inequality and decreasing civic engagement, the government funds foregone because of tax-deductible charitable contributions might be re-evaluated, as well as the ways the federal government may be better suited to provide resources more equitably. An ethics of expertise is now more critical.


Author(s):  
Tina Dippert ◽  
Erna Gelles ◽  
Meg Merrick

Historically governments have used art's universal language to achieve various goals, including political engagement through cultural enrichment. Employing nonprofit/public sector relationships for the arts presents myriad governance challenges, but always with the promise of intrinsic and extrinsic benefits. This chapter presents two cases to illustrate such collaborative relationships. Applying various nonprofit theories, stakeholder discussions and Sherry R. Arnstein's still relevant community engagement work to explore relationships between sectors in arts funding, the first involves the passage of a local tax to provide funding for arts education and arts organizations. The second illustrates an instrumental relationship between a local government and nonprofit to provide art programs to promote tolerance in an increasingly diverse community. Both cases present imperfect policies, but represent the continuation of an ancient practice wherein the arts are being used for more than arts' sake, but to serve a multitude of non-arts instrumental societal functions.


2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-93
Author(s):  
BENJAMIN PIEKUT

AbstractMembers of the rock band Henry Cow co-founded Music for Socialism in early 1977 with the assistance of several associates in London's cultural left. Their first large event, a socialist festival of music at the Battersea Arts Centre, gathered folk musicians, feminists, punks, improvisers, and electronic musicians in a confabulation of workshops, performances, and debates. The organization would continue to produce events and publications examining the relationship between left politics and music for the next eighteen months. Drawing on published sources, archival documents, and interviews, this article documents and analyzes the activities of Music for Socialism, filling out the picture of a fascinating, fractious organization that has too often served as a thin caricature of abstruse failure compared with the better resourced, more successful, and well-documented Rock Against Racism. As important as the latter was to anti-racist activism during the rise of the National Front, it was not concerned with the issues that Music for Socialism considered most important – namely, how musical forms embody their own politics and how musicians might control their means of production. Affiliated with the Socialist Workers Party (UK), Rock Against Racism produced massive benefit concerts and rallies against the fascist right, drawing together musicians and audiences from punk and reggae. The much smaller events of Music for Socialism enrolled musicians from a range of popular music genres and often placed as much emphasis on discussion and debate as they did on having a good time. The organization's struggles, I will suggest, had less to do with ideological rigidity than it did with the itineracy and penury of musicians and intellectuals lacking support from the music industry, governmental arts funding, labor organizations, or academia.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document