How Europe Beats Our Off-Key System
By Aliese Willard
As Americans, we proudly live in the birthplace of Jazz, Rock n’ Roll, and rap music. We belt the lyrics of Broadway musicals along with Lady Gaga. We swing and square dance, but keep the Funky Chicken and the Macarena in our repertoire.
Our country has always been an eclectic mix of innovation and yesteryear: an entertaining variety show of ideas and cultures.
But we focus more on the new. The now. Whatever is fresh and challenges the norm. But in our quest for the contemporary, the classical arts—the creative life of our culture—have suffered.
Rachel Ellins is a professional harpist, and teaches music at Colorado State University. Her job is one of rich melody that varies with dissonance. Petite in stature, her passion is to sit behind a six-foot-tall oak harp and charm music from the silk strings. She merrily conducts students in concerts, and her joy in the harmonious chords is evident in every beat. The discord comes from her paycheck.
Rachel Ellins conducts CSU harpists at their May 1, 2011 concert
“I love what I do. I’m really busy, have great students, and I’m fortunate to have a job at CSU,” Ellins said. “I just wish the financial reward were greater. I made so much less money this year, and I worked twice as hard.”
Ellins balances teaching at CSU with playing as the substitute harpist at the Colorado Symphony Orchestra and principal harpist with the Longmont Symphony Orchestra. She also publishes music, teaches private lessons, and sells music supplies in her own store. And yet it’s still difficult to earn a living. For an artist this isn’t
Though it is the richest of countries, The U.S. is one of the worst in terms of supporting its artists. Funding for the arts is extremely low. Government spending for its arts and cultural
As many American artists do, Ellins has resigned herself to the fact that her career may never be financially constant.
“If you go into the arts today, you have to realize that you won’t make as much money as other professions,” she said.
Dancing out of step: The U.S. arts funding situation
In what should be a national embarrassment, the U.S. spends billions of dollars less than its European counterparts in cultural support. A simple example to illustrate the U.S.’s incompetent spending would be to compare its arts expenditures (according to the National Endowment for the Arts) to those of France (numbers from 2009).
France's government arts funding is roughly 30 times the size of U.S. federal arts expenditures.
Across the country, arts organizations have been crippled from insufficient funds. In 2009, Bob Lynch, the CEO of the nonprofit organization Americans for the Arts, told the Associated Press that an estimated 10,000 arts organizations nationwide had shut down or were in danger of doing so. And as a result of the recession, The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the United States’ main agency responsible for government funding, will face a funding cut of 7.5 percent in 2011, from its already weak budget of $115 million.
For David Taylor, a professional dancer, making a living as an artist has never been easy. Trained in classical ballet and modern dance, Taylor has been dancing and choreographing for 41 years. But he says the meager funding in the U.S., coupled with recent economic instability, makes working a continual stressor.
“It’s unbelievably and constantly difficult, and it’s only getting worse,” Taylor said. “The first things they cut are the arts programs.”
Though organizations like the NEA exist to help arts organizations, Taylor says applying for and receiving grants almost isn’t worth the effort. “For the weeks and hours of filling out paperwork to get a grant, you only receive $10-15,000 in grants. It’s not worth the time. You can’t depend on grants, because one year you may get them, and the next year you’ll get nothing.”
So what’s an artist to do, if they want to avoid the “starving artist” stereotype?
Work. In as many areas as possible. Taylor’s career certainly reflects this. An adjunct faculty professor at CSU, Taylor has formed two dance companies, performs professionally, and teaches at up to six different dance schools per week. Similar to Ellins, he balances numerous tasks at once, and it’s the same situation for others in his field.
“In the U.S., some companies only perform for 24 weeks—it’s terrible,” Taylor said. “So dancers are picking up dance jobs if they can for a few weeks, then moving on to other companies. Sometimes they’re working six or seven jobs at a time.”
All That Jazz: differences between U.S. and European funding models
It’s obvious that American artists may face more challenges in their careers due to funding. But the greater question concerns why there is such generous support in Europe and so little in the United States. How is it for performers in European countries? In short, they have it easier. But it’s worth it to take a look at how they support their arts, as compared to the United States.
According to the 1999 Journal of Cultural Economics article “The Subsidized Muse: Government and the Arts in Western Europe and the United States,” by Annette Zimmer and Stefan Toepler,
Zimmer and Toepler conclude that in European countries, the governments “have played a dominant role particularly in the production of high culture, resulting in high levels of public spending for the arts and culture,” and “the government retain(s) almost exclusively the financial responsibility for the arts and culture.”
While in the United States, they say, funding is characterized by “a dominance of the private nonprofit sector both in the delivery and financing of arts and culture, with government only playing a supporting role.”
In the U.S., the government contributes very little to arts funding, in accordance with the American tradition of hands-off government policy. Monies for the arts come from nonprofit organizations, or from wealthy donors who support the arts. The problems arise when the U.S. has an economic downturn, such as the recent recession. Richer citizens make fewer donations, and money available for the nonprofits is reduced.
(Chart created from data found at http://www.suprastudio.aud.ucla.edu/summerarchive.html)
Whereas in Europe, artists can find stability in their careers. According to Taylor, European governments give enough money to provide full-time jobs for their artists.
“Performers in Europe get 52 weeks a year paid with vacations and benefits—a steady job,” Taylor said. “I’ve known dancers who have gone to Europe for the security of a paycheck.”
According to Ellins, European arts companies also have more flexibility in what they perform, because they don’t have to worry about appealing to a wide audience, as companies do in the United States.
“They (Europeans) have a lot more options with their programs, in that they can pick and choose what they want to perform,” Ellins said. “In the U.S. they do a lot more popular music in their programming that will draw more people.”
So why doesn’t the United States simply increase funding? Sadly, funding isn’t the only resource the U.S. government lacks. There is a widespread disinterest in the arts in the U.S., especially in genres that are considered “classical,” such as symphonic music and opera.
The divergence in attitude could also be a result of historical background. Taylor is from England, and thinks part of America’s negligence of the arts is due to its youth as a country.
“When I’m (in England), I’m driving through 2,000 years of history, while in the U.S. it’s only 200 years,” he said. “No matter where you go in European countries, from the largest city to the smallest town, they’ll have their own local opera, theater, symphony and dance company.”
William Osbourne, a composer and arts activist, made a similar observation in his 2004 article for ArtsJournal.com.
“Most cities and towns (in Europe) have thousand year histories that are reflected in the architectural and other cultural treasures of their various municipal centers. They employ…regulations, as well as public education, to protect their cities from the Wal-Martization that would be caused by embracing American-styled (cultural models). They would consider the losses to their cultural identity caused by corporate uniformity to be too great.”
It could also be that the U.S. attitude toward the arts is less reverent than that of Europe.
“I think there is less support and interest for the arts in the U.S. because it isn't considered one of the main three—reading, writing, and math,” said Hannah Pensack-Rinehart, a sophomore music and exercise science double major. “It is thought of and labeled as ‘extracurricular,’ and is therefore one of the first things to go when budget cuts need to be made, unfortunately.”
Hannah Pensack-Rinehart, a sophomore music and exercise science major, plays her harp at the CSU Harp Ensemble concert on May 1, at Zion Lutheran Church in Loveland.
According to Osbourne, the government funding for the arts is also used to educate citizens about the value of their culture, resulting in a greater appreciation and enjoyment in the plays, concerts and performances.
“Europeans combine arts education with the living presence of the performing arts within their communities,” he writes. “Classical music is far more relevant to young people when performing arts organizations are a highly present and esteemed part of their city or region. In America, the nearest genuinely professional full-time performing arts organization is often hundreds of miles away.”
Art is Long, Life is Short: why investing in the arts is essential
In discussing why it is important for governments to support the arts, it is relevant to wonder why the arts are important. According to Taylor, there is “a richness and history in dance and the arts. It’s an expression of the soul.”
The arts are also an economic stimulus. Policy makers may be surprised to learn that a thriving arts culture makes for a prosperous community.
In a 2002 study conducted by the nonprofit organization Americans for the Arts, analysts found that the U.S. nonprofit arts industry created $134 billion in economic activity each year, including $24.4 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenues.
In addition to financial gain, exposure to the arts is intellectually stimulating.
We’ve all heard about the pre-natal must for modern mothers: play some Mozart near your expanding belly, and as a result your baby is smarter. While experts continue to debate the validity of the Mozart Effect, numerous studies show that involvement in the arts may be enriching in a variety of ways.
In a 1988 study conducted by Michele and Robert Root-Bernstein, arts and culture crusaders with Ph.D’s in history science from Princeton University, researchers found that the most successful scientific geniuses were heavily involved in the arts.
The data showed that:
“the Nobel laureates and National Academy members were much more likely to:
• have one or more avocations (some as many as a dozen!) than their less successful colleagues;
• believe that knowledge of art, poetry, music, etc. was part-and-parcel of being an educated scientist;
• cite ways in which their avocations promoted their scientific work; and
• use a much wider range of mental "tools" during problem solving than their less successful colleagues, including various forms of two-, three-, and four-dimensional visual imaging, kinesthetic imaging, acoustic imaging, verbal and written forms, diagrams, and so forth.”
A Change of Tune: what now?
While there is little the U.S. government can do without fervent campaigns and endorsement from legislators, experts and artists alike agree that the U.S. needs more of one thing: arts education. After all, it seems to work for Europe.
“I have heard that funding for the arts has decreased dramatically (in the U.S.), especially in elementary and middle schools,” Pensack-Rinehart said.
Ellins, who teaches Pensack-Rinehart as part of the CSU harp ensemble, believes education early on will foster respect for classic and modern arts.
“We need more education in school: our youth need to appreciate the arts. I would like to see the budget for the arts improve too.”
She also advocates more companies establishing endowments to invest in their programs, as well as greater donations for the wealthy. However, since there is no certainty that the U.S. government will increase their support, American artists will have to cope the best that they can.
According to Ashley Greathouse, a junior music education major and another of Ellins’ students, it’s not so bad if the arts are your passion.
“I’ve heard of (lack of funding) and I know it’s really difficult,” Greathouse said. “But the thing is, if you love it, you’ll work hard and find a way to do it.”
No comments:
Post a Comment