R2AC Northern Arts News

A Publication of the Region 2 Arts Council Vol. 1 No. 4 AUG/SEP '01

Guest Commentary
Funding for the Arts is Secured

Accessibility vs. Value
by Jeanne Edevold Larson
The Minnesota State Legislature has adjourned its special session with all proposed arts cuts defeated. The House had originally pushed for a $5 million cut for the arts; the Senate recommended a $1.35 million increase. In the end, after a big fight led by Sen. Richard Cohen (D), the arts funding will remain stable for the next two years.
The arts have not received any increases in funding for four years in the face of increased interest and demand for the arts in communities across the state.
Other arts-related action:

Amendment language proposed by Rep. Phil Krinkie would have prevented any arts organization from receiving more than $100,000 per year in grants. This language was NOT included in the final bill, although new reporting requirements were added.

Proposals to tax non profit organizations were all defeated.

Non-profit Ticket Tax Exemption: to be eligible, arts nonprofits must now have 3% of their budgets in contributions to use the exemption in 2002; 4% in 2003; and 5% in 2004.

Arts education: the Profile of Learning was not changed, so arts requirements remain in tact. However, because of the low education funding, arts programs may be jeopardized in local school districts.

Public Broadcasting: conversion to digital television was partially funded; public radio funding remained stable.

The Minnesota Humanities Commission received level funding.

—This information provided by Minnesota Citizens for the Arts, 612/338-2970 or
<www.mtn.org/mca/>

The current push among grant makers and community leaders is to make the arts more accessible - to build community, create intergenerational and multicultural interaction, and to use the arts to break down barriers faced by those disadvantaged by economics, geographic location, or physical challenges. These are noble aspirations, intended to improve the quality of life enjoyed by everyone. And the benefits to the arts community are many. By increasing access we also create a broader base of arts appreciators and arts participants, and their inevitable support for the arts will increase…or will it?
As we lower or remove user fees and ticket prices so that all can afford to attend, do we not create an audience that will under-value the arts?
One of the battles faced by artists for centuries has been the fight for appropriate value to be placed on their work. The National Endowment for the Arts reports that a disproportionate number of working artists hold one or more jobs to support their art. Artists moonlight at a rate 40% higher than other professionals and artists earn 12% - 23% less than is average for other professionals. Insisting their performances and exhibits have little or no admission fees seems only to perpetuate the dilemma.
And arts organizations struggle to receive adequate funding to support the costs associated with providing programs, performances and exhibits to the public. Making ends meet, paying staff adequately and compensating artists will become even more of a challenge if we continue to educate our audiences to expect free or low cost art events.
The more accessible we make the arts, the more we remove financial worth from them. We expect to pay for a professional sports event, movie, academic class or workshop, rock concert, and other things we enjoy. Yet, we’ve created an expectation that an orchestra concert, art exhibit, folk performance and such should be free or low cost. We think we’re being supportive just by attending. We do understand the qualitative value in these events; we pride ourselves on living in a place that hosts a vibrant arts community. But, we assume that there is public funding to keep these artistic venues viable. Or we hope that enough of the jet set will provide the financial means necessary to keep the arts going for the rest of us. Neither of which is the reality.
And as public resources become scare, arts organizations are becoming more dependent on the larger community for survival. So it makes sense to increase the accessibility, to increase the audience, thereby increasing the potential for financial support down the road. More and more average people are achieving the means necessary to purchase art. It makes no sense to direct the arts at the elite or wealthy. Along with the added benefits of building community and breaking down barriers—accessibility seems the most logical path…but at what cost?
The challenge to artists and arts organizations is to find a workable balance between accessibility to the arts and their valuation.

Jeanne Edevold Larson is a self-employed, non-profit consultant from Bemidji.

Serving Beltrami, Clearwater, Hubbard, Lake of the Woods & Mahnomen Counties of NorthCentral Minnesota

Next Page

Guest Commentary		Funding for the Arts is Secured
Accessibility vs. Value	by Jeanne Edevold Larson	The Minnesota State Legislature has adjourned its special session with all proposed arts cuts defeated. The House had originally pushed for a $5 million cut for the arts; the Senate recommended a $1.35 million increase. In the end, after a big fight led by Sen. Richard Cohen (D), the arts funding will remain stable for the next two years. The arts have not received any increases in funding for four years in the face of increased interest and demand for the arts in communities across the state. Other arts-related action: Amendment language proposed by Rep. Phil Krinkie would have prevented any arts organization from receiving more than $100,000 per year in grants. This language was NOT included in the final bill, although new reporting requirements were added. Proposals to tax non profit organizations were all defeated. Non-profit Ticket Tax Exemption: to be eligible, arts nonprofits must now have 3% of their budgets in contributions to use the exemption in 2002; 4% in 2003; and 5% in 2004. Arts education: the Profile of Learning was not changed, so arts requirements remain in tact. However, because of the low education funding, arts programs may be jeopardized in local school districts. Public Broadcasting: conversion to digital television was partially funded; public radio funding remained stable. The Minnesota Humanities Commission received level funding. —This information provided by Minnesota Citizens for the Arts, 612/338-2970 or <www.mtn.org/mca/>
The current push among grant makers and community leaders is to make the arts more accessible - to build community, create intergenerational and multicultural interaction, and to use the arts to break down barriers faced by those disadvantaged by economics, geographic location, or physical challenges. These are noble aspirations, intended to improve the quality of life enjoyed by everyone. And the benefits to the arts community are many. By increasing access we also create a broader base of arts appreciators and arts participants, and their inevitable support for the arts will increase…or will it? As we lower or remove user fees and ticket prices so that all can afford to attend, do we not create an audience that will under-value the arts? One of the battles faced by artists for centuries has been the fight for appropriate value to be placed on their work. The National Endowment for the Arts reports that a disproportionate number of working artists hold one or more jobs to support their art. Artists moonlight at a rate 40% higher than other professionals and artists earn 12% - 23% less than is average for other professionals. Insisting their performances and exhibits have little or no admission fees seems only to perpetuate the dilemma. And arts organizations struggle to receive adequate funding to support the costs associated with providing programs, performances and exhibits to the public. Making ends meet, paying staff adequately and compensating artists will become even more of a challenge if we continue to educate our audiences to expect free or low cost art events.	The more accessible we make the arts, the more we remove financial worth from them. We expect to pay for a professional sports event, movie, academic class or workshop, rock concert, and other things we enjoy. Yet, we’ve created an expectation that an orchestra concert, art exhibit, folk performance and such should be free or low cost. We think we’re being supportive just by attending. We do understand the qualitative value in these events; we pride ourselves on living in a place that hosts a vibrant arts community. But, we assume that there is public funding to keep these artistic venues viable. Or we hope that enough of the jet set will provide the financial means necessary to keep the arts going for the rest of us. Neither of which is the reality. And as public resources become scare, arts organizations are becoming more dependent on the larger community for survival. So it makes sense to increase the accessibility, to increase the audience, thereby increasing the potential for financial support down the road. More and more average people are achieving the means necessary to purchase art. It makes no sense to direct the arts at the elite or wealthy. Along with the added benefits of building community and breaking down barriers—accessibility seems the most logical path…but at what cost? The challenge to artists and arts organizations is to find a workable balance between accessibility to the arts and their valuation. Jeanne Edevold Larson is a self-employed, non-profit consultant from Bemidji.
Serving Beltrami, Clearwater, Hubbard, Lake of the Woods & Mahnomen Counties of NorthCentral Minnesota