Obama and the Arts: Challenging Expectations

A few weeks ago, I addressed the impact of the financial downturn on the artistic community. As markets continue to vanish, both individual artists and larger institutions have struggled to maintain profits. Far from a recent phenomenon, many in the industry have felt the economic strain since early in 2008. As such, during his campagin, Barack Obama pledged to increase support for the arts, unveiling a nine point policy that would “reinvest,…publicly champion,…and expand" arts education, benefits and funding. Now into his presidency, he has repeatedly expressed his desire to “promote the importance of arts and arts education in America,” asserting that “the arts help to promote the economic development of countless communities.” In recent weeks, however, many within the creative profession have challenged whether Obama is living up to his campaign promises. In March, Congress passed legislation allotting $50 million in stimulus money for the National Endowment of the Arts, but there has been little headway since then. During last week’s Arts Advocacy Day (see right), representatives demanded increased government funding for the industry, publicizing the hearing under the headline “The Arts=Jobs.” In “Obama Stiffs the Arts,” Judith H. Dobrzynski thus expresses hesitation over Obama’s art policy, attacking his recent appointment of Chicago lawyer Kareem Dale as “arts czar,” a title which affords significant control over the industry and for which Dale is entirely unqualified. While outrage over the appointment has reached general consensus within the creative community, not all reactions to Obama have been entirely negative. In “Artists Need Jobs Too (And Democracies Need Artists),” Mitchell Aboulafia commends Obama’s support for the arts, referencing an article in the New York Times as evidence of the president’s growing favor within the industry. My responses to both these posts are provided below and may be found at their respective sites.

"Obama Stiffs the Arts"
Comment:

Your entry is both pointed and timely, vocalizing the frustration felt by many over the new administration’s stated arts policy. One of the many shocking realizations to come from last week's Arts Advocacy Day hearing was Robert L. Lynch’s testimony that “thirty years ago, the NEA received a modest 12 cents per $100 of non-military discretionary spending" and "today that is just 3 cents per $100.” Clearly, such figures are the result of years of government neglect. The appointment of Kareem Dale (see below, left) as “arts czar” is thus just another blow to an already disheartened industry. However, while the selection is unquestionably significant, the impact of Obama's decision has yet to be acknowledged. The president's own staff has suggested that Kale was only appointed to hold the position temporarily and will fill the seat until a proper replacement can be found. As such, your concerns seem a bit unjustified. It seems unlikely that the new appointee will ever command any real influence over the industry, the administration never having any intention of giving the position to such an unqualified candidate.

While this undoubtedly means an extended wait before the real "arts czar" emerges, even you admit that, “with the nation’s economic woes front-and-center, no one expected Obama to focus on the arts right away.” Thus, while officials like Anita Decker may not have a great deal of industry experience, deeming their appointments “deflating” is a bit premature. Those in such positions have yet to have any real influence on the market and the president has not had time to devote any real energy on the arts issue. After all, he has only just completed his first 100 days in office. Is it not, then, premature to be making the assertion that Obama has "stiffed" the arts? Even William Ivey, the former chair of the NEA, has a more favorable outlook on Obama's recent performance, praising the president for providing the creative community with a “direct West Wing connection.” While I appreciate your sentiments, it thus seems a bit premature to assess the success (or failure) of the new administration's policy.


"Artists Need Jobs Too (And Democracies Need Artists)"
Comment:

Your entry draws attention to a very relevant and pivotal issue. It is encouraging to read such a positive assessment of the president, even as he struggles to maintain approval ratings. Following up on campaign promises, the new president has made efforts to increase funding and support for the arts. With the current financial strain, such developments come at a time when convincing Washington to increase funding in any sector has been a struggle, even more so for the arts. Thus, I am interested for you to expand the reasons behind your support. While the New York Times article references several of Obama’s accomplishments, your excerpts draw heavily from the statements of non-Washington officials. In what ways have you seen progress in terms of government promotion of the arts? Do you really believe Obama will follow through with all of his campaign promises? While I would like to believe Obama will stay true to his word, it seems the president may have overextended himself. With layoffs continuing to mount and a rising national debt, he will have a difficult time convincing taxpayers to fund what is often deemed a frivolous expense. Though overturned, the February passage of the Coburn Amendment is a sobering message that many in the United States, even in Congress, view art as a recreational past time.

As such, though I agree that Obama has achieved “progress,” I am glad you chose to include the fact that “Washington officials still fail to recognize artists as workers.” Just last week, the president of Americans for the Arts pointed to a disturbing trend in the industry's financing, suggesting that government support has actually regressed over the past several years. According to transcripts, “If the NEA had simply maintained its 1979 percentage of discretionary funding, its 2008 budget would have been $613 million.” As of yet, the Obama administration has requested a NEA budget of only $205 million, a sum which includes $50 million in stimulus money. Nonetheless, while seemingly a dismal statistic, such numbers, far exceed the funds granted under the Bush administration. Thus, even in the current economic crisis, the proposal, at the very least, signals a shift in the right direction. As such, I am glad to see advocates giving the president some well deserved credit, even as he struggles to live up to others’ expectations.