In general, arts organizations have done all they can to reduce costs. They’ve reached out to audiences, luring them with promotions, free stuff, and advertising they can barely afford. So let’s talk about the elephant in the room: government funding for the arts. If we want to truthfully tell our donors that we’ve done everything in our power to raise money, we can’t ignore the government.

Right now, the various U.S. governments give to the arts at pitifully small levels, if they do so at all. The state of California has been extremely parsimonious to the California Arts Council for years since the 2003–2004 budget crisis, and has to be thankful that Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas decided to defund its state arts agency last year: At last, a partner in miserliness! (Brownback, it is rumored, may restore a part of that funding in his new budget.) At the federal level, all three cultural grant-making agencies took significant hits in the budget passed in 2011, but those programs have never been very large in dollar terms. Last year, they were 0.066 percent of the total federal budget, all in. And the bulk of federal arts expenditure goes to the Smithsonian Institution and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Nevertheless, the $155 million in discretionary grants that the National Endowment for the Arts passes out this year will be critical to a wide range of nonprofit organizations. Every little bit helps. But the organizations that benefit from these grants tend to outsource advocacy to state art councils instead of delivering the message themselves. [. . .]

The current private-debt crisis has hit arts organizations where they live. The aging of the audience (at least in many classical venues) has become more marked as major donors become scarcer and begin to suffer “fatigue.” We owe it to those donors who have gotten us this far to knock on government doors the way we knocked on theirs. And we owe it to the next generation to ensure that art doesn’t become truly elitist.

When we make the argument, whether in Washington or in a state capitol, or even at the local level, our greatest argument and weapon will be the very people we have collected money from for all these years. We have proven, for decades, that there is significant support for the arts in the U.S. And since we can’t have an argument over whether or not to be taxed, only about where our tax money will be directed, those arts patrons have a right to be heard and recognized.

the Governor is proposing a 40% cut to NYSCA’s grantmaking for 2010-2011. Forty percent! That would drop the overall budget from $41.6 million in 09-10 to $25.2 million in 10-11. More striking, if approved, the state’s per capita spending on the arts would plummet from $2.48 to $0.77 dropping NY below the national average of $0.90 and ranking us 26th in the country in arts funding. I don’t even want to imagine which states would be ahead of New York . . .

Anyway, if you want to lodge a complaint about this proposed cut, you can do so by

The $100-million foundation (with the money coming from the lumber business) is still in its first year, and has already given away $3.5 million to “nurture what its calls environmentally healthy and culturally vibrant communities in metro Detroit.”

This obviously isn’t going to fix Detroit’s woes—what could?—but it is an interesting step in the right direction. And maybe by helping foster a creative community, Detroit can start reshaping itself . . .

And although that sounds super unlikely, Razia Iqbal of the provides a bit of factual hope:

Recent research from the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (Nesta) suggests that the cultural sector will grow by 4% between 2009 and 2013 – double the estimate for the rest of the economy.

There are parts of this sector which are clearly feeling the effects of the recession, such as architecture and advertising. But others, like the video games industry, are burgeoning. [. . .]

I’ve been talking to Lord Puttnam about this and he is a passionate advocate of investing in the creative industries. He thinks they are where young people want to work and argues that the government dismisses their potential at its peril. This goes to the heart of an argument that historically presents the arts community as whingeing luvvies. In fact, the reality is that the creative industries will by 2013 employ 1.3 million people and the wealth generated by these industries could reach £85 billion. It is the economic case for the arts that those in the creative industries need to make.

[. . .] this amendment is important. It’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to help solidify some of the best things about this state. Its beneficiaries aren’t just limited to the hunters and the canoeists and the gallery-goers: This small investment of money is good for all of us.

To recap: The amendment, officially known as the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment, would raise the sales tax by 3/8ths of 1 percent. That’s less than what you throw in the extra-penny jar at the convenience store when you buy a $1.99 bottle of water.

The money would raise about $300 million a year for the next 25 years. Most would go to preserving clean water, parks and trails and other environmental causes. Just less than 20 percent, about $59 million a year, would go to cultural endeavors and efforts across the state.

I honestly have no idea if other states have this sort of fiscal allocation for the arts in their constitutions or not. But personally, I think this is fantastic, especially when you consider that the FY08 budget for the New York State Council on the Arts (which I believe is the most well funded state arts council in the country) is just over $60 million.

Dominic Papatola might go a bit over-the-top in emphasizing why people should vote for the “Legacy Amendment”

arts of all kinds thrive on scales of all sorts, and it touches our lives in ways we don’t even recognize. Exposure to and participation in the arts increases standardized test scores. It’s good for the business climate. It helps us understand our times, our problems, our destiny and ourselves.

but I agree with his core beliefs and I think it would be really cool to see a community enlightened enough to vote in an amendment that would specifically increase arts funding. (And of course funding for the environment.)