enhanced by the passage of legislation establishing the National Endowment
for the Arts and Humanities on September 15, 1965. 41 The struggle to create
a modest system for promoting growth and excellence in the arts took several
years, numerous congressional hearings, and incredible dedication by a few
people. Since its establishment, the NEA ( www.nea.gov ) has helped shape the
arts scene in the United States by organizing an identifi able arts constituency,
stimulating donations through matching grants, and providing guidance to
arts groups on ways to manage their limited resources effectively. Although
the NEA appropriation was only $121,314,072 in 2006, or roughly $0.41 per
person in the United States, 42 the endowment regularly generates millions
more through various matching grants programs.
However, the government support for the arts in the United States extends
well beyond supporting the NEA. If agencies such as the Smithsonian,
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Gallery of Art, the National
Endowment for the Humanities, and dozens of other federally supported arts
and culture organizations are added into the per person calculation the level
of support for the arts increases to $6.00 based on 2006 data. 43 This per person
fi gure would be even greater if the total amount of tax revenue that the
IRS forgoes for charitable donations to the arts was included
The NEA’s vision and mission statements are worth noting, because they help
shape the numerous grant categories created to support the arts. The following
is from the NEA’s Web site:
Mission: The National Endowment for the Arts is a public agency
dedicated to supporting excellence in the arts, both new and
established; bringing the arts to all Americans; and providing leadership
in arts education.
Vision: A nation in which artistic excellence is celebrated, supported, and
available to all Americans. 44
The NEA also has a strategic plan for 2006–2011, which is structured as
follows:
GOALS
1. Access to Artistic Excellence
To encourage and support artistic excellence; preserve our cultural
heritage; and provide access to the arts for all Americans.
2. Learning in the Arts
To advance arts education for children and youth.
3. Partnerships for the Arts
To develop and maintain partnerships that support excellence in the
arts, both new and established; bring the arts to all Americans; and
provide leadership in arts education.
4. Management
To enable the Arts Endowment to achieve its mission through effective,
efficient, and responsible management of resources.
NEA
Areas of Special Emphasis
1. National Initiatives
A grants program that serves the American people by creating large
model programs of indisputable artistic merit and broad public
reach accompanied by substantive educational materials for schools,
students, and teachers. The strategy embodies the agency’s fourpronged
commitment to artistic excellence, public accessibility, arts
education, and partnership.
2. International Activities
Programs that support the presentation of American arts and artists at
international venues, encourage exchanges of U.S. artists with artists
of other nations, indemnify art objects from other countries for the
purpose of exhibition in the U.S., and sponsor presentations of the
work of foreign artists in the United States. 45
The creation of the NEA has led to the development of a support system for
performers, performing arts organizations, museums, and fi lm, design, and
humanities projects for over 40 years. Currently the NEA recognizes outstanding
contributions to the arts through the National Medal of Arts, Jazz Masters
Fellowships, and National Heritage Fellowships. Project grants are available
to organizations in the areas of dance, design, folk and traditional arts, literature,
local arts agencies, media arts, museums, music, music theater, opera,
presenting organization, theater, and visual arts. Organizations are expected
to have a three-year history of programming before they can apply. The NEA
does not fund general operating expenses, the creation of new organizations,
facilities construction, or elementary or secondary schools. 46
The matching grant categories for organizations include, Access to Artistic
Excellence ($5,000 to $100,000), Challenge America: Reaching Every
Community Fast-Track Review Grants ($10,000), and Learning in the Arts for
Children and Youth ($5,000 to $100,00). The NEA Literature Fellowships are
non-matching grants for $25,000. 47 In addition to these awards and grants,
the NEA is sponsoring a series of National Initiatives: American Masterpieces,
The Big Read, Poetry Out Loud, Shakespeare in American Communities, NEA
Jazz Masters, and the Arts Journalism Insititute. 48 The NEA also sponsors
three Leadership Initiatives: The Arts on Radio and Television, The Mayors ’
Institute on City Design, and The Open World Cultural Leaders Program. 49 In
addition, the NEA provides funds to regional arts agencies, who in turn distribute
funds regionally and locally.
The typical application process moves through a system of staff screening,
review by a committee of peers in the discipline, review of the peer group
recommendation by the National Council on the Arts, and a fi nal decision
by the Chair of the NEA. Applications can take from six months to a year to
work their way through the system. The chance of receiving funding is dependent
to a large degree on how well the proposed project matches the criteria
the NEA has set for the funding area. For example, in 2005 the NEA reported
the Access to Artistic Excellence grants were awarded to 1,501 organizations.
A total of 2,741 applications were received, which translates into about 54.7%
of the requests being funded. 50
Government support
The pros and cons of government support for the arts have not changed signifi
cantly since the inception of the NEA. The supporters of the legislation
that led to the creation of the NEA saw it as an opportunity to make the arts
more available to people throughout the United States and to enrich the
nation’s cultural life. Programs were designed to promote a type of cultural
democracy through very modest grants to a wide range of projects and institutions.
It was deemed important to support the creative spirit and at the same
time promote new work. The preservation of a cultural heritage was a high
priority, and the support of work that might not otherwise exist in a marketdriven
economic system was thought to benefi t everyone.
The critics of the legislation believed that the establishment of a government
subsidy system would eventually result in general mediocrity creeping
into the arts. There was fear that centralizing the power of the subsidy in the
hands of a few would lead to less, not more, creative work in the country.
Others believed that it was wrong to give the taxpayers ’ money to projects and
programs with no appeal beyond a limited number of people. Some people
argued that a type of cultural dictatorship would result from the peer review
system. Others argued that if the government started subsidizing the arts, private
and corporate philanthropy would dry up.
Budget battles and censorship
In the end, the astute shepherding of the legislation through the House and
Senate by Livingston Biddle (chairman of the NEA in 1977 to 1981) and others
helped neutralize critics in the early days of the endowment. The NEA
fl ourished and survived the annual congressional budget hearing process
until 1981. Under the budget planning guidance of White House aide David
Stockman, the new Reagan administration proposed a 50 percent cut in the
NEA budget for 1982 and additional cuts in 1983–1986. 51 The new administration
saw in the NEA an example of the government creating a disincentive
for private support for the arts. When confronted with the increase in private
giving that had been generated by the endowment, the Reagan administration
backed away from massive budget cutting, and reductions of 6 percent were
adopted by Congress. The political spotlight shifted off the endowment, and
the budget actually continued to increase up until 1992 (see Figure 2.3 ).
The budget battles of the early 1980s were minor in comparison with the fi restorm
that erupted with reauthorization legislation in 1989 and 1990. The
reauthorization of the NEA became the focal point for a political struggle over
censorship and the whole concept of funding for the arts. In the fall of 1990,
arts lobby groups pleaded with arts groups across the country to support the
NEA’s reauthorization. Telegrams and letters were sent to Washington to show
members of Congress that there were constituents who supported the arts.
The compromise legislation eventually enacted required grant recipients to
return their grant monies if the work they produced was found to be obscene
by the courts. This compromise did not sit well with the artistic community.
Controversy continued to follow the NEA as artists and organizations sued
over the obscenity pledge. Several organizations, among them the Public
Theater in New York City, turned down substantial grants rather than agree to
the terms that the NEA established.
Censorship charges continued to be leveled at the NEA when grant recommendations
by the National Council on the Arts were overturned by the acting
director of the endowment in the spring of 1992. The resignations of peer
review panels and key staff disrupted the operations of the endowment.
The remainder of the 1990s saw more trouble for the NEA as it went through
further reauthorization hearings. The shift to a Republican controlled House
and Senate in 1996 kept the NEA on the budget hot seat. Proposals to shut
down the NEA found favor in the House, and the eventual budget compromise
process led to the agency being funded for only $98 million in 1998.
There were layoffs and staff positions were eliminated to operate within the
new budget constraints.
A casualty of the political struggles of the NEA has been funding for individual
artists. In 1996 the NEA revised many of its grant categories and for the
most part limited individual grants to fellowships. The hard work of Clinton
appointee Jane Alexander, NEA Chair from 1993 to 1997, helped keep the
agency alive. William Ivey was appointed Chair in 1998, and he was to be
succeeded by Michael Hammond in 2002. However, Hammond, former Dean
of the Shepherd School of Music at Rice University, passed away suddenly in
January 2002, only a month into his administration. The agency appointed
an interim chair soon thereafter.
New directions
In 2003 the current Chair, Dana Gioia (JOY-uh), was appointed by President
Bush. Gioia is an award-winning internationally acclaimed poet with a
background that includes an MBA from Stanford University and an MA in
Comparative Literature from Harvard. Chairman Gioia has been an articulate
spokesperson for the NEA and has initiated several new programs that have
enhanced the impact of the Endowment.
Under the current Chair, the NEA has seen signifi cant change and growth.
The budget has increased and the mission focus seems to be clearer. Gioia
has introduced several new initiatives while promoting a positive image of
the NEA. In the “Chairman’s Statement ” in his 2003 Annual Report he noted:
It was my conviction that the National Endowment for the Arts could
best reestablish itself by focusing on its stated core mission to foster
excellence in the arts — both new and established — and to make the
best of the arts accessible to all Americans. …The Arts Endowment
needed to be confi dent and unapologetic about that mission as we
communicated the value of our programming to the nation. It was my
belief that by working in a positive, inclusive, and non-divisive manner
with members of Congress, the Administration, arts and arts advocacy
organizations, and artists, we could build a constructive new consensus
in support of the Arts Endowment. 52
The NEA and the arts manager
The granting process implemented by the NEA in the late 1960s helped to
stimulate the growth of many careers in arts management and to hasten the
professionalization of the fi eld. The specialized skills required to seek out
grants were in great demand. Because all organizational grants were at least
a one-to-one match, meaning that for every federal grant dollar a matching
dollar of other money must be found, fundraising staffs and development
experts began to be hired. Typically, grants to large organizations required
three dollars of private money for every dollar of federal money over a threeyear
period. This further necessitated establishing a staff support system to
run the initial campaign and to continue bringing the money in after the
grant expired.
The development of the now-common structure of a board of directors and
management staff was a product of the new accountability that arts organizations
faced. Organizations had to prove that they could responsibly manage
the funds they were given. Annual reports, fi nancial statements, and fi ve-year
plans became standard operating procedures for organizations that wanted
to be considered by the federal, corporate, and foundation funders. The net
result was an increase in staff openings, which provided jobs for the baby
boomers graduating from the colleges and universities across America in the
1970s and 1980s.
The NEA offers career opportunities for arts managers interested in working
in areas such as grants and awards, public relations, development, budget,
fi nance, research, and human resources. There are also nonpaying internships
at the NEA for undergraduate and graduate students.
State agencies
The original NEA legislation provided funds for the creation of state agencies
to distribute 20 percent of the endowment’s overall budget. The state and
local arts agencies created another network of funding opportunities for artists
and arts groups as well as staff positions for arts managers. The NEA is
mandated to provide a percentage of its budget to the partnerships funding
program with the states. 53
The extensive reach of state and regional arts agencies makes it possible for an
arts manager to interact with artists and other arts managers at multiple levels.
The National Assembly of State Arts Agencies (NASAA) lists as its mission
“ to advance and promote a meaningful role for the arts in the lives of individuals,
families, and communities throughout the United States. ” 54 The NASAA
headquarters is in Washington, D.C. The NEA also funds the six regional arts
organizations: Arts Midwest, Mid-America Arts Alliance, Mid-Atlantic Arts
Foundation, New England Foundation for the Arts, Southern Arts Federation,
and the Western States Arts Federation. 55
These regional organizations “provide technical assistance to their member
state arts agencies, support and promote artists and arts organizations, and
develop and manage arts initiatives on local, regional, national and international
levels. ” 56 The extensive network of regional arts agencies in turn
supports over 56 state and district arts agencies. Last, but not least, there is
a network of local arts agencies or arts councils within the states. These arts
councils are often managed by volunteers, although some of the bigger councils
have one or two staff. For example, the Web site for the Colorado Council
on the Arts ( www.coloarts.state.co.us ) has a link to a spreadsheet with 49
local arts agencies or arts centers.
CONCLUSION
The evolution of the role of the arts manager continues as thousands of
arts organizations undergo the arduous process of adapting to the changing
cultural environment. As we will see in Chapter 4, The Adaptive Arts
Organization, arts groups must constantly assess the opportunities and
threats that present themselves in the world around them. In theory, at least,
an arts manager should be trained to serve the needs of her particular discipline
by effectively solving the problems of today and anticipating the signifi -
cant changes of tomorrow. Unfortunately, the day-to-day struggle for fi nancial
survival that goes on in most organizations leaves little time for planning for
the future.
Whatever changes take place in the next few years, arts managers working with
artists, boards, and staffs will play a central role in the future of the arts in the
United States. Dynamic vision and articulate leadership will be required if the
arts are to build on the growth of the last 60 years.
SUMMARY
Over the last two thousand years, the basic functions of the artist–manager
have remained the same: to bring art and the public together is the continuing
objective.
In ancient times, simple religious ceremonies evolved into full-scale statesponsored
arts events that lasted from several days to a few weeks. The functions
of management (planning, organizing, leading, and controlling) were
distributed between artist–managers and the public offi cials who acted as arts
managers. The rise of the Church and the decline of Rome created a shift away
from state-sponsored events.
The late Middle Ages produced economic growth that allowed for the expansion
of population centers. The rise of guilds and community-sponsored celebrations
helped fuel changes in the overall arts climate. Complex pageants
often needed people with management expertise to organize the large casts
and the various sets associated with the productions.
Continued changes in society and the birth of more democratic forms of
government eventually led to changes that became the foundation of many
modern organizations. The Renaissance fostered the rebirth of drama and
contributed to the development of the fi rst operas and ballets. Problems with
fi nancing, patronage, and censorship also accompanied the growth in the arts,
but the additional art forms created additional jobs for arts managers.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, some countries began to establish
national dance, opera, music, and theater companies. Permanent staff
members and performers received salaries and pension benefi ts.
By the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States, the arts had
expanded into smaller population centers. However, there were no state-recognized
arts institutions in the United States comparable to those of Europe.
As communities became cities, orchestras, opera companies, and museums
became permanent institutions. Most were supported by a small group of
philanthropists.
The role of the arts manager in the United States expanded with the continued
development of touring, which was made possible by an extensive rail
system. Monopolistic enterprises took control of many of the theaters at the
end of the nineteenth century. The invention of movies and radio contributed
to a decline in attendance at arts events by the 1920s.
The last century has been shaped by major wars, improving economic conditions,
the new technologies, and a population boom. At the same time, legislation
and tax laws have helped artists and managers to establish nonprofi t
organizations to carry out their artistic vision. The process for establishing
nonprofi t, tax-exempt arts organizations is a well-established process widely
used in America.
As a profession and a recognized fi eld of work, arts management is a product
of changes in U.S. national policy since the 1950s. Ford Foundation funding
and, beginning in 1965, the National Endowment for the Arts helped make
private and public support for the arts a priority. The expanding arts market
resulting from the population increase and the education boom has also contributed
to the creation of thousands of new jobs in the arts.
The typical arts manager profi le in the 1980s was of a highly educated, uppermiddle-
class person with a background in the humanities. A limited number
had done course work in management while in school. Survey results show
that many arts managers had to learn the functions of their positions on the
job. The growth in training programs in the 1980s and 1990s has created a
more diversifi ed group of arts managers.
The NEA was created in 1965 to promote excellence, broaden the availability
of the arts, and preserve work identifi ed as part of the United States ’ national
heritage. The political environment has reshaped the NEA, and the resulting
changes have reduced the budget by nearly 50 percent since 1992. The NEA
has assisted many groups in organizing and professionalizing their staffs. In
addition to promoting the growth of the arts at a national level, the NEA also
supports numerous state and local arts agencies.
REFERENCES
1. Oscar G. Brockett , Franklin J. Hildy , History of the Theatre , 9th ed . ( Boston: Allyn
and Bacon , 2003 ) , pp. 13–34 .
2. Neil Kotler , Philip Kotler , Museum Strategy and Marketing ( San Francisco : Jossey-
Bass, Inc. , 1998) , p. 11 .
3. Ibid., p. 11.
4. Ibid., p. 11.
5. Brockett, Hildy, History of the Theatre , pp. 43–69.
6. Ibid., p. 85.
7. Ibid., p. 95 .
8. Ibid., p. 163.
9. Gayle Kassing , History of Dance ( Champaign, IL : Human Kinetics , 2007 ) , p. 98 .
10. Ibid., p. 104.
11. Ibid., p. 104.
12. Kotler and Kotler, Museum Strategy and Marketing , p. 12.
13. John Pick , Managing the Arts? The British Experience ( London: Rhinegold , 1986) ,
p. 23 .
14. Ibid., p. 45.
15. William J. Baumol , William G. Bowen , Performing Arts: The Economic Dilemma
(Cambridge, MA : MIT Press , 1966) , p. 20 .
16. Ibid., p. 29.
17. Kotler and Kotler, Museum Strategy and Marketing , p. 12.
18. Baumol and Bowen, Performing Arts , p. 29.
19. Ibid., pp. 27–28.
20. Martin Mayer , “The Opera ,” in The Performing Arts and American Society , W. McNeil
Lowry , ed. ( Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall, Spectrum Books , 1977) , p. 45 .
21. W. McNeil Lowry , ed. The Performing Arts and American Society ( Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, Spectrum Books , 1977) , p. 14 .
22. Ibid., p. 11.
23. NEA Research Division Note #93, “State Counts of Performing Arts Companies, ”
(Washington, D.C., November 2006), p. 2.
24. Ibid., p. 2.
25. NEA Research Division Note #64, “Museums, Arboreta, Botanical Gardens and
Zoos Report 18% Growth, 1987–1992 ” (Washington, D.C., May 1998).
26. National Endowment for the Arts, “1965–1995: A Brief Chronology of Federal
Involvement in the Arts, ” edited by Keith Donohue (Washington, D.C.: NEA,
2000), p. 4.
27. Kotler and Kotler, Museum Strategy and Marketing , p. 12.
28. From Anthony Mancuso’s How to Form a Nonprofi t Corporation, 4th ed. (San
Francisco: Nolo Press, 2001), summary of chapters 1–3, pp. 1.2–3.14.
29. NEA Research Division Note #90 (Washington, D.C., March, 2006).
30. Paul DiMaggio, Managers of the Arts, NEA Research Division Report #20 (Santa
Ana, CA: Seven Locks Press, 1987), p. 12.
31. Ibid., p. 42.
32. Ibid., p. 46.
33. J. Dennis Rich , Dan J. Martin , The Guide to Arts Administration Training and Research
1997–1999 ( Washington, D.C. : Association of Arts Administration Educators ,
1997 ) , pp. 69–73 .
34. Ibid., p. 72.
35 . Donna G. Herron, Tamara S. Hubbard, Amy E. Kirner , Lynn Newcomb , Michelle
Reisner-Memmer , Michael E. Robertson II, Matthew W. Smith, Leslie A. Tullo ,
and Jennifer S. Young , “The Effect of Gender on the Career Advancement of Arts
Managers ,” Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society. , Vol. 28 , No. 1 , 1998 , p. 30 .
36. Ibid., p. 30.
37. ARTSEARCH is published by the Theatre Communications Group, Inc., 355
Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10017.
38. ARTSEARCH July 1, 2007, Vol. 27, #12, pp. 1–12.
39. Mark Hrywna , “NPT Salary Survey 2007 ,” The NonProfi t Times , February 1 ,
2007 , p. 15 .
40. Ibid., pp. 16–17.
41. Livingston Biddle , Our Government and the Arts ( New York : American Council for
the Arts , 1988) , p. 180. After the passage of the bill, President Lyndon Johnson
signed the legislation creating the NEA on September 29, 1965 .
42. The per-person cost was arrived at by dividing the 2006 budget for the NEA by the
total U.S. population of 299,398,484 according to the 2006 Census Bureau report.
43. How the United States Funds the Arts, 2nd edition, National Endowment for the
Arts, January 2007, p. 10.
44. http://www.nea.gov/about/Facts/AtAGlance.html .
45. NEA Strategic Plan 2006–2011: http://www.nea.gov/about/Budget/index.html . pp. 1–2.
46. NEA 2007 Guide, p. 5.
47. Ibid., pp. 5–8.
48. Ibid., pp. 10–13.
49. Ibid., p. 14.
50. NEA 2005 Annual Report, p. 25.
51. Biddle, Our Government and the Arts, p. 492.
52. NEA 2003 Annual Report, p. 1.
53. http://www.arts.gov/partner/index.html .
54. http://www.nasaa-arts.org/aboutnasaa/about.shtml .
55. http://www.usregionalarts.org/ .
56. Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment