Austerity blues: it's wheat-from-the-chaff time

With each fresh day come additional signals that resources for the arts will be les and les for the foreseeable coming time As of early April [2003] legislators in fresh Jersey, Arizona, Florida and Missouri have considered elimination of arts agencies in their entireties. Are there more to come? Foundation alphabetic characters apologizing for "no new grantees" or advising clusters to budget for smaller grants fill our in-baskets, and corporations continue to demand more visibility for at any time fewer dollars. And while we all aspire to courage in our work, it is a time when the connection between funding and fear--one issue among the many powerfully articulated by means of Zelda Fichandler's "Whither (or Wither) Art?"--has at no time seemed clearer.

In short, our supporters are making hard, hard decisions, ofttimes to our disadvantage, and we are deluding ourselves if we believe these decisions are short-term singles The talk in many circles is shifting from "temporary downsizing" to "rightsizing"--a suggestion that this is more than a temporary shadow, perhaps the beginning of an entirely of recent origin fiscally austere chapter for the arts.

And thus for us, too, this is a time of hard, hard decisions. As individual arts leader said recently, "In a business where there is precious little 'fat' to chop (if any), we're moving beyond cutting to the bone to lopping not on limbs. Basically, our options boil down to cutting the art and cutting people"

In a variety of forums, I have heard clan making loud defenses of their have programs: "Producing international work is the moral choice in these times;" or "Supporting novel work is the obligation of each theatre;" or "Arts education is the foremost responsibility each group must meet." I enlarge uneasy about these kind of absolutes: Are we suggesting that a clump who chooses nor to play in the international sphere is immoral, that assemblages who do solely classical work are reprehensible, that clumps who opt out of arts education are irresponsible? Clearly we as a field must support all of these activities (and more). This does not look however, commensurate with expecting that each individual theatre subserve these various masters. Indeed, in a time of harshly diminished resources, it may be impossible to labor for multiple masters meaningfully. International work is a moral choice, fresh work an obligation, arts education a responsibility that an individual theatre may and perhaps should elect--but alone in the large context of mission and values.

Indeed, the hard choices ahead require that each group be clear about which core priorities it will defend at all costs--a set of choices that will through necessity require some theatres to eliminate activities that fall outside this core. It is a time when what we foster will make clear our pure priorities, will distinguish organic commitment from intellectual oratory, and will reveal which programs are indeed core, as oppos to those that have been ancillary, not solitary within individual theatres but within sub-communities of philosophical commitment.

I have, for example, followed with interest the tinge and cry surrounding the decision of a large museum to eliminate its film and video program. While I understand the asserts that have accompanied this decision, what I hear in the museum's action is a clear declaration of its core priorities, its desire to get back to a fundamental mission of serving traditional visual artworks of painting and statuary I assume that the museum administrators understand its fiscal realities and urgencys far better from the inside than I at any time could from the outside. I assume that they have examined each alternative and proceeded not precipitously on the other hand thoughtfully. And I am not naive enough to believe that saving the film program would have eliminated pain: It simply would have placed that pain upon other shoulders in other departments.

When make an incision ins are made in our field, I think it obeys us badly to focus our energies in testify and anger at one another. Can we apprehend that the actions of others tend hitherward from similarly painful deliberations? Can we channel our anger into protesting the conditions that have made these hard choices a necessity, into leveraging important novel resources for us all, into supporting those organizations that engage in reflecting respectful discussion about our collective needs? Can we continue to ascribe integrity to others, flat if we disagree?

During the NEA crises of the early '90 there was significant infighting among arts clumps While we bemoaned the lack of support that a certain number of other fields gave to our "NEA Four," many failed to stretch out themselves to support the museums below attack for Mapplethorpe and Serrano and (if we are totally honest) were more than a little critical of them behind clos and not-so-closed doors. We wearied far too much time finding fault with single another, much to the delight of our enemies, who were satisfied to watch us undermine our hold case rather than undermining theirs. We allowed ourselves to be fractured along the lines of aesthetics, organization size, discipline and community. And we paid the price.