Commentary : Budget Blade Poised Again to Slice Arts Funding : Priorities: Government help allows the arts to take those risks that make them worthy of backing and free them from the plutocratic dependency that makes them elitist.

The San Diego City Council faces some hard budget choices: raise taxes or cut programs. Like clockwork when it comes time to consider the budget, money for the arts gets offered as a sacrificial lamb.

Under the most current proposal, suggested by Councilman Ron Roberts, $4.3 million would be taken from art and tourist promotion to fund other needs, and, under the city manager’s worst-case scenario, if no new taxes or fees are enacted, $12 million could be diverted. Either scenario, or any other that takes money away from the arts, would be a mistake.

It would also violate the spirit of the transient occupancy tax (a hotel room tax) increase two years ago. The arts community and tourist industry supported the increase only after a promise that the extra revenue would go to art and tourism. These proposals would raid the TOT funds for use in the general pot.

After the mayor’s “year of the arts” and the hoopla of the Soviet arts festival, public support of the arts in San Diego appears to be sinking into oblivion. Even the existence of the infant, but effective, Commission for Arts and Culture is in question.

The arts are obviously vulnerable and considered a frill in our city. The reasons for this have to do with a lack of basic education in the arts, our youthful society’s relatively short history of supporting the arts, and the inability of artists and arts institutions to make a convincing case for public support.

Arts organizations have not demonstrated their strength. Their patrons are numerous. (Surprisingly, nationally, more people attend arts events than sporting events). Furthermore, arts patrons are influential because they are voters, contributors and very vocal if enlisted in a cause.

But why are no petitions to our City Council seen in every museum, theater lobby or concert hall? And why can’t San Diego artists do what has been done elsewhere: stop all performances for 10 minutes and say to audiences, “See, this is what life would be without art. Write your council member.”

The gravest mistake that artists and art institutions make is to play the game by the other team’s rules. They make their case in terms of marketplace values, even though the real worth of the arts to society is that they represent values other than those of the marketplace.

It is true that the arts spark economic development. They pay out huge sums to many businesses and services. Yes, the arts do make San Diego more desirable as a home for corporations and make recruiting easier for those businesses that are here.

It is evident that the arts increase the appeal of San Diego as a tourist destination. And, as San Diegans travel around the country, they find that the positive image of our city is bolstered by our vibrant and growing art scene.

The arts can also show why they need government money. While productivity in industry increases and it takes less time to produce goods, the arts are labor intensive and their costs continue to rise in relationship to the general economy.

It can be shown that the real subsidy of the arts comes from the artists themselves. Their incomes are a disgrace in a civilized society. That we have art at all is due to our artists’ sacrifices and generosity.

Although all of these reasons, and many others, are true, they are economic and soulless. Happily, society does not measure all of its institutions with a monetary yardstick. If it did, Mission Bay park would be sold to developers of condos, all libraries would rent out books, and our schools would be private, paid for only by those who use them.

The arts have greater difficulty making a case for continuing public support. Maybe it is because the public understands that parks, libraries and schools nourish us spiritually, mentally or physically, but it sees the arts only as entertainment.

Maybe it is because the public sees parks, libraries and schools as egalitarian institutions but believes the arts are elitist, reserved for the wealthy.

Unfortunately, the public perception of the arts is partly true, because some people in the arts community believe that to survive in the present precarious financial climate, they must offer mere entertainment and cater to an elite audience.

Martin Benson, director of the excellent and financially successful South Coast Repertory Theatre in Costa Mesa, said, “We once tried to cater to the tastes of our audience and found that their taste fell faster than we could cater to it.”

Certainly, the arts are partly to blame for their problems. Too often control is vested in boards made up of wealthy donors, and too seldom are risks taken to lead rather than follow public taste. But before any council members use this criticism of the arts to deny funding, they should examine the parallels between arts’ predicament and their own political situation.

The rising costs of election campaigning has created the public perception that rich campaign contributors have a growing and unfair influence with elected officials.

It is also believed that council members are not taking those difficult leadership risks they were elected to take. By submitting controversial issues to the voters as referendums, they are not doing the job they are paid to do.

In both the arts and politics, a momentary loss of courage and an unhealthy dependence on fat-cat donors does not mean scrapping the institutions. As politicians look for alternate ways to finance campaigns, the arts look to government support to fulfill their mission.

The paradox is that more government support will allow the arts to take those risks that make them worthy of support and free them from the plutocratic dependency that makes them elitist. Less government support will drive them further from their mission of delivering messages of importance to our whole society.

The arts’ mission deserves public support. It is to complete the mosaic of our civil life with a tolerant forum for ideas, emotions, institutions and insights that are available in no other way.

When seeking physical well-being, we are told “no pain, no gain.” The same is true of our aesthetic well-being. Our citizens must be aware that support of art is not a risk-free enterprise. In a time of profound worldwide changes, artists are affected by what is happening and will explore concepts that some of us may not want to think about. They may speak to us of our sexuality, of how we treat one another, of the failures of our system of government or of the greed in our market economy.

A time of great change brings great fears. But we must learn to be brave enough to listen to our artists. As playwright David Mamet says, “The artist is the advance explorer of the societal consciousness. As such, many times his first reports are disbelieved.”

The value of art to society is that it opens our minds to new perceptions, unthought-of possibilities, and prepares us emotionally for what we will eventually understand rationally. Art asks us questions and leads us to wonder, amazement and growth.

These are the valuable gifts the arts can give to San Diego. They go far beyond the economic advantages we usually hear about. They are priceless.

The arts-funding problem is particularly critical in San Diego. We are an adolescent city moving toward adulthood, making life decisions, forming a character that will define our civic personality for generations to come. Will we be the largest bubble-headed resort town on the West Coast? Or, as a mature city, will we be a metropolis where the geographical beauty is matched by the strength of our culture?

That future is being decided now by our City Council.