‘Privatization’: Wrong Word for Arts Funding

Robert Epstein’s column, which outlined government schemes to “privatize” the California Arts Council, has caused great alarm within the arts community--and rightly so. The column (“The Word in Arts Funding-- Privatize ,” Calendar, Jan. 21) explained that Gov. Pete Wilson’s proposed 1993-94 budget called for a 50% reduction in the Arts Council budget and recommended “privatizing” the agency next year.

Let’s not kid ourselves about “privatization” of the Arts Council--it means eliminating an agency that serves millions of Californians. The arts are already privatized. What California needs is to preserve and strengthen its public/private partnerships in the arts and to create new ones. Eliminating the state government side of the partnership means upsetting this delicate and historically successful balance.

The private sector cannot service a state as populous and diverse as California without seed money from the state. In the last three years while the Arts Council’s budget has been reduced by 20%, the private sector has been pushed to the limit. The California Community Foundation, for example, has only been able to fund a fraction of the worthy art programs.

Last year the foundation received about 1,000 eligible art proposals and of those only 50 were funded. In these recessionary times, the foundation is also being asked to fund all kinds of basic social service needs traditionally the responsibility of government, only one of which is the arts.

While everybody applauds the Arts Council for finding new sources of private funding, it is absurd and unfair to base the future of the Arts Council on the sale of trinkets and other commodities, which can neither replace the monetary nor the symbolic value of state support for the arts.

Last year when the arts and arts education community worked very hard to pass the Artistic License Plate bill, the law stated that potential revenue was to augment public funding of local arts programming and arts education--not replace it.

In addition, the passage of SB 1571 (Mello) required that a portion of the Artistic License Plate Fund, as determined by the Arts Council, be used to fund local arts education partnerships.

The state’s annual investment in the arts is 43 cents per capita, less than almost any other state or territory. California’s support for the arts has fallen to a mere $12.7 million, a tiny fraction of California’s budget, but that small investment is returned tenfold to the taxpayers in the form of arts programming and jobs. The loss of $12.7 million of Arts Council support would be definitive. Our communities would experience:

* Dramatic reduction of cultural programs throughout California and the probable loss of many arts organizations.

* Loss of arts-related jobs and other forms of economic development generated by the arts and ancillary services.

* Loss of access in rural communities to the arts and its tourism-generated revenue.

* Loss of artists in the schools, who currently teach hundreds of thousands of children.

* The negative impact on the entertainment and tourism industry as California fails to foster the artistic excellence and diversity that has made this state a cultural destination.

All governments throughout time have supported the arts. They did this because they wanted their nation or city to be seen as a place of greatness. Even during the Great Depression, public support for the arts was recognized as vital.

The current economic recession should not be allowed to permanently damage California’s cultural infrastructure.