President Reagan's recent budget proposals, if passed, will threaten the existence of the arts and humanities in America. Severe cuts in cultural spending are part of Ronald Reagan's attempts to balance America's accounts by 1985. Few seem to realize the inadequacy and shortsightedness of this $150 million decision. Those who do are battling to alter Reagan's budget plans but it appears likely that it will be a lost struggle. Most Congressmen regard government aid to the arts and humanities in America as extravagant and unnecessary. As a result cultural spending is to be cut by more than half to $150 million in this month's budget.

The massive cuts will have serious repercussions. The arts and humanities will be forced to cater for an elite group in American society. Until now the spirit of the cultural allowances has enabled everyone in America to be interested in everything. If the arts allowance is reduced by more than 50% under budget director David Stockman, many of the community based programmes and rural areas will suffer. Unlike the mass audience programmes and the large institutions such as the museums, symphonies and opera companies, these smaller groups have few alternate sources of funding. The cuts will also mean few new American artists can be encouraged.

Value of Arts

It appears likely that Reagan's budget proposals will also effect the current social arts programme. The Conservatives have questioned the merits of an artist-in-residence in the Oklahoma prison system, and have doubted the value of the blues guitarist Fenton Robinson taking part in a "Blues in the Schools" project, which aimed to reach black children and tell them about their cultural heritage.

Later this year Reagan is expected to replace the chairmen of the arts and humanities grants. It seems likely that the President will appoint men who have so far criticised the grants that make "social statements", especially the arts programmes which have made awards to prison projects and to neighbourhood and minority communities.

Regrettably, the influential Heritage Foundation report to Reagan criticising the arts and humanities for compromising "their high purpose by funding programmes that dilute intellectual and artistic quality in order to expand their popular appeal" has made its mark. This blatant elitism must be questioned. So too must the attitude of Richard Bishirjian, (a professor in political science at the College of New Rochelle in New York) who as head of the humanities team believed that the fund was "inundated with junk". Criticising a $753,000 grant to make a film about textile workers in North Carolina he praised a smaller grant for a film about Carl Sandburg saying: "The life of Carl Sandburg touches millions. I'm not interested in the lives of workers."

For those in monied and powerful decision making groups at the top, the cuts are not likely to be felt. "It's not the people who pay top ticket prices who will be hit; it's the people who can't afford them" commented Martin Segal, the Chairman of New York's Lincoln Centre, announcing his campaign against the budget proposals.

Furthermore, it appears that the President's men have failed to realize what lobbyist Anne Murphy has pointed out: "an unemployed artist is just as unemployed as an unemployed steelworker." Congress appears not to be concerned. The arts are considered elitist and of little importance compared to the social welfare, energy and massive defence programmes the government have planned.

Dollar Debates

The plight of the arts in America may cause some of the biggest debates per dollar in this year's budget. The $200 million at stake however represents only 0.03% of total Federal spending. In fact, the money the Administration propose cutting from the arts endowment is less than the Defense Department will spend this year on military bands.

The arts cuts raise another issue. Artists say they are happy to help "revitalize" America, but they are concerned that the cutbacks in spending may reopen the whole debate over whether the government should subsidize the arts at all. Congress created the arts and humanities grants only 15 years ago and has spent less than most Western nations in support of the arts since. Britain, for example, recently reduced subsidies for the Royal Opera House by 15 per cent to nearly $20 million. By contrast, all of the opera companies in America received less then $5 million in 1979.

New ideas are being put forward to help make the arts pay. A group of arts supporters in the House see American culture as providing an economic and a spiritual advantage for the country. They believe the arts and humanities could become an industry employing over a million people and generating $5 in local tax revenue for every dollar of government support.

Private Sources for Finance

President Reagan has suggested that private sources should increase their financial support in the American arts. Spokesmen for AT and T, IBM, Exxon and other corporations however are doubtful that this is possible. In New York, Robert Thill of At and T commented: "We're also going to be hit by the health, welfare and school people. There just isn't enough to take care of everybody."

Wilson Cronenwett of the Muskegon (Michigon) West Shore Symphony added: "Psychologically it would be wrong to go back to the people. They're being as supportive as they can."

David Stockman, the budget's director, must be challenged when he claims that artists and cultural institutions are beginning to regard the Federal government as "the financial patron of the first resort" before exploring the possibilities of individual and corporate donors. Statistics show that while Federal support for the arts endowment has gone up from an initial $2.5 million to about $159 million, private contributions have risen from $226 million to $2.7 billion. Theatres and symphonies receive only a small proportion of their funds from Federal grants, and in 1980 only 4.6% of the budgets of thirty major non-profit theatres came from the government.

Already top PBS television journalists Rovert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer are considering where they may go with their award winning news shows if funding does dry up. The consequences of the cuts will be enormous.

Some solutions must be found for the sake of the artists and the country. Obviously some reduction in spending is necessary if Reagan is determined to balance the budget. America's politicians however must reconsider where they are making these cuts and rethink the significance of their decisions.

Reference: Newsweek March 16, 1981.

Margaret Paterson