America and the arts

Typically, when I am asked about arts or cultural policy in America, my first response is to say we have no cultural policy, or that it is market driven and laissez-faire in nature. In truth, this is not so, but government policy is somewhat limited in scope and tends to focus on the fine arts and the non-profit arts sector. To really understand arts policy in the US one needs also to look at the behaviours and activities of the funding community, as it is in the nexus between public agencies, foundations, corporations and individuals that policy really is made in the US. 

THE ROOTS OF AMERICAN PHILANTHROPY
Let us begin by comparing support for the arts in Europe to support for the arts in the US. The principal belief informing European arts policy is that art and culture is intrinsic to national heritage and, therefore, deserves to be supported by the government. Arguably then, government funding relieves – or at least minimises – the pressure on arts institutions to fundraise. Unburdened by this distraction, arts agencies and artists are free to pursue artistic endeavour away from the pressures of the market place.
In the US, the philosophical foundations behind contemporary arts policy are somewhat different. As a nation, America still retains some of its frontier psychology, and with that comes a belief in rugged individualism. As early as 1835, French historian and essayist Alexis de Tocqueville commented on the unique nature of American philanthropy. He noted the willingness of people to donate their own funds to support social improvements and observed that when Americans saw the need for a school, hospital, church or cultural service, local citizens would form a committee to discuss the need, provide leadership and seek out sources of support1. Uniquely as a nation, we founded universities, libraries and arts institutions through private, individual effort and without expecting the government to do it for us.
ENSURING ARTISTIC FREEDOM
A first premise of American cultural policy is a belief that varied funding offers the arts greater freedom than an exclusive reliance on public funds. Such diversity, the argument continues, assures greater stability as organisations become less vulnerable in periods of austerity, when government cutbacks are enforced. Second, it is said that the diversity of funding sources reduces the concentration of government power over arts policy; a strong private support base gives American arts institutions a freedom of action they would not have if they were dependent upon the government for funds. Third, because US arts agencies rely on fundraising, they must cultivate donors’ attention and goodwill, making the relationship between the arts and its audience an ever closer one.
Both European and American practices seek to assure artistic freedom, even if they pursue that end through different means. However, the mindset in the US is (even in the non-profit community) distinctly entrepreneurial. The Arts and Humanities Act, which created the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), states that “…it is necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to help create and sustain a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry but also the material conditions facilitating the release of such creative talent”. Such a climate is what is needed for creative enterprise and entrepreneurship, both of which are encouraged by the presence of the marketplace.

MAXIMISING THE BENEFITS OF
PUBLIC FUNDING
In most instances, in order to receive public funding in the US, an arts agency must match it – at least dollar to dollar – with funding from another source. Thus public funds are used to chase private donations. While this may be a questionable practice, it has created a situation favoring the cultural entrepreneur. They must prove themselves in the private sector market with admissions, sponsorships and donations, and show self-reliance before seeking public support. While this might seem illogical – those unable to command private support have the greatest need for public funding – it encourages a business-like approach to creative innovation.
Only time will tell whether or not the US is moving toward a national artistic deficit or a new era of innovation. It is clear that cultural policy in America today is different to what it was 50 years ago, when virtually all cultural philanthropy was vested with individuals who lacked strategic intent, and cultural entrepreneurship was limited to commercial undertakings. Cultural policy has been thrown into the political arena by the sort of performances that one could argue represent the “fullest attention to freedom of artistic and humanistic expression” that was articulated in the charter founding the NEA. Politicians, for example, have taken their objection to and personal dislike of work by Bill T.Jones, Robert Mapplethorpe, Andre Serrano or Karen Finley and attempted to make it policy. Ironically, this very attitude has encouraged business skills and a new focus on creativity.