From the Executive Director
Primary Concerns
By Teresa Eyring
As the 2008 election debate escalates, I am reminded that presidential candidates generally don’t spend much stump time expounding upon the usefulness of the arts in strengthening the nation. The national discourse seems to stand in contrast to numerous local and regional centers across the U.S., where in recent decades, policy-makers have made it their business to both talk about and mobilize the arts in service of stronger, wiser, more economically viable communities. In many cases, state and local legislators have carried the torch for the arts as an essential strategy in revitalizing their regions, and for developing thoughtful, informed citizens.
While the topic has not featured prominently in presidential primary campaign speeches, some of the candidates have published position papers with compelling proposals on the arts as a means toward a healthier, happier, more competitive nation. And, regardless of your individual leanings or reactions to any candidate’s overall platform, it is instructive to see how these presidential hopefuls are thinking about our industry. So here’s a snapshot of some of the points that I find most interesting, knowing full well that by the time this issue of American Theatre hits the stands, these candidates may not all still be in the running. Still, in the future, they may hold positions where they may be our allies, so it’s worth knowing what they are thinking about.
Hillary Clinton, in addition to her general statements about supporting and increasing funding for the NEA, NEH, and Institute of Museum and Library Services, writes about the need for affordable health care and retirement plans for all artists; incentives for schools to include arts education; and a special “Putting Arts in Reach” initiative that would offset the cost of musical instruments, art supplies and drama equipment, and other tools for arts education. She also advocates a doubling of students reached through the Department of Education’s Model Development and Dissemination program. She believes in the arts as a means of economic development and that we must promote cultural diplomacy through cultural exchange programs that benefit American and foreign artists.
Mike Huckabee is a fierce arts-education advocate who writes about his desire to give all children what he calls “weapons of mass instruction”: art and music. He believes this will help us to be competitive and creative, noting that children with artistic talent should be as rigorously encouraged as those with athletic ability, and that our future economy depends on a creative generation. He also expounds upon the effect of arts programs in “leveling the academic playing field,” especially for children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. (Note: If Huckabee does not find himself in or near the White House, perhaps we can still borrow some of his lingo.)
Barack Obama also places strong value on arts education in order to help the U.S. remain competitive in the global economy. He proposes an “Artists Corps” of young artists trained to work in low-income schools and communities and vows to use the presidency as a bully pulpit for the importance of arts education. During his victory speech following the Wisconsin primary, he called for high standards of excellence in American education with the inclusion of art, music and literature in the curriculum. He also advocates an increase in the Education Department’s Model Development and Dissemination program, and he would increase funding for the NEA; provide health care for artists in conjunction with his overall health care plan; and place a high priority on cultural diplomacy.
John McCain has yet to publish his position on the arts, but I am hopeful that it will be forthcoming.
As of this writing, both Clinton and Obama have published at least one revision of their respective policy statements, which may indicate a sense of attentiveness to the issue. Americans for the Arts has been a watchdog in demanding that the candidates adopt and publish an arts platform. Once the elections have passed, can we maintain this energy and move toward adoption of the most effective strategies? Might we have a president who indeed uses his or her position to advocate for the arts, artists, arts educators, arts education and cultural diplomacy? I hope that American Theatre readers will monitor the race with arts issues in mind, and will join with us in advocating for a sense of passion about the arts at the national level that mirrors and exceeds what has been more typically achieved in local and regional environments. For more information, visit www.artsactionfund.org/artsvote.
A postscript: After one of her recent international journeys, TCG’s director of artistic programs and of the U.S. Center of the International Theatre Institute, Emilya Cachapero, returned to the office with a wonderful little book called Municipal Mind: Manifestos for the Creative City, by Pier Giorgio Di Cicco, the poet laureate of Toronto. In his manifesto “Out of the Silos,” Di Cicco writes, “The cultural problem in major cities is neither the absence of goodwill for the arts, nor the lack of funding for the arts…. The problem is how to let art spill over into the creative potential of the city at large, in commerce and routine, in business and community.… Creativity is, after all, ‘renewable energy.’ It accomplishes itself, regenerates itself if its source is acknowledged, and that source is always the civic heart.”