Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Email
“A critical function of public funding for the arts is the spotlight it shines on lesser heard and minority voices. […] The American rich are disproportionately male and white, and so are those who benefit from the art market. If we leave our cultural future in the hands of the wealthy, we’ll no doubt have a cultural future shaped and determined by their interests. Art created by market forces ultimately tends to serve those forces, and not the public.” —Sarah Green
With Sarah Green laying the disclaimers on thick at the beginning of this video for The Art Assignment, you know it’s going to be interesting. From the Sacklers to Kanders, and from the White House to the state house, the funding of art and art museums is very much on everyone’s mind these days. In this outstanding overview of the history, purposes, reach, and international comparison of public arts funding in the United States, Green gets to the heart of what it would mean to remove public funding of the arts. She also trots out some figures reflecting what an outstanding return on investment the arts are for public funding. And in fine Sarah Green fashion, she even sneaks in a Hunger Games reference during this spirited – and enlightened – defense of public funding for the arts.
On The Art Assignment’s recommendation, we would also recommend the companion to this piece, Why Does the Government Pay for Art? from PBS’s The Origin of Everything, with Danielle Bainbridge.
