Few would disagree that the arts are a defining characteristic of a people, a culture, or a nation. A vibrant arts scene can make major contributions, for example, to a city’s tourism industry, and can attract new residents. Indeed, the value of art goes far beyond the simple presentation of a feast for the senses. Research proves that participation in arts programs can significantly benefit the elderly, the rehabilitation of prisoners, and children and adults suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental illnesses, by, among other things, stimulating the brain.
Funding for the arts comes from several sources. Private patrons might commission a work for their own enjoyment, or for lending to a museum or other venue for public consumption. Arts organizations might sponsor a fundraising event. Governments sponsor artists as individuals or groups through grant programs, which, depending on the terms of the grant, might require the grant recipient to produce public art. One innovative city government successfully persuaded writers to relocate by providing a newly renovated house at no charge.
Unfortunately, when fiscal times get tough, among the first funding casualties are arts programs. Private contributions fall, sometimes precipitously. Government funding dries up, with far-ranging effects. New and established artists, unable to secure government grants, can’t produce new works. Museums cut back the hours in which they are open to the public, raise their admission prices, or even close their doors. Arts organizations scramble to find the money to keep their programs running. Funding for arts programs that may rehabilitate prisoners or help those suffering from mental illnesses is cut.
Some jurisdictions fighting to keep their art scenes alive have turned to voter-approved taxes to raise the needed revenue. These taxes can take just about any form. Portland, Oregon, imposes a $35 tax on all residents over 18 years old. Liability for the tax is determined by the taxpayer’s income — households at the federal poverty level are exempt, individuals who earn $1,000 or less per year are also exempt, and income from certain sources like Social Security is not included in determining whether a resident is subject to the tax. The city recently won a challenge by a resident arguing the levy was a poll tax in violation the state’s constitution; the case went to the state supreme court, which sided with the city.1 Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, where the fast-growing city of Charlotte is located, is looking at increasing its sales tax by a quarter-cent to provide a dedicated funding stream for the Arts and Science Council, the agency that provides funds for public art installations, educational programs, awards and festivals, and more, for all municipalities within the county.
These are two examples of how some jurisdictions are working to overcome the funding problem for their arts communities. Art is more than a means to express the culture of a people: It confers tangible benefits on the elderly and those who need rehabilitation, whether in the prison system or hospital. Winston Churchill once said, “the arts are essential to any complete national life. The state owes it to itself to sustain and encourage them. Ill fares the race which fails to salute the arts with the reverence and delight which is their due.”2 Truly, these are words to live by.