On the minds of Americans today is how and when we can truly begin a new upward trajectory economically and emotionally in our great country. American politicians have constantly been at odds with what to cut, what to spend anew, and how to reset. Arts and in particular, the NEA, constantly are of the first targets of what some deem as necessary cuts for financial security. It’s important to look at both sides of the question of whether governmental funding of the arts is instrumental in helping society, not just in a cultural way, but in a financial way. As an artist, I feel it my obligation to be open minded about this pivotal dilemma and offer some insight on how to solve the problem.

Undoubtedly, the NEA, through government funding has been instrumental in helping the artistic scene. In 2012, the agency received $147 Million from the Federal Government, a large sum on the surface. For a sense of reference, based on inflation, the NEA had received more money in the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton years (large cuts in 1995 lowered the funding in half for a while) than it did for Bush 43 and Obama. Presidents over the last decades have put the NEA on the chopping block only to pull back realizing how instrumental arts are to economic sustainability in the community. President Reagan famously reversed himself in 1983 when several detailed studies showed how integral arts were in promoting a healthier, open society that came with the benefit of economic development. These notable instances in the relatively short history of the NEA (it was established in 1966) are critical to examining if its’ funding is adequate, not necessary, or in need of being redirected in other ways.

The critical argument in favor of government sponsorship of the arts is the need for a well rounded and financially solvent society. The United Kingdom is a key example of this premise.

[A] study, carried out by the Center for Economics and Business Research, found that arts and culture make up 0.4 percent of Britain’s GDP, a strong return on less than 0.1 percent of government spending. The cultural sector was also seen to have increased its contribution to the U.K.’s GDP since 2008, even as the wider economy contracted over this period.

The report’s findings also highlighted the important role of the arts sector in supporting the commercial creative industries, which make up 10 percent of Britain’s GDP. Drawing on academic research, the report concluded that “proximity to arts and culture can translate to higher wages and productivity” through innovation and diffusion of ideas.

The arts have undoubtedly have proven that they are a valuable institution that can stimulate economic growth and prosperity. Cities that zone and open areas for several artistic institutions in a relatively close location can count on restaurants, bars, clubs, even clothing stores, to be vibrant and more successful for the simple notion that a large number of feet will be on the ground in an “artistic” zone, which provides these tangential places of business an opportunity at earning more money as well. Communities who place a small theater, a large theater, a museum, and a symphonic hall in one general area can consider that zone to be an economic zone in itself. That’s good for the community and it’s good for a city’s bottom line (tax revenue).

This sense of economic prosperity in economic zones is not just the asset of ensuring arts as a staple of American civil society. Culture and art form the backbone of creativity for the masses. When a child can enter a museum and witness art that he hadn’t had the opportunity ever before to see, it’s possible that his instincts will be to create something new on his own volition. And his contribution, as he grows up, will be that he forever will remain impacted by the power of art, feel compelled to participate in it more, and give back in various ways, whether through making art himself, supporting artistic institutions as they develop, or creating new avenues for artists. And it’s in this premise where we can see why the contrarian position of eliminating art funding entirely from the state is potentially valid.

In order for the arts and artists to prosper, they must be unencumbered and allowed the autonomy to be bold. Bureaucrats who control the keys to how money is delegated to which artistic organizations limit the creative capacity of any artist. Artists shouldn’t have to live under the strict control of the dollar from the state even though dollars are necessary to promulgate magnificent art. Imagine a society where panels of “experts” determine what and how certain moneys are allocated. The current NEA director is in favor of such panels. These panels of people, some of whom may not even have any attachments to certain artistic industries, can actually do more harm than good to artistic institutions because the institutions themselves become dependent on grants and funding which is never guaranteed. Artistic freedom is essential. Creating art under pressure is antithetical to the premise of the procurement and development of new artistic experiences. On an existential level, how dare the government allocate money that places artists and artistic organizations under the emotional duress of having to wait and fear if they can or can’t create the art that is so essential to their own humanity, nevertheless their own financial prosperity. Do Americans really want state control of the arts? Do Americans really want to know that the state has the power to dictate how monies are spent? It’s arguable that the state’s intentions with funding the arts actually leads into a path of subordination; the state funds the artistic institutions that best fit their own personal goals and advance shrouded agendas. The potential for more and more arts institutions to be cut out because of the narrow, unclear desires of the state is simply antithetical to American Democracy. This is not freedom; this is oppression. Our country was founded on a basic principle of individual rights…that every American has the ability to express himself freely, without the state pressing them to make critical determinations on how to run their lives. Arts organizations should not be at the behest of the state for money, especially when in America, the $147 Million that is allocated only is just the cherry on the top, not the whole sundae.

So in all of this discord, there is a middle ground that unfortunately few Americans want to discuss. Discussing the middle ground today is now taboo. You’re either left or right. You’re either for or against. You’re either the party of wrong or you are the party of NO. I submit that there is a new pathway here that we should start considering.

In our ever progressing world, technology has allowed individuals to do what was unthinkable just ten years ago.  Kickstarter, a revolutionary enterprise that has allowed individuals with creative ideas to promote their ideas and solicit donations, has now contributed through monies raised nearly twice what the NEA contributes to the artistic community…$324 Million to be exact. It is in technology where we can build on supporting our artistic organizations in a positive framework. It’s in the ability of the individual that we can actually create  broad based community of art that is both humanistically and financially prosperous. Consider that individual donors contributed over $13 Billion to the arts in 2012 and the $147 Million figure seems almost expendable. But that $147 Million dollars in FY 2012 is a sizable number that can be applied in a totally different way. It doesn’t need to be eliminated; it can be directed into a new organization.

It’s time to consider starting a cabinet level position for Secretary of Culture. Sounds out of left field and yet it’s not. If a department of culture were able to work hand in hand with private institutions and donors who are not knowledgeable of how to be philanthropic, its logical that such a department could work instead with these private citizens in a cooperation and guide them to the organizations that they feel they can champion. The state becomes auxiliary instead of instrumental in allocating money to organizations and individual donors would have a greater impetus to donate because they could be properly directed and informed of what organizations are suffering the most, what avenues are possible, and thus make decisions on their own accord. That is the essence of our United States of America. Let the state guide citizens in the right direction without pressure, without extreme obligations to fulfill political interests. A Department of Culture that advocates more emphatically for individual participation in cooperation with technological institutions like kickstarter is a pathway that many won’t consider because they’re stuck in the mantra that either direct state funding is justified or it’s oppression. Let each American citizen decide and let the government be the guiding light instead of the gatekeeper on how money is spent. We need funding from the state to fuel a Department of Culture; the funding though can used in an entirely new way where we can maximize our potential donors and allow citizens  a greater understanding of how to participate. It’s my duty as a musician and a citizen that cares deeply about my country to begin this dialogue at this critical juncture. Please feel free to contribute to this discussion. I appreciate all ideas.