Arts and Cultural Policy

Abstract

This article focuses on arts and cultural policy in the United States. It provides an analysis of the history and scope of arts and cultural policy in the United States. The varied and evolving roles of government arts agencies, such as the National Endowment for the Arts and state arts agencies, have been discussed. In addition, cultural indicators in arts and cultural policy, including macro cultural indicators, meso cultural indicators, and micro cultural indicators have been described along with the process of arts and cultural policy implementation at the national and state levels.

Overview

The United States’ federal arts & cultural policy, as described by the U.S. National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities (NFAH), is developed and implemented to encourage a comprehensive national policy that supports humanities and the arts in the United States as well as institutions that conserve the culture and traditions of the United States. In the United States, arts and cultural policies are often incorporated into another policy context such as education or foreign policy. Art and cultural policies are distributed and subsumed into the efforts and agendas of over thirty different federal agencies (Wyszomirski, 1998).

Governments create arts and cultural policy for numerous reasons including the following:

• To instill loyalty in their citizens
• To support the agendas of social movements
• To create international prominence and reputation
• To strengthen communities
• To build up struggling local economies

National governments increasingly partner with local governments and business stakeholders to build up arts and cultural industries in economically depressed regions. The American Arts Alliance (AAA) estimates that each dollar of National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) money invested in the arts provides a 20-fold return in contracts, services, and jobs in American society and economy. Arts and cultural industries in cities are closely related to and believed to attract creative class workers. Arts, cultural and new media industries are replacing traditional industrial sectors throughout the global economy (Miller, 2000).

In the United States, the federal government's annual budget for arts and cultural policies and initiatives is approximately $2 billion. This amount provides direct federal appropriations to the three main arts and cultural organizations (the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute for Museum and Library Services), the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Smithsonian, the Kennedy Center, arts programs in Justice, Education, Housing and Urban Development departments, and military bands. The annual budget for military bands often exceeds the National Endowment for the Arts' annual budget.

Federal arts and cultural policy during the twentieth century, as described in presidential arts and culture reports from 1953 to 1997, concerned issues such as public funding for the arts, commissioning and high artistic standards, arts and education, preserving cultural heritage, international cultural exchanges, framework of the federal cultural administration, role of private philanthropy, tax policy and the arts, arts and urban development, copyright, role of libraries and universities, and the effect of technology on the arts and culture (Strom & Wyszomirski, 2004).

Art and cultural policy in the United States has a complex history, serves multiple purposes, and has multiple and diverse stakeholders. The following sections will describe and analyze the history and scope of arts and cultural policy in the United States. This overview will serve as a foundation for later sections on the use of cultural indicators in arts and cultural policy making and the implementation of arts and cultural policy at national and state levels.

History of U.S. Arts & Cultural Policy. The relationship between the U.S. federal government and the arts began in the eighteenth century. The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, which guaranteed freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly, influenced the development and direction of early arts and cultural policies. The First Amendment prohibited the U.S. government from being connected or related to the production of meaning for its citizens. As a result of the First Amendment, the federal government did not engage, elevate, or discriminate within artistic or cultural areas (Miller, 2000).

The U.S. Constitution further complicated the relationship between the federal government and the arts by granting government some rights to oversee and be involved in copyright issues. Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to encourage the growth of science and other useful arts by obtaining, for a limited time, the exclusive right to the respective writings and discoveries for authors and inventors. The tension between the Constitutional directives, such as the First Amendment and Article 1, has created hundreds of years of tensions and multiple perspectives on the appropriate level of government involvement in the arts. The national government, academia, and society have debated questions such as: What is censorship? Who decides what aesthetics should receive government sponsorship? Ultimately, the Constitutional directives, as they are interpreted in the arts and culture areas, require the national government to be cautious and limited in artistic and cultural affairs (Wyszomirski, 1998).

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, there were numerous debates about the proper role of the government's oversight and involvement in arts and culture. For example, when President John Quincy Adams asked Congress for money in 1825 to start a national university, observatories, and related programs, critics accused him of attempting to foster a centralized national culture. Critics argued that arts and culture must be separate from the state. Throughout much of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, foreign countries and governments viewed the United States as having no official public or private cultural position or standing. This rather critical of appraisal of the United States during this time did not take into account the federal government's efforts to adhere to the requirements of the First Amendment and Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution (Miller, 2000).

The United State's federal arts and cultural policies began in earnest in the twentieth century. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the federal government began to develop the system of museums (including the Smithsonian Institution, the Library of Congress, and the National Archives), created the Fine Arts Commission, and built the national monuments in Washington, D.C. (Wyzsomirski, 1998). The following events, initiatives, and programs represent significant moments in the evolution of arts and cultural policy in America (Miller, 2000):

• Tax incentives: In 1917–1918, the United States became the first nation to permit tax deductions for gifts to nonprofit organizations. This system of tax incentives is, in part, responsible for the charitable contributions and philanthropy that created the collections of numerous arts and cultural museums.
• National parks: In 1916, the National Park Service Act was passed to create, oversee, and conserve national parks, monuments, and reservations as well as the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein.
• Works Progress Administration: In the 1930s, the federal government created the Works Progress Administration to provide jobs for artists, as well as others, during the Depression.
• National Endowment for the Arts: In 1965, the National Endowment for the Arts was founded. In addition, during the 1960s, U.S. not-for-profit foundations, such as Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller, helped generate an infrastructure of artistic support for orchestras, dance, theatre, and opera companies.
• Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA): In 1973, the CETA was passed and had an important influence on twentieth-century arts and cultural policy through its Artists-in-Residence program that provided income security to artists.

Modern arts and cultural policy is based on the national arts infrastructure created in the 1960s. The 1960s' economic and social environment was characterized by racial desegregation, Affirmative Action, growth of welfare programs, and increased environmental awareness. Federal and state governments were searching for help and solutions for many American cities suffering economically and socially from job loss and disinvestment by corporations. Federal arts funding, often developed in relationship with a private sector organization such as the Business Council for the Arts and the Rockefeller Foundation, was viewed as a potential solution or remedy to the social chaos and economic crisis of American inner cities.

The Scope of U.S. Arts & Cultural Policy. The scope of American arts and cultural policy was first defined and recorded in the 1960s by the U.S. National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities (NFAH). According to Section 952 (sec. 3) of the U.S. National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities (NFAH) Act of 1965, which created the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts, national arts and cultural policy would include the following list of major art form: music (instrument and vocal), dance, drama, folk art, creative writing, architecture and allied fields, painting, sculpture, photography, graphic and craft arts, industrial design, costume and fashion design, motion pictures, television, and radio, tape, and sound recording.

Section 952 developed and defined the National Endowment for the Arts’ mission and agenda for arts and cultural policy. The National Endowment for the Arts, established by Congress in 1965 as an independent agency of the federal government, is the nation’s largest annual sponsor of the arts. The National Endowment for the Arts brings art to all 50 states including rural areas, inner cities, and military bases. The National Endowment for the Arts’ stated mission is to promote success, variance, and spirit in the arts as well as to increase the accessibility and enjoyment of such excellent, varied, and spirited art. Operational objectives or goals developed to realize its mission include providing support for projects and productions that encourage, meet, or promote standards of professional excellence, make artistic activities available to those citizens who would not otherwise have them by reason of geography or economics, and encourage public knowledge, appreciation, and enjoyment of the arts.

American arts and cultural policy is founded on a distinction between professional and amateur artistic and cultural activities. According to Wyzsomirski, American arts and cultural policies are based on the assumption that the government's role is to assist the professional artist and arts organization rather than amateur arts activity. Early arts and cultural policy supported and nurtured professionalism in the interest of public service and public interests. The public, and society at large, is considered an audience rather than participants in the artistic cultural process (Wyszomirski, 1998).

Applications

Making Policy with Cultural Indicators. American stakeholders, more aware of government public policy and influence, are requiring greater accountability for the use of federal funds. Cultural indicators, a form of cultural statistics, have been developed as a tool to measure social need and policy. Cultural indicators are quantifiable tools used for evaluating arts and cultural policies. Cultural indicators are a tool used to evaluate the effect of social policy on society as well as existing or developing social needs. Statistics play an integral part in developing arts and cultural policy. Arts and cultural policy is made based, in part, on the information provided through cultural indicators. A cultural indicator refers to a statistic that can be utilized to understand, track, or assess a cultural aspect such as arts, cultural policies, programs, or actions. Quantitative indicators are considered to be special statistics or statistics with higher meanings.

There is a complex relationship between stakeholders, policies, and statistical measurements. In the United States, state art agencies as well as nonprofit arts foundations, such as the Lila Wallace Readers Digest Fund and the Pew Charitable Trusts, use cultural indicators and performance measures as preferred assessment methods to evaluate and monitor arts and cultural programs and initiatives. Governments of countries that use cultural indicators, including Canada, New Zealand, Belgium, China, England, Spain, Mexico, Columbia, and the United States, use cultural reporting to inform cultural policy (Wyszomirski, 1998).

Cultural indicators are used for monitoring and evaluating arts and cultural policies. Monitoring refers to tracking cultural phenomena and evaluating refers to quantifying the impact of cultural policies and programs. Monitoring and evaluating with cultural indicators and social indicators in general, includes five main stages: description, monitoring, setting goals, outcomes-based accountability, and valuation. There is an established hierarchy to cultural indicators, expressed by macros, meso, and micro indicators, based on variables of geographic and power:

• Macro indicators refer to sector-wide tracking and examining. Examples include cultural indicators regarding development and cultural norms.
• Meso indicators refer to regional or cross-agency policy observation and examination. Examples include measuring outcomes of an arts council policy.
• Micro indicators refer to agency program observing and assessing. Examples include indicators measuring art event results.

Characteristics of effective cultural indicators include reliability, clarity, accessibility, and generalizability (Madden, 2005). Cultural indicators are often used for advocacy and justifying government intervention in cultural affairs. Numerous national governments and development organizations compile and distribute sets of social, economic, and cultural indicators, in part, to meet the demand for quantifiable data about social, economic, and cultural progress and need.

Issues

Implementation of U.S. Arts and Cultural Policy. In the United States, arts and cultural policy are developed and implemented at the national and regional levels. At the national level, responsibility for arts and cultural policies is fragmented among a number of federal agencies, institutions, and partnerships including the National Endowment for the Arts, the Smithsonian Institution, the National Gallery, the Kennedy Center, the Office of Copyright and Patents, the National Trust for Historical Preservation, the Fine Arts Commission, and the General Services Administration Art in Architecture Program.

At the state or local level, responsibility for arts and cultural policies is increasingly tied to culture-led development in economically depressed urban environments. Ideally all American cities, often considered to be the drivers of the federal economy, would generate wealth, employment, and productivity growth. In reality, American cities, such as Washington DC and Detroit, are suffering from the negative externalities created by urbanization, such as unemployment or underemployment; economic and social inequalities; challenges to social cohesion; urban sprawl and congestion; environmental problems; and housing shortages. Numerous American cities are suffering from urban decline and do not have the local or federal fiscal support to fix the situation. Urban decline is characterized by problems clustered in urban regions, such as unemployment or underemployment, under-investment in physical infrastructure, homelessness, decrease in local population, and decrease in private sector presence and investment (Freudenberg, 2006).

Urban cities in economic and social crisis are increasingly using the arts to create economic development and opportunity and attract a creative class of people and businesses. For example, the Detroit Institute of the Arts does significant outreach to the low and moderate-income communities in their city (Miller, 2000). In addition, the National Endowment for the Arts provides block grants to state arts agencies for general programs and administrative expenses as well as for targeted programs such as folk art or rural arts development. The state arts agencies, which exist in all fifty states, use national block grants to provide block grants for small, local and county arts agencies (Wyszomirski, 1998).

Conclusion

The Future of U.S. Arts and Cultural Policy. In the final analysis, there is tension between the constitutionally limited role of government in arts and culture activities and the real potential of arts and cultural policy to accomplish the following objectives:

• Instill loyalty in citizens.
• Support the agendas of social movements.
• Create international prominence and reputation.
• Strengthen communities.
• Strengthen depressed local economies.

The United States develops its arts and cultural policy to meet the needs of American society, culture, and economy. These policy choices, which diverge from the predominant international approaches to arts and cultural policy as characterized and defined by the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) formally approved Convention on the Protection of the Diversity of Cultural Contents and Artistic Expressions, are increasingly representative of amateur and professional arts as well as diverse segments of American society (Albro, 2005).

Arts and cultural policy was shaped in significant ways by two influential reports issued in 1997: The Creative America Report and American Arts Assembly Report.

The Creative America Report offered an overview of the composition and contributions of the cultural sector to American life as well as the public-private support for the arts and humanities in the United States. The PCAH Creative America report included six recommendations or goals to strengthen cultural life in the United States:

• A national initiative to renew American philanthropic dedication to the arts and humanities
• An evaluation of the nation’s need to preserve the arts and a plan to protect its cultural heritage
• A public-private collaboration to digitize cultural materials to make them available using newer forms of technology
• Procedures designed to improve education about the arts and humanities
• Incremental increases in federal funding of cultural agencies to reach $2.00 per person by the year 2000
• A White House discussion on increasing knowledge and education about other countries and cultures, including international, cultural, and educational exchange programs

A second report, The Arts and the Public Purpose, produced by the American Assembly, called for the art sector's renewed commitment to public service. The American Assembly report identified ways to increase the capacity of the arts sector to serve public purposes. The American Assembly report made the following recommendations to state arts agencies and arts organizations:

• Increase collaboration across the component parts of the arts sector.
• Dedicate more attention to the arts sector’s overall financial security and to funding that promotes the public good.
• Improve the way that the arts are distributed and disseminated in order to ensure full access for all Americans at an acceptable price
• Renew attention to, and funding for, preserving America's cultural heritage.
• Improve educational programs in the arts.
• Increase and improve data, research, and analysis to promote the creation of beneficial arts policies.

Ultimately, American arts and cultural policy, as characterized and directed by both the PCAH Creative America report and the American Assembly report, represent a broader and more inclusive definition of the arts and culture than previously existed in American public policy and society-at-large (Wyszomirski, 1998).

The three largest sources of arts funding remain the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), Congressional appropriations for the arts for states, and local governments. In 2012, NEA funding levels approximated $146 million. After reaching an all-time high of $450 million in 2001, state appropriations for the arts have decreased by 27 percent since 2008, a consequence of the global financial crisis. In 2017, NEA funding was more than $149.8 million. President Donald J. Trump's initial budget proposal for fiscal year 2018, released in March 2017, called for cutting nearly $1 billion from funding for the NEA and other cultural heritage agencies. Global economic insecurity and political partisanship are expected to negatively influence public funding for the arts in the coming decades.

Terms & Concepts

Arts: The activities and products that result from visual, performing, and language-arts activities and initiatives.

Arts and Cultural Policy: Policy developed and implemented to encourage comprehensive national policy in support of the humanities and the arts in the United States and for institutions that take care to conserve the cultural heritage and legacy of the United States.

Culture: Patterns of human activity involving symbolic classification, codification, and communication.

Cultural Indicators: Statistics used to monitor and evaluate arts and cultural policies and needs.

Federal Government: A form of government in which a group of states recognizes the sovereignty and leadership of a central authority while retaining certain powers of government.

Macro Cultural Indicators: Sector-wide observation and assessment

Meso Cultural Indicators: Regional or cross-agency policy tracking and examining

Micro Cultural Indicators: Agency program observation and examination.

National Endowment for the Arts (NEA): A public agency committed to promoting high quality art that is accessible to all Americans as well as supporting improvements in arts education.

State Arts Agencies (SAA): State agencies that provide block grants for local/county arts agencies as part of decentralization programs.

Bibliography

Albro, R. (2005). Managing culture at diversity's expense? Thoughts on UNESCO's Newest Cultural Policy Instrument. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 35, 247–254. Retrieved April 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=20001085&site=ehos-live

Freudenberg, N. Fahs, M., Galea, S., & Greenberg, A. (2006). The impact of New York City's 1975 fiscal crisis on the tuberculosis, HIV, and homicide syndemic. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 424–434. Retrieved April 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=19971710&site=ehost-live

Hazledine, T. (2011). Arts funding in New Zealand: a proposal for reform. Cultural Trends, 20, 65–84. doi:10.1080/09548963.2011.540814 Retrieved November 18, 2013 from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=58667687&site=ehost-live

Kalimo, E. (2005). OECD social indicators for 2001: a critical appraisal. Social Indicators Research, 70, 185–229. Retrieved April 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=17117892&site=ehost-live

Kroll, L. (2012). Billionaire Leon Black on why funding arts is so important. Forbes.com, 9. Retrieved November 18, 2013 from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=82030926&site=ehost-live

Madden, C. (2005). Cross-country comparisons of cultural statistics: issues and good practice. Cultural Trends, 14, 299–316. Retrieved Wednesday, April 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=20338678&site=ehost-live

Miller, T. (2000). The National Endowment for the Arts in the 1990s. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 1429. Retrieved Wednesday, April 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=3129405&site=ehost-live

National Endowment for the Arts: about us. (2006). National Endowment for the Arts. Retrieved April 18, 2007 from http://www.nea.gov/about/index.html

National Endowment for the Arts (2017). National Endowment for the Arts appropriations history. National Endowment for the Arts. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from https://www.arts.gov/open-government/national-endowment-arts-appropriations-history

Neary, D. (2012). State funding OK for arts organizations?. Wyoming Business Report, 12, 18A–19A. Retrieved November 18, 2013 from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=71980054&site=ehost-live

Peet, L. (2017). Trump FY18 budget cuts library, arts, culture. Library Journal, 142(7), 12–15. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=122467499&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Rosenstein, C., Riley, V., Rocha, N., & Boenecke, T. (2013). The distribution and policy implications of US state government general operating support to the arts and culture: Lessons from the great recession. Cultural Trends, 22(3/4), 180–191. doi:10.1080/09548963.2013.817648 Retrieved November 18, 2013 from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=90289803&site=ehost-live

Strom, E., & Wyszomirski, M. (2004). New directions in arts and cultural policy: forward by the editors. Review of Policy Research, 21, 465–467. Retrieved Wednesday, April 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=13515051&site=ehost-live

Wahhab, I. (2013). Making financial sense of the arts. Director (00123242), 66, 31. Retrieved November 18, 2013 from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=90610617&site=ehost-live

Wyszomirski, M. (1998). Comparing cultural policies in the United States and Japan: preliminary observations. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 27, 265–282. Retrieved April 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=305585&site=ehost-live

Wyszomirski, M. (1997). Through the policy window: the context of cultural policy — introduction to the symposium on the policy role of education entities. Arts Education Policy Review, 98, 9–13.

Suggested Reading

Boles, J., & Scheurer, K. (2007). Beyond women, children, and families: gender, representation, and public funding for the arts. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 39–50. Retrieved Wednesday, April 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=23697503&site=ehost-live

Evans, G. (2000). Measure for measure: evaluating performance and the arts organization. Studies in Cultures, Organizations & Societies, 6, 243–266. Retrieved Wednesday, April 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=4055304&site=ehost-live

Knight, F. K. (2017). The ultimate calamity scenario in US arts funding: Eliminating the National Endowment for the Arts. Cultural Trends, 26(4), 341–344. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=126248254&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Shockley, G. (2004). Government investment in cultural capital: a methodology for comparing direct government support for the arts in the U.S. and the U.K. Public Finance & Management, 4, 75–102. Retrieved Wednesday, April 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=13663817&site=ehost-live