"'The arts and humanities: there's something in it for you!' U.S. culture for the masses (Museum funding: Vying for scarce public and private funds, American museums stress their economic and social relevance)," The Art Newspaper, Dec. 1993, p. 10.

"The arts and humanities: There's something in it for you!"

by Jason Edward Kaufman

Vying for scarce public and private funds, American museums stress their economic and social relevance.

The t.v. shuttles through a series of vignettes -- an art museum, a jazz club, a poetry reading -- eavesdropping on members of the audience. One person likes the show, another is not so sure, but it looks like fun. And a comforting male voice reassures, "Let's face it, you can't expect every cultural activity to appeal to you. That's why 23,000 cultural organizations are inviting you to find something you can get excited about." And to help you get started, a toll-free telephone number appears offering a brochure on how to participate in the arts and humanities in your community. The tagline promises: "The arts and humanities: There's something in it for you!"

Ads like this have begun to infiltrate t.v., radio, newspapers and magazines in the top one hundred U.S. markets as part of a campaign "to heighten public awareness of the value of cultural institutions and the arts." The project has been launched by The National Cultural Alliance (NCA), a three-year-old foundation-sponsored coalition of 45 arts and humanities organizations in turn representing thousands of U.S. institutions whose goal is to bolster grassroots support for U.S. cultural interests. The NCA's print and broadcast campaign was developed pro bono by the Ad Council, a public service group within the communications industries, which lined up the voluntary services of an ad agency and is helping persuade media to donate space and air time estimated to be worth $20 million.

Throughout the country similar efforts are being made to make the case for the value of culture. As agitprop artists twit right-wing legislators, it becomes increasingly difficult for many cultural institutions to seem worthy of public trust and dollars -- at precisely the time when the deficit-plagued economy induces bi-partisan belt tightening. Museums completing long-planned expansions find the government is cutting back the operating funds needed to run them. And even the best-endowed museums (the Getty excluded) must ceaselessly seek to convince politicians, foundations, and corporations that their programs merit backing. The old (true) arguments about leisure and personal enrichment aren't working anymore, so museums are justifying themselves in new ways.

For the politically correct, multicultural nineties, the key is relevance -- both economic and social. "Cultural organizations have to be able to articulate to the general public and to elected officials why dollars should go into their sector," says Luis R. Cancel, New York City's cultural commissioner. But the task is not an easy one. As a contributor to a recent issue of Museum News writes, "No one in the State House really cares about...art. They need to create jobs and generate income.... [For] business and political leaders, museum's don't add to the quality of life -- they contribute to the quantity of trade."

With that in mind, The Metropolitan Museum of Art teamed up with The Museum of Modern Art and The Guggenheim Museum to conduct an economic impact survey of the 1.79 million visitors who attended four major exhibitions during the 1992-93 season. The study left no doubt that blockbusters are good for New York. The joint project reported that "Magritte" and "Ribera" at the Metropolitan attracted (595,000 out-of-town visitors), "Matisse" at MoMA (945,000), and "The Great Utopia" at the Guggenheim (254,000). These art lovers collectively spent $600 million, in turn generating $60 million in taxes for the city and state. In a few months those three institutions alone earned tax revenues nearly equal to the city's entire annual cultural affairs budget.

Metropolitan director Philippe de Montebello emphasizes this is all business as usual: "Our museums more than pay back the investment the city makes in our operations." Indeed, a newly released study by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey found that cultural activities generate nearly $10 billion a year for the local economy, and indirectly create more than 100,000 jobs. "We try to impress upon the city that a healthy Met means a healthy New York," says Mr. de Montebello. Yet, New York continues to underfund its museums, forcing them to rotate gallery openings or to close part of the week. More studies like this one may help reverse the trend. But politicians will probably always fear heavy arts funding will be construed by the electorate as elitist.

To counter that image, many museums are stressing their social, as well as economic, relevance. Exhibitions often center on "the issues" -- AIDS, racial tensions, homelessness, urban decay, homosexuality. According to Edward Able, executive director of the American Association of Museums, "Efforts are directed toward our commitment to being a partner in advancing a more human and knowledgeable citizenry, which is an ethic that won't necessarily result in direct returns in terms of support. It's just museums believe that's what they're here to do." But a less easily acknowledged motivation for socially engaged shows may be that "relevance" is an important criterion in government, foundation, and corporate grant-making.

The Lila Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund sponsors programs to help museums reach disenfranchised communities. AT&T earmarks grants for museum exhibitions and purchases of work "by women and artists of color." The National Endowment for the Arts asks all applicants "to be mindful of insuring opportunities for women and individuals of racially and culturally diverse communities." In other words, to garner scarce funds, museums are urged to become concerned citizens -- to effect "gender equity in exhibitions," and to abide by other criteria that have little to do with the quality or efficacy of the artwork. Sometimes efforts are so ostentatious that they seem more like p.r. stunts than public services, as when The Whitney Museum recently paired an exhibition of "Abject Art" with another "On the Subject of Rape." Perhaps if the National Cultural Alliance campaign is successful, such antics will become unnecessary. We may soon see the day when lawmakers reap electoral rewards not by openly punishing the elitists, but by increasing the affordability and accessibility of the arts.

Jason Edward Kaufman ©