Kennedy Center Bans Concert

[relm1]

Arts funding should not be subsidized at the federal level as a matter of policy.  States and local governments can subsidize to whatever extent they or their electorates choose.  There may be wide variances in relative funding levels geographically.  That is fine.  There already is a wide variance geographically.  The purportedly precarious nature of arts funding is irrelevant from a public policy standpoint.  So is the finite lifespan of wealthy donors to non-profits.  Non-profit organizations devoted to the arts are typically staffed with professionals aware of the pitfalls in their space and plan accordingly.  Those who do not will see the non-profits cease operations.  That is fine. 

No one cares about that in the real world in 2025. 

This is very much a pre-internet outlook.  Non-rich kids - ie, almost everyone - have access to more art and more culture from around the world than at any time in human history prior to the late 90s or thereabouts.  There are no barriers to consuming art and culture other than access to electricity, broadband/wireless, and viewing/listening hardware.  (Government imposed censorship around the world of course does impose barriers, but that is a very different topic.)  Those last items should be the focus of public policy.  If the concern is that various disadvantaged populations may lack access to the physical means to produce art and culture, then that is something that can only be effectively addressed locally as the needs of, say, rural central South Dakota will vary widely from Brooklyn.

Slight tangent, should disaster relief like hurricane relief be handled at the national or local level?  I live in part of the country that never, never gets hurricanes.  Should my federal tax money be used to fund FEMA for local problems in another state? 

To me, and I would assume you in some cases, federal funding is appropriate in some regional situations.  I often hear the idea pop up that arts funding isn't a federal issue and should be left to the states or private donors. When funding is removed, it tends to hurt lower class communities first. Inequality gets worse. That's not a local problem. That's a national one.

To me, the arts aren't some elite luxury. They're a legit economic engine. In 2022, the arts added over $1 trillion to the U.S. economy and supported millions of jobs. That benefits the national economy too.  NEA is also an investment multiplier that benefits local initiatives that are hard to get off the ground through various issues, some are local, I'll grant you that, but overall benefits everyone. 

[Todd]

To me, the arts aren't some elite luxury.

You are the only person framing the arts in such a way.  As previously cited, more people have more access to more art now than at any time pre-internet.  That is a good thing.

The dollar values cited in your response, assuming they are accurate, have much more to do with private, for-profit corporate activity.  Which is fine, and the preferred and superior approach.  As to the NEA and its purported investment multiplier, the impact is not particularly meaningful to lower income communities nationwide as the overwhelming majority of arts funding funnels to urban areas, and because the budget is not particularly large.  A couple well-heeled donors could easily cover the budget with generous bequests, or non-profits with broader donor bases could provide the funding.  It would be informative to see an independent econometric analysis regarding the actual investment multiplier of NEA expenditures.  It is good to see the arts covered in a purely financial, materialistic way, I must say.  In so doing, it opens up the possibility of meaningful policy discussions, for if the objective is ensuring the economic engine hums along, it is strikingly easy to demonstrate that taxpayer funds would be more effectively spent on other things, which would result in higher overall incomes, higher disposable incomes, and thus more funds available to spend on consuming art in any of its forms. 

The first paragraph in your response is not narrowly focused on arts and is also a classic red herring.

[owlice]

The political discussion is tiresome and threatens closure of this thread. I hope those engaging in it take their argument elsewhere.

[Todd]

The entire thread is inherently political.  I am keeping my posts narrowly focused on arts policy.  Not everyone does that.

[owlice]

Quoth a moderator:

US politics remains off-bounds on GMG. OTOH, discussing a performing arts institution and its artistic policies is acceptable.

Again, please take your wider political discussion elsewhere.

[Todd]

Again, please take your wider political discussion elsewhere.

Again, this entire thread is inherently political.

Perhaps you have some specific comments to add regarding policy and the Kennedy Center?

[owlice]

When the broader political discussion ceases, I will contribute my "specific comments" regarding the Kennedy Center (assuming the broader political discussion hasn't ceased due to the thread being locked). Not until then, however.

[owlice]

Norman Lebrecht reports the NSO is papering its Kennedy Center concerts: https://slippedisc.com/2025/10/washington-exclusive-kennedy-is-papering-its-concerts

It's worth reading the comments; despite Lebrecht's comment about "near-full houses," concert-goers are reporting the house has been half-full or less rather than near-full, even with papering.

[Brian]

This was my first experience of the word "papering".