Grants for N.J. artists / One more place to cut
(For those of you out there who, in fact, may be philistines, the word means a person indifferent to cultural and aesthetic values. See - we at least know what the word means.)
The arts are important. Encouraging and supporting the arts is important. And when times are good and governments are flush, we have no major problem with the state and federal governments throwing some tax dollars at the arts.
But times are not good in New Jersey, and Trenton is not flush, and right now, we have a little bit of a problem with the New Jersey State Council on the Arts handing out grants of from $6,800 to $12,000 to individual artists.
The State Council on the Arts gets money from the National Endowment for the Arts as well as from the state budget. The council takes its job seriously - experts from outside the state are brought in to examine grant applications and make recommendations. Grants given through the council have far more legitimacy than the separate, direct grants that lawmakers often add to the budget for favored arts organizations in their districts.
But still, the council's announcement last week that a total of $225,900 in grants would be doled out to individual artists in 2008 was ... well, troubling - as all discretionary spending is in these tough times. Remember, the state is talking about cutting charity care in hospitals, which haven't been receiving their fair share in the first place. The next budget may force even more hospitals in the state to close. Some state parks might be shuttered. These are tough, tough times. And, of course, Gov. Jon S. Corzine has proposed fixing it all with a wildly unpopular and complicated toll-hike proposal.
So - again, at the risk of being considered philistines - it rankles to see an Essex County artist get a $12,000 state grant so that she may continue her work doing "very detailed, obsessive colored pencil drawings on rice paper, which are cut out, sewn into, and then embedded into vibrantly colored encaustic paintings (pigmented wax and resin painted with the use of a heated palette)."
Grants to arts organizations - theaters, museums etc. - are one thing. But if individual artists can't make a go of it by selling their works, should state taxpayers really be subsidizing them at a time when the state's finances are in such dire shape?
OK - we do sound (a little) like philistines. The arts are important. But it's a question of priorities. Lots of important things are going to face cuts when Corzine unveils his budget on Tuesday. And grants to individual artists should be among the items on the chopping block.
 |  Post a Comment  View All Comments On This Story |
Most recent comments posted: (To view all comments click on VIEW ALL link above) | |
| Touche!! agree with the comments. Nick Asselta sold our children for his cushy job with the BPU and Trenton shrugs. Now school boards will have to make cuts and guess what Mr/Ms. editor, the arts will end up going first. I have seen the positive changes in children who have taken art classes at the RRCA's Art Creates Excellence program (ACE). This is the mentality that keeps South Jersey down. WAKE UP!!  Posted by: williamwillson on Wed Feb 27, 2008, 7:19 AM  | |
| As a working single mom who likes art and takes her children to museums spending that much on an artist leaves me to say get a job. I have one and have worked 2-3 in the past to take care of my children. I have passions. I love doing websites as a hobby, knitting blankets, cooking, making t-shirts, and doing resumes. I love doing stuff on the computer. Yet if I cant make a living doing this should I quit work get on welfare (state grant) while I work on my art. All of my hobbies could be considered art. Money to go to college is one thing but grants to individuals while they pursue their art is something different entirely. How many of these artist come from a middle class or higher income. As an FYI for a family of four you are considered very low income if you make 35200 or less and low income 56300 or less in Atlantic County. To many who make way less then this thats still a lot of money. Someone is working full time at McDonalds or at Macys to make a living and/or go to school for the same amount an artist is getting for doing their art. How do you get these grants because I know several artist who would like them? Posted by: mom who loves art but.... on Tue Feb 26, 2008, 3:35 PM | |
| Wow – a total of $225,900 in grants would be doled out to individual artists in 2008. How atrocious! Never mind that Nick Asselta was given a cake job on the BPU with close to $200,000 a year in salary and perks as well as free tolls, which he will need when Corzine raises the price to over $40 to travel the length of the turnpike. Unfortunately the artists, nor many other NJ residents will be able to afford to use the state’s toll roads. Never mind that for every dollar spent on the arts the state economy sees an $8 return. Never mind that these artists work, while Nick Assleta only has to show up to two meetings a month for his plum job. And to think Bryant was prosecuted for his “no-show” job. Eliminate that one unnecessary patronage job and you can employ over 20 artists. Why don’t you try living on that $12,000 a year. Many artists do on much less. Or, better yet, eliminate the funding to the artists and you, the writer, and all of your whining cronies go out and purchase one piece of original art per year! Prove that you are not a Philistine. Oh, by the way, the Philistines were advanced in their commerce, technology and arts compared to their Canaanite neighbors. Posted by: Carl B. Johnson on Mon Feb 25, 2008, 2:26 PM | |
| Philistine? That lets you off a little too easily. The individual artist who cannot make a living selling art is a biproduct of our educational system which does not impart the values that encourage support of the arts. To accuse an artist who received an unlivable albeit merciful amount of $12,000.00 to do her work, of taking health care from children is to turn a Neanderthal (sorry, cavemen, you did have art, didn't you?) eye to the state of the cruelly inadequate state of the health care system in this country. Much easier to go after an artist, who has no financial clout, than a bribing lobbyist who works against decent health care for children and families on behalf of insurance companies and makes a fine living doing so. A cowardly way to complain about an unfortunate health care situation that has arizen out of a lack of vision and courage on the part of government leaders and reporters. Fact is, vision and courage are the primary tools of artists. Our goals are just to subsist enough to share it with you who need it. Posted by: Rachel Citrino on Mon Feb 25, 2008, 1:36 PM | |
No comments:
Post a Comment