The students of the arts find themselves having budgets cut and losing programs to make way for new plans and new proposals by both the state and federal governments. Cutting the funding for arts would be negligible - not just to the other responsibilities this nation has but also and especially to the people who depend on it so much as an outlet for creativity and as an escape from reality.
In art, money is equivalent to value, so how much your state invests per capita is a fair assumption of how much the state values art. We're lucky enough to live in the state with the largest arts budget. In 2010, New York's budget increased 6.4 percent to over $52 million. Per capita, it invests $2.50 per person in arts funding. Other states are not so lucky and several took heavy cuts to funding, such as Michigan with a projected decrease of 81 percent (Michigan's budget in 2010 was $1.4 million). California invests the least per person regarding the arts at 12 cents a person, while the District of Columbia spends the most at $11.11 per person.
What do all these numbers mean? Compared to the year prior, 37 states narrowed their funding for arts programs. In those states, school programs were cut, employees were laid off and students lose scholarship money for something they invest so much of their time in.
The topic of public funding for the arts became a punchline during the election when in the first presidential debate, Mitt Romney stated he would cut funding for PBS and other government programs that were not absolutely essential by half if he was elected. The comment spawned not only an entire series of memes but also conversation and something frequently missing from the election: logic.
According to National Assembly of State Arts Agencies (NASAA), the funding cuts would diminish the states' ability to "strengthen education outcomes, promote civic vitality and ensure that all citizens have an opportunity to enrich their lives through participating in the arts."
Not to mention, three of the programs Romney swore to cut were the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. They contribute to 0.0012 percent, 0.0004 percent, and 0.0004 percent of the federal budget, respectively.
In cutting arts funding, you don't just lose the program. You lose the education, the opportunities and the dreams of everyone involved.
Every action has a consequence, and anything with monetary value has the potential to cause major damage if taken away. The kingpins looking to cut down funding are only thinking of dollar signs and not the people it affects. It's hard to fathom the reasons for wanting to cut funding. From a selfish standpoint, it's your own entertainment you're eliminating. Looking at it from all sides, though, art is an outlet for the people involved, an escape in many cases and a distraction in others.
The beauty of art is the opportunities it creates. It allows students to step outside the walls of equations and analysis to create something unique. And for the students who dedicate themselves to it, it's not a throwaway. Academic ineligibility forces students to pay attention in every aspect of their education. Those marching band shows and roles in musicals don't happen if your other grades aren't up to par. It keeps kids busy and interested and out of trouble.
In truth, the programs need to undergo some reform. But as a whole, the good the arts do far outweighs any of the negatives. It's far too valuable to lose, and funding cuts would lead not just to the collapse of the programs but also to the devastation of the people involved.
Email: editorial@ubspectrum.com
