Performance

When presidents and CEOs of foundations try to balance a range of equally justifiable social agendas, where are the arts? Sponsored by GIA, six foundation leaders spent a day and a half together discussing just this topic in the summer of 2008. The relevance of their conversation and the preliminary conclusions they drew are perhaps even more urgent today than they were then, as foundations face increasingly serious questions of priority.

In The Place of the Arts in Multi-focus Foundations, Bruce Sievers writes that the rationale for supporting both the arts and the nonprofit sector as a whole is integrally linked to their capacity to advance pluralism, promote voluntary action, accommodate diversity, and champion individual visions of the public good. “Civil society,” Sievers notes, is increasingly the accepted concept to describe this sphere of social action.

As we, individually or collectively, set out to make a case for the many ways the arts have relevance in today's world of economic turmoil and change, it's helpful to be clear what we mean by terms like “art,” “culture,” and “industry” and also to understand what the same terms might mean to others. The words we use are telling. Their use has a history that says much about where the work we call “art” resides in our collective lives from one period to the next.

The following piece is excerpted from the second of a two-part article written for the Community Arts Network, “The New New Deal.” Part one, published in December 2008, was titled, “the New New Deal: Public Service Jobs for Artists.” It described some of the things artists could do with public-service jobs. This excerpt is from part two, published February 24, 2009, “A New WPA for Artists: How and Why.” In this excerpt, Goldbard takes up the question of “why,” what are all the good reasons to support a new WPA for artists.