Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, January 30, 1995 TAG: 9502010020
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MARTHA W. WIESE
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
At first glance, this statement appears to be totally absurd. However, one only has to examine the data to realize that this change has been quietly occurring. A little-known fact is that in 1990, the latest year for which figures are available, more than $4 billion was spent on arts-related events. That figure was higher than that spent on sports during the same period, according to The Non-Profit Times.
Isn't it interesting that both the federal government and the state government are considering reducing even further the monies allocated to support the arts, even though these numbers indicate overwhelming public benefit and support. There seems to be a dichotomy here.
The reason the arts have arrived at this state is complex. The arts have been growing, but the people working in the field, the media and even fund-raisers have failed to see it. The increases have been slow and are probably not as "glamorous" as sports. Sports marketers have done an excellent job of ensuring that sports are an integral part of today's society. Newspapers all over the country have complete sections devoted to sports events.
Part of the problem is a lack of readily available data about the arts. Another problem is that the arts cover such a diverse number of events: symphonies, theater, museums, operas, dance, to name a few, each usually working independently of other arts groups.
Third, most arts professionals spend the majority of their time just trying to survive. It's the age-old issue of not being able to see the woods for the trees.
According to the October Non-Profit Times, "Between 1965 and 1990, museum visits grew from 200 million to 500 million. The number of opera companies have doubled since 1970, and attendance at opera has increased fivefold. ... Dollars spent on attendance at cultural events have shown a steady upward trend - more than doubling in a period when sports showed only a modest gain."
Arts Reach Magazine reported in its February-March 1994 issue on a recently completed, three-year study conducted by the National Assembly of Local Arts Agencies. The study of 789 organizations in 33 cities indicated that the not-for-profit segment of the industry generated $36.8 million in annual spending and supported 1.3 million jobs nationwide. It is obvious that this segment alone makes a significant contribution in employment and tax revenues.
Add to this the fact that the study showed that 10,394 arts volunteers donate 373,815 hours to their community per year. Obviously these figures will be substantially higher if the for-profit side of the arts is included, and it is expanded to include the entire country.
Why is the perception still prevalent that the arts are not important in our society? Why do government officials insist on cutting support for a discipline that not only provides more jobs than such highly touted occupations as sports, advertising and even legal services?
This in spite of the fact that the not-for-profit segment of the arts traditionally raises a good percentage of its operating costs locally through donations. The arts are well-known for taking government support and matching it with local funds. What other industry that receives state or federal funding can say that?
This is a call for those who enjoy the arts to make themselves heard. If those in power do not hear from arts patrons, funding will be slashed yet again.
Martha W. Wiese is director of marketing for Mill Mountain Theatre.
by CNB