Global Viewpoints

From the Deputy Director

By Joan Channick

A recent visit from an international delegation of theatre artists and managers sparked a spirited discussion about government and the arts. The group, from Egypt, Gaza, Grenada, Iceland, Kenya, Kosovo, Peru, Uganda and the West Bank, all first-time travelers to the U.S., were just beginning a State Department tour to help them understand the role of the performing arts in this country.

After I gave an overview of American theatre and an introduction to TCG, one of the Egyptians asked a question often raised by foreign visitors: Who sets cultural policy? More specifically: How is arts planning done in the absence of a Ministry of Culture? Who determines what plays are produced and published? How is funding determined?

Trying to be both honest and a little provocative, I responded that there is no comprehensive cultural policy in the U.S.—at least, not in the sense of central planning. I explained that federal cultural policy is diffuse, embodied in the work of the NEA, the NEH, the Department of State, the Department of Education, the IRS and other agencies.

Each theatre does its own planning, making its own determination of what plays to produce, based on many considerations, including the theatre's particular mission, its artistic leader's vision and taste, the needs and interests of the theatre's artists, responsiveness to the theatre's community and audience, and financial resources, which the theatre is responsible for raising. My description of a laissez-faire system comprised entirely of "independent theatres" was hard for some of our guests to fathom.

The most significant gap in understanding for foreign visitors about American theatre is the very different and more modest role played by our government. They often can't understand how theatres can survive without the consistency of government subsidy, and are quick to assume that TCG serves a role much like a ministry of culture. I disabuse them of that notion, explaining how the not-for-profit sector fills the gap between the government and the market.

One of the visitors in the recent delegation, an actress from Kenya, asked what were the advantages of operating without a ministry of culture. I suggested that the primary advantage of not having centralized planning, not having a single entity controlling the purse strings, and not having the government be the major funder of theatres was independence: Theatres have the freedom to make their own decisions about programming and other matters. The Icelandic artistic director in the group said that he hears this response frequently from Americans, but that it reflects a total misconception about how ministries of culture function. An intelligent, enlightened, well-run Ministry such as Iceland's neither dictates nor interferes, he said. Government subsidy provides stability, support and certainty. Having the assurance of consistent long-term support means that artists can make a living and focus on their art. Actors don't have to wait tables. "You talk about freedom," he added, "but what kind of freedom is that?" In his country, there are three essential functions of government: education, health and culture. Government is built on the premise that these basic necessities should be available free to all citizens, a notion that would be regarded as extremely radical in the U.S. (except in the case of education).

A dramaturg from Kosovo noted that most theatres in his country could not exist without ministry funding; they could not sustain themselves on ticket sales alone. You can always quibble about whether the ministry is good, whether their policies are sensible, and how they choose to allocate support, he said, "but theatre could not survive in my country without the ministry."

An Egyptian artistic director agreed that a ministry made theatre's existence in his country possible. In a recent development, for the first time, he noted, the ministry had given financial support to some newer, independent theatres—non-government theatres—and people were wondering what this change in approach meant for the future. The Ugandan artistic director was more cynical about government. He said that he sometimes thinks they'd be better off without a ministry of culture. "What do they do?" he asked rhetorically. Apparently they don't support his theatre.

The State Department official escorting the group pointed out that the lack of a ministry of culture in the U.S. has a historical basis. Our founders opted for less government rather than more, and only created Cabinet departments in what were deemed to be the most essential governmental functions, with gradual additions over time.

Somehow I doubt that we'll ever have a ministry of culture, but it's encouraging that NEA Chairman Dana Gioia has succeeded in changing the discourse about the federal government's role in arts funding, pulling attention away from the controversies of the past and directing it toward the future. When a conservative thinker like William Safire writes an opinion piece praising the proposed $18-million increase in the NEA appropriation on the grounds of education and access (The New York Times, March 8, 2004), it's apparent that the shift is real. When our visitors left to embark on their cross-country odyssey, they vowed to continue this discussion on the bus. I wish I could have ridden that bus with them, to see this country's theatres through their eyes. I wondered how their opinions would change as they talked further among themselves and with American colleagues. I hope we'll keep in touch, as we promised, and that we'll continue to share our evolving thoughts about the ever-changing state of theatre in our own countries.

© - 2006 by Theatre Communications Group, Inc. All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced in any form, or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher.