Answer any 5 (FIVE) of the following short-essay questions in approximately 150-200 words each.
1. Describe some case studies of corporations who produce mild legal narcotics and stimulants (alcohol, tobacco, and others) and how they pursued arts funding: what was their strategy? What was the benefit to them?
A high-profile corporate art patron was Philip Morris, which fended off the bad publicity associated with its principal product line, cigarettes, and assiduously courted the good will of the art public, sponsoring and contributing to hundreds of exhibitions in museums, galleries, and other spaces for the visual arts. Renamed “Altria” in 2003 was a corporate moniker that successfully cloaked the identity of the corporation’s signature product and seemed in fact to imply its altruism the group set about to identify itself with arts funding. Philip Morris had supported dance companies and the visual arts since the seventies, in part because some of its former chief executives had cared strongly about the arts and culture. Their programs was not about our products; it’s about reputation. Creativity and innovation are some of their greatest attributes. But in 2007, after years of support to performance groups and venues, the Altria Group decided to discontinue its funding and to move its corporate operations out of the United States. The goal of the breakup was to give the foreign arm, Philip Morris International, more freeom to pursue emerging cigarette markets without being hindered by the regulatory and legal problems facing its business in the United States. Arts institutions were devastated, wondering where, or whether, they would find other major patrons, seeking assistance from companies, hedge funds, or real estate developers.
2. Please describe in a few sentences the differing priorities of De Le Warr and Keynes. Summarize the importance of this distinction in Arts Funding priorities. What lessons can this teach the future arts manager?
Lord De La Warr was the president of Board of Education. He supported amateur regional theater in England and music groups which gave concerts in churches, air raid shelters, and internment camps for aliens. The emphasis initially placed on regional and arts for public culture shifted with the appointment of John Maynard Keynes. Keynes objected, on both artistic and fiscal grounds, to the priority that his predecessor had placed on popular culture. Keynes was not the man for wandering minstrels and amateur theatricals. He wanted to know why the council was wasting so much money on amateur effort. It was standards that mattered, and the preservation of serious professional enterprise, not obscure concerts in village halls. As a result, Keynes professionalized the arts which were supported by CEMA, focusing on performance venues.
3. When was the program known as “Federal One” formed? What were the actual names of its organizations? Describe the controversial and not-so-controversial cultural products that were funded in this way. Describe the political debate that surrounded these projects.
Created in 1935 as a subdivision of the Works Progress Administration (WPA), it included the Federal Writer’s Project, the Federal Theater Project, the Federal Art Project, and the Federal Music Project. Known collectively as Federal Arts Project Number One or “Federal One” for short – this initiative was intended to benefit both out-of-work artists and the general public. Yet, it encountered a number of points of difficulty and resistance – points that are deeply embedded in the structure of the state as patron in modern culture. For all of their progressive energies, each of the patronizing initiatives also tapped into a certain strain of cultural conservatism or populism, especially in backlash against the heady experimental days of the twenties. In the US the tension between regional arts and “high” or cosmopolitan art was