Last October, I sat among hundreds of Springfield public students in the dark of the downtown venue CityStage. We had gathered for a touring performance, created by Double Edge Theatre of Ashfield, called The Grand Parade (of the 20th Century). It was a delightfully strange show, full of acrobatics, clowning, colorful costumes, and surreal depictions of life around the world in recent decades.
At first, such rich pageantry struck many in that giddy audience as laughable. “What the hell is going on?” quipped a high school student behind me. But as the crowd became absorbed in scene after dramatic scene, and the rows of students went silent, it was clear that this cheeky question had become more broadly interesting. We settled in, got curious, and opened ourselves up to the art, without knowing what to expect in return.
the House settled on $12 million for the MCC in fiscal year 2017— in other words, a $2 million cut, beginning July 1.
Can the council take that hit and keep on trucking? Of course. But it’s a shame to consider what likely won’t be possible this coming year.
The two-day run of that show was the kick-off for what Double Edge hopes will be a new, local, multi-year initiative to engage with Springfield’s youth. These are the types of companies and programs that the Massachusetts Cultural Council (MCC) helps to fund each year.
But it’s budget season on Beacon Hill, and compromise is the name of the game. As the arts editor here at the Advocate, and a participant in state-funded local arts programs since childhood, I’ve been tuning in to see how appropriations for the arts will fare this year. Specifically, I have an eye on the MCC, the state agency that funds arts, humanities, and science programs throughout the state.
The budget proposed by the House in mid-April was none too artful: it cut funding for the MCC to $10 million, a decrease of about 28 percent from last year’s funding level of $14 million. That’s some dire news — especially since state money makes up a full 90 percent of the MCC’s annual funding.
Seeing how this would drive down the amount awarded in grants to hundreds of nonprofits, youth programs, artist fellowships, and local cultural councils across the state, more than half of House lawmakers quickly signed on to a budget amendment that would boost MCC funding to $17 million. A few days later, the House settled on $12 million for the MCC in fiscal year 2017— in other words, a $2 million cut, beginning July 1.
Can the council take that hit and keep on trucking? Of course. But it’s a shame to consider what likely won’t be possible this coming year. The 380 arts organizations at the core of the MCC’s funding platform gave out nearly 12 million free admissions in 2015, but a trimmed-back budget would impede further expansion of access to theaters, museums, and shows.
It would restrict the ability of local arts councils to fund more of the requests submitted by community members with great ideas for projects (as it stands, about half get funded). And it would limit the number of school artist residencies, which provide free arts education to thousands of students in Boys & Girls Clubs, YMCAs, and other after-school programs.
I’m not surprised that funding rises and falls, at times dramatically. And I’m not surprised that many people I talk to don’t know the full breadth of resources provided by the MCC, which include online job directories, at-risk youth outreach, apprenticeships in heritage and folk art, and local schools grants as small as $200 to pay for educational field trips.
What does surprise me, year after year, is the glib but pervasive assertion that the arts are not worth funding in the first place.
I’m not here to write up a bunch of arts advocacy talking points. I just want to make a really simple case for the value of art: that, at its best, it acquaints us with that which does not immediately appeal to us. As the street artist Banksy once put it: “Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.”
Art is valuable because it invites opportunities to consider, and get to know, what we see as different, unusual, and strange. When it comes to life skills, that’s huge — especially when stories of fear, intolerance, and brutality punctuate our news cycles, and we breathe constant coverage of a certain bigoted xenophobe’s presidential campaign. Promoting this mission feels more pressing than ever.
All art, in some way, carries the potential to upset assumptions and disrupt expectations. The look and feel of that occasional, valuable moment varies just as widely as the differences between each of us, as long as we remain open to encounters with the strange — whether it’s brought on by a museum exhibit, a piece of theater, a cello concerto, or a juggler on the street.
As open-minded, empathetic citizens, we might allow more chances to be surprised by art made by others. But we might also grant ourselves more permission to get creative on our own, and a robust culture of good arts programming, of course, helps to make this possible, too.
The state budget won’t go to Charlie Baker for approval until the Senate Ways and Means Committee reconciles its own (typically less conservative) budget proposal with that of the House, then sends the final compromise along to the governor’s office. Although I don’t expect the MCC will get its requested $17 million, I can certainly hope for a better deal than a net loss. Artists and art lovers everywhere — that’s you, your friends, and neighbors — are counting on it.
Contact Hunter Styles at hstyles@valleyadvocate.com.
