With the state facing enormous deficits that stretch as far as the eye can see -- and that's using the Hubble telescope -- many are wondering if we can afford, say, subsidizing the arts at current levels. The answer is always the same: In times like these, we can't afford not to. It's so counterintuitive that most people nod in agreement: Yes, of course, that's true.
Is it? Art will not go away. A 10 percent funding cut won't erase the last 120 bars of Beethoven's Ninth. Yes, art salves the troubled soul, but we'd all pitch a fit if the state spent $6 million to pass out CDs of oompa-hoorah Sousa marches to lift our spirits. We'll still fund the arts, but we'll need to spend scant resources with greater care. Local blogs this week had fun with a list of state-funded arts projects. It's not what you'd expect; no one got $100,000 to film a guy in a Pillsbury Doughboy suit going over St. Anthony Falls to raise awareness about the intersection of history and corporate identity. (Note to interested arts councils: I'll do it for $50K.)
But the state gave $5K to one artist to photograph Scotland, another $6K to photograph New York -- that mysterious, elusive city of which few images can be found -- and another $6K to take pictures of South America. Even when the WPA handed out money to local writers in the Depression, we got a guide to Minnesota, not British Columbia, let alone Colombian Colombia.
We learned this week that the Red Cross suspended a program to drive poor old folks to the doctor because donations have dried up. They gave 76,520 rides to 1,722 people this year. Perhaps it's not the time to fly one person to Scotland to take pictures.
The governor could set a good example here: Skip the official portrait. Print off a cell-phone photo.
jlileks@startribune.com • 612-673-7858 More daily at www.startribune.com/buzz.
