
Ian Mug
The White House announced recently that it plans to not just cut arts funding, but get rid of programs like the National Endowment for the Arts altogether.
This is being done with the excuse of “cutting government spending.” While these programs take up such a small part of the federal budget that if one were to show it on a pie graph, it would not even be visible according to data on insidegov.com
The programs and grants funded by the NEA give significant accessibility to make and enjoy visual art, music, literature and poetry, among many other mediums. What could be the benefit of de -funding programs, that have no effect on the federal budget, and allow countless Americans to be enriched who would otherwise have no access to the arts?
I want you to imagine an ESU that decided to axe its art budget.
This would not only include the art department, but affect every aspect of campus. Our mascot, Corky, would be nonexistent because there would be no funding to design him.
There would be no free shows such as the many concerts that people at ESU have the benefit of enjoying.
Our beautiful buildings would be plain boxes, with no thought of design or architecture, completely devoid of character.
There would be no Quivira, our annual literary journal. The Bulletin would be a sheet of printer paper that said “news.”
Cutting the NEA does not mean art will disappear from our country entirely, but the above examples show just how important funding the arts is.
Art affects all of us on an hourly basis whether we are thinking about it or not. The world would be drab and have no soul to it without art.
Art was used to make your favorite movies, games, music and all other media you consume. We must continue to enrich those people’s lives who don’t have access to the arts, for the sake of their well being.
We must let our government know that arts are not a frivolous expense.