I just lost everything I was typing. Well, again, the group from England I was talking about was The Artists Placement Group which involved artists in the daily operations and planning of selected governmental departments like Environment and Health etc. Cultural exchanges between countries is usually handled through the State Department or used to be.

As to the value of art, I had recommended to Joseph that he read The Gifts of the Muse, a study done by the Rand Corporation, about the visual arts. Everyone should read this study. It is the beginning of a case statement.

By accountability, I mean the problem of giving money to artists who then do not produce anything or who do not finish the project. Granting agencies have had that experience and so are shy of giving direct grants to artists. Mediating organizations such as alternative arts groups write periodic reports to granting agencies telling what progress is being made and how successful the project has been or not. Arts groups know that if nothing comes of the money spent, they will not receive future funding for other artists.

Worthwhile: Hmmm. Of course, you know that some art work is better than others. Innovative work is the most highly prized, and not all art work is innovative, or even interesting. But who determines worthwhileness? Several individuals and groups are gatekeepers in different realms, including art markets (there are more than one) and art institutions, collectors and curators, and other arts organizations.

As I suggested, we really need a case statement as to why the visual arts and artists should be supported and need support. As I said, the performing arts have done a great job of that, relatively. I would definitely be interested in continuing the work you all have started, so please keep in touch.

Thanks for your comments and book recommendation. I am intrigued by this idea of getting artists into paid governmental positions. Someone suggested at this meeting (I think it was Amy Balkin) governmentally sponsored artists to serve as goodwill ambassadors, traveling to and making work in different countries. They could help promote understanding and communication between the cultures.

The problem with holding artists “accountable” is that “real value” contributions to culture and society are hard to measure. If we hope to find more individual governmental funding for artists in the future, this idea of measuring value has to change. The idea needs to be that art is valuable in and of itself within the culture and the communities. The funding of individual artists would be an acknowledgment of that.

It is true that if anything substantial is to come of these meetings, there has to be an effort to hone the message. Our goal was to start the conversation and help make some connections between different parties. To that effect, I think we succeeded. However for real change to happen, some leadership has to be taken and supporters will need to be moved to action.

I can also recommend a book called *The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art* by Don Thompson. I am reading this book now and there is a chapter on Art and Money which is interesting and relevant and talks about The Netherlands’ support of artists and why it didn’t work and was ultimately discontinued. Also, there was an artists’ group in England that tried to get artists assigned to paid positions at different government agencies. I do not remember the name of this group from the ’60s or ’70s.

I think we need to fashion a cohesive statement (a case statement) regarding the direct funding of artists to start with and to answer any potential objections that might be around. BTW, government agencies do not directly fund artists, less because of a fear of controversial art (most artists don’t do controversial work), but because artists are perceived as being unreliable. They will take the money and then produce (or not produce) anything of real value. It is safer to give the money to arts organizations that can be held accountable and are in a better position to judge the “worthiness” of artists and their work. There is a history of the NEA which talks about this. I used to be on The LAB Board and believe me, we really wanted to give the artists more money which rarely happened. Also you are in competition with the performing arts which gets the lions share of funding vis a vis the visual arts. They have made a better case for funding themselves. I also think locally the performing arts are over-represented on the SFAC grants review board. I could so go on.