April 14, 1985-San Antonio Express-News

Let's feed our starving artists?

Just walk the streets of any city, go by the libraries, seek out the arts and then stroll within the tourist ladened avenues. See if you can identify the artists.

No, they aren't the ones who look like artists, for they have no uniforms. Usually the artists have no uniforms because they do not have the means to afford such.

Artists do not earn much, yet they do provide societv with invaluable works. Most will receive little or no recognition in their lifetimes. Some will be "discovered" after they've been buried.

Meanwhile. most artists will have to hustle for pittances, while those who usually are not artists are out there on the hustlings securing public funds in the name of those artists who roam modern society in much the same manner that trobadours used to.

With a new city administration about to take seat, it is important that the question of funding for the arts take into account the individual artists who help make San Antonio a truly beautiful place to live in.

Arts funding must take artists into account when handing out public subsidies. There need not be an over abundance of bureaucrats, slicing up the pie--with the lion's share going administration and the mouse's pittance to those who create works of art.

Artists are underpaid for their work. They have no protection in between gigs and no insurance nor retirement benefits. Yet, many of their works will outlast the bureaucratic shrines housing subsidized administrators.

Art is an important commodity in this city, for it projects a flavor not to be found in Dunlop, Iowa.

Yes, art is big money for some and no money for others, and it is unfair.

Nothing for nothing

Fair or not, it is really a question of morality. We might grumble, but we do pay for services in all areas outside the hue of art. Plumbers, mechanics and doctors charge for their work. Even bureaucrats charge a pretty penny for pushing papers in between coffee breaks.

It seems that everyone can set a price for his products - except artists. I will not argue about the right of any person to charge for his work for that ,should be a constitutional guarantee - even when it is the bureaucrat who is subsidized at public expense. Heck, bureaucrats have insurance. retirement benefits and many other fringe benefits. I have no beef with that.

Yes, let them have those goodies. Some of them do earn them - give me a few days, and I might be able to name more than five of them who do. Nationwide!

It is not a question of dismantling anything but really of fairly apportioning some of the monies in ways that can have a meaningful impact upon the arts community. Some of the money should have a realistic tricke down effect so that artist are paid for their work.

It should not take a committee study to realize that the term "starving artist" has some basis of truth to it. Nor should anyone think that artists need to be starving in order to create. Let us not forget that artists have families also, that artists pay rent, utilities, purchase food and other necessities, and that they do return a lot of solid value to society.

Whatever pittance Leonardo da Vinci got for his labors cannot compare, to the invaluable service he performed for mankind. Maybe after all the ceremonies are held at City Hall, the council might just want to give the art world an assessment that begins with the life of the artist.

There should be patronage for the arts - and we do not need any middle person as a go-between. A simple arrangement could logically set aside fellowships in the arts for those artists who have already proven their ability and discipline.

There would be an agreement that the artist would receive a livable sum that would assure his survival for a year. In that year the artist would be free from hustling for the rent and other bills. The artist could further explore his field of art with the understanding that a reciprocal agreement existed between society and the artist.

It would not be a handout, for the artist would have also agreed to give society a work or works of art for the patronage received.

Additionally, artists would have to provide proof of their mastery of art in their specific field. That shouldn't be too difficult for good artists have followings based on ability, discipline and works produced.

This might just give a lot of artists the opportunity they need without having to play politics in order to exhibit or read. It might also force the question of who the bureaucrat in the arts is responsible to when working with public funds.

I happen to hold the quaint view that simply states an old axiom. Public servants are simply persons subsidized to perform for the public: that the true owners of all publicly funded programs and institutions are the people whose taxes subsidized that merry-go-round.

Artists are also part of the taxpaying public, and thus, all artists should have the right to go for a ride on the merry-go-round of arts programs.

If there is a cornucopia, and certain staffers believe there is one, please be wise and do facilitate survival for individual artists. Share the wealth, fellows, so that everyone can have something to hawk - all babies need new shoes.