Statement of Assignment Topic:

Arts Policy in Financial Crisis: A Case study of the New Deal Arts Policy

Student Name and number:

Pan Pan GONG 374946

Subject Code and Title:

760-442 Arts Policy and Issues

Lecturer’s Name:
Brian Long

Pan Pan GONG 2010 University of Melbourne 1

“What can contemporary policy-makers learn from New Deal support programs for the arts?”

The impact of the recent Great Financial Crisis (GFC) on life and the economy has been compared to that
of the Great Depression (Depression) in countless literatures. As private patronage for the arts dwindles,
government funding has been crucial to the survival of arts organizations and in sustaining the livelihood
of artists. Support for the arts under the New Deal program during the Depression, albeit a highly
contested move at that time by Franklin Roosevelt (Roosevelt), cemented the foundation for the
renaissance of American art. Under the current economic situation, it would be useful for governments
to revisit the New Deal arts programs to draw lessons, which could well turn the current crisis into an
opportunity for development of the arts.

This essay first reviews the impact of government funding on the arts during the two crises, in order to
gain a holistic understanding of the relevance of New Deal arts programs to the current situation. An
analysis of the impact of various initiatives under the New Deal in democratizing and stimulating growth
and development of the arts in America follows, before assessing their applicability to contemporary
policy. Acknowledging the different needs and policy expectations of contemporary society and artists,
this essay proposes that policy-makers act on the democratization principle of the New Deal programs
but devise their own initiatives in pursuit of the various objectives.

The Depression in the 30s was triggered by the collapse of the stock market in 1929, exacerbated by the
protectionist trade policies adopted by governments, leading to an eventual breakdown in international
trade and economy. As the economy dwindled, around a quarter of the American population became
unemployed. In an era where there was an absence of social welfare and support system, there was a
need for the government to provide relief support to the general population. With widespread poverty
and unemployment, the entire nation retreated into a psychological gloom. In 1933, the newly elected
Roosevelt launched the New Deal (Pohl, 2008: 386) which comprised a series of relief programs by the
government to provide employment across various professions, including artists. As these programs
were funded through tax, taxation for the wealthy increased sharply, which further reduced the
financial prowess of the rich.

Prior to the Depression, arts in the USA were funded only by private philanthropy (Katz, 1984: 2) and the
Depression stripped the arts bare of any financial support from their regular patrons due to the sharp
decline in their wealth. With the concurrent emergence of new media and entertainment such as
movies, the Depression further pushed the other art forms and artists into the realm of the lowest

Pan Pan GONG 2010 University of Melbourne 2

priority for the public1 (Goldbard, 2008). Under the New Deal, artists could gain financial support
through the Treasury Relief Art Project (TRAP) and the Federal Art Project of the Works Progress
Administration (FAP/WPA) (Pohl, 2008: 39). With employment as the driving force, the US government
actively commissioned and supported art productions across various art forms.

At a time when artists were not regarded seriously by the general population, Roosevelt’s New Deal
treated artists as any other citizen deserving of a job, and attempted to change the public perception of
the irrelevance and redundancy of the arts during the crisis through democratization of the arts. Under
the program, over 40,000 artists were employed to create art (Goldbard, 2008) with more than 100 arts
centers created across America. The increased accessibility of art in the local community drew millions
of visitors to the WPA exhibitions (Mathews, 1974: 327). In order to allow the public to better relate to
those artworks, the government encouraged artists to “probe the American experience” (Mathews,
1974: 333-334). Not only did the works appeal to the white Americans, they also reached out to
Americans of different ethnicities by featuring migrants and lives of different ethnic groups, and
employing artists from different racial backgrounds.

The GFC of the 21st Century was brought about by the same speculative mentality of the investors.
Inflated housing prices caused financial institutions to give out loans at very low rates with low eligibility
criteria. Sophisticated investment products that promised high return based on housing loans were also
created by the institutions and sold to the general public, as well as the rich investors. When the housing
bubble burst, and borrowers defaulted on the loans, the stock market crashed together with the
winding up of business for many financial institutions and companies.

Similar to the Depression, the wealthy individuals who were the primary patrons of the arts were hit
hard, and their willingness to continue their support to the arts greatly diminished. Although the
situation is better for the general public this time round due to the presence of various social security
schemes (Alumnia et al., 2010: 257) the recession nevertheless brought about a decrease in expenditure
in the society. In such a time, artists and art professionals look to the government for support since
private sources of funding and support are scarce. Looking at the New Deal arts projects, it is poignant
to note the importance of democratization in promoting appreciation and support for the arts. It is
possible for policy-makers to turn the financial crisis into opportunities for the arts if they are able to
make use of the principles of the New Deal in its promotion of the arts.

1
Book sales were halved, 70% of the musicians were jobless, and painters could only pay their rent with their
canvas while actors waited in line for relief (Bustard, 1998: 2).

Pan Pan GONG 2010 University of Melbourne 3

The democratization of the arts principle is central to the New Deal, and it acts as a strong justification
for the government’s various funding initiatives to the arts, along with the justification of job creation.
The New Deal programs democratized arts through the removal of class boundaries and the increased
physical access to the arts. With the establishment of 100 over community centers, the encouragement
for “union locals” and other WPA workers to purchase block tickets to arts events (Mathews, 1974: 330),
and the employment of artists to give drawing and painting lessons to the public (Bustard, 1997: 11), the
various New Deal arts programs actively engaged the masses in art creation and appreciation and
removed the physical, cultural and class barrier to the arts. Although the arts programs were funded
through increased taxation, the government was able to justify this expenditure as it was spent on
providing arts for the entire society and the creation of a “community asset” (Mathews, 1974: 319).
Roosevelt also justified this expenditure on the arts as part of the job creation agenda, and “*a+rt was
seen as another form of work, not as an expendable leisure-time activity” (Pohl, 2008: 390). By
categorizing artists as working citizens who are equally deserving of the New Deal support in job
creation, not only do artists gain greater recognition in the society for their work, funding for the arts
also became to be seen as natural as funding for other job creations. The increase of access to the arts
and the need to create employment for artists, act as the twin engine that propelled arts funding during
the Depression as the government was able to account for and justify such funding expenditure.

With the success of the New Deal arts programs in obtaining public acceptance and support for arts
funding during the Depression, contemporary policy-makers ought to recognize the importance and
relevance of cultural democracy under the current crisis. Part of the difficulty in accounting for arts
funding is due to the fact that the arts has not established itself as a “community asset” that benefits
the entire society. As Long pointed out, the increase in attendance at arts events was not proportionate
to the general growth rate of income or personal wealth even during the economic boom prior to the
GFC (Long, 2010: 8). This phenomenon of the public’s non-engagement with the arts is reminiscent of
the situation in the US prior to Depression. While the dispensability of the arts in the public’s lives has
been the basis of major objections towards arts funding, especially during the economic crisis, the
Depression successfully built a case for arts funding through the concept of democratization of the arts
and the employment necessity of artists. Policy-makers need to learn from the New Deal government’s
promotion and placement of the arts and artists’ role in society, framing them as equally deserving of
support and funding as other professions and products. The objective of the government should be to
promote the arts to its people in time of crisis—something that has been neglected during economic

Pan Pan GONG 2010 University of Melbourne 4

boom due to the economic sustainability of the arts during that period, but has surfaced as a cause for
alarm in crisis— instead of pushing it into greater obscurity.

In the process of democratizing the arts, the New Deal government also encouraged the incorporation
of social themes into artworks and plays to create greater relevance between the arts and the masses.
This in turn amassed a large resource of nationalistic artworks, resulting in the creation of both a strong
national identity in the arts and increased appreciation for the relevance of the arts in America.
Recognising that the arts need to be “intellectually and emotionally accessible” (Mathews, 1974: 322) to
connect and to be relevant to the public, there is a strong emphasis on national content in the works
commissioned by the government under the New Deal. With the strong financial backing of the
government, an extensive amount of documentary artworks2 that reflected the lives of the people were
produced during this period. The documentary nature of the works allows them to incorporate the
cultures and lives of different ethnic groups and social classes3, celebrating diversity amidst crisis in the
American culture. This incorporation of social studies into the arts not only made it more relevant to the
target audiences from various ethnic groups, the pervasiveness on American subject matters across
different art forms and art productions also created a strong cultural and arts identity for the Americans.
At a time when American arts were said to be enslaved by “European content, style, and technique and
needed their own voice” (Bustard, 1997: 23), these works laid the foundation for the subsequent
development of the American arts that has been able to draw on the rich and diversified resources and
strong identity forged during the Depression.

Policy-makers should capitalize on the opportunity for the government to forge a strong arts identity
through its funding, which would be especially effective in a crisis, as proven by the New Deal programs.
As the government is the main patron for the arts during a crisis, it has greater bargaining power in
determining the focus of the arts as compared to other times when commercial sectors or private
patrons could fund the arts to develop in directions beyond the will of the government. In the
postmodern world with a strong emphasis on cultural diversity by governments (Long, 2010: 4), the New

2
“15,663 pieces of art and craft *…+ 40,426 sketches in 1,906 competitions—all devoted to American themes”
(Mathews, 1974: 335).
3
“With an absence of racism *…+ the cultural projects hired unemployed black artists and carried their work to an
expanding black audience” (Mathews, 1974: 325).
The Federal Writers’ Project also resulted in the creation of 14,000 manuscripts with “a variety of urban and rural
folklore, slave narratives, ethic ‘life histories’, and ‘work stories’.” (Bustard, 1997: 8).
“They *also+ encompassed and included a variety of ethnic groups that had gone largely unnoticed by many in the
professional arts community” (Bustard, 1997: 20).

Pan Pan GONG 2010 University of Melbourne 5

Deal case shed light to how the government could possibly maintain or even build their own cultural
identity in spite of the dominance of an ‘alien’ culture. The principle of being emotionally relevant and
accessible to the general public not only further the democratization of the arts, it also enabled the
successful creation of a strong cultural identity for its people.

As the arts gain its way to the hearts and homes of the people, the people also became more accepting
towards and supportive of unconventional artworks which helped to develop an environment that
encouraged the dynamic development of American art in the subsequent years. Despite the emphasis
on nationalistic artworks, many artists were given a lot of room for freedom of expression as the art
administrators of the various programs were artists themselves and they were at the frontier, pushing
for greater experimentation in works and independence from political agenda4(Bustard, 1997: 17).
Under certain arts projects, the directors welcomed arts in various forms and content, with “excellence”
as their only demand from the works5 (Mathews, 1974: 328-329). As the large amount of experimental
artworks found their ways to the various arts centers, the public gain greater exposure to these kinds of
art which in turn caused the public to become more accepting and open-minded to unconventional art
pieces6 (Mathews, 1974: 327-328). The concept of art being novel and experimental then became
naturalized into the lives and appreciations of arts amongst the public, creating a fertile soil for public
support of avant-garde art. Instead of restricting the growth of and diversity in American art, the New
Deal’s democratization effort evoked better appreciation of experimental art amongst the public as the
administrators of the programs did not overlook the intrinsic values of art.

In light of the current crisis, as the arts risks becoming more conventional and monolithic in order to
secure greater public acceptance and funding support, policy-makers should create a conducive
environment for the creation of experimental artworks as during the Depression. According to Higgins,
the uncertainty in funding sources would lead to more conservative programming and arts productions
in arts organizations, which would turn away the audiences and cause arts to be in a worse financial

4
“the projects were bureaucracies, but they were generally humane ones. Many art administrators were artists
themselves who were remembered fondly by those they supervised, who tried to allow artists as much freedom as
possible, and who would try to fight political interference. Artists, especially younger, less experienced ones,
usually welcomed the advice their supervisors or the Section juries offered. (Bustard, 1997: 17).
5
“Cahill was ideologically prepared to embrace both the fine and practical arts. And Flanagan, for all her emphasis
on experimentation, applied WPA’s label to everything from a modern dance version of a Greek classic to
vaudeville, demanding only excellence in execution as a criterion” (Mathews, 1974: 328-329)
6
“people grew to appreciate what they saw *…+ with a new openness to experimentation in subject matter and
style.”(Mathews, 1974: 327-328)

Pan Pan GONG 2010 University of Melbourne 6

predicament than before7 (Higgins, 2009). As big arts organizations are usually run by non-artists who
might not value intrinsic values of art above its market value, it is crucial for policy-makers to realize the
importance of encourage greater diversity and experimentation in the arts by providing monetary
incentives and freedom to create. This, however, leads to a chicken-and-egg problem as the government
would need to account for its investment in experimental artworks in the initial stage before the public
could become more open to such works so that in turn the government could justify its support for
these works. In this case, it would be important for policy-makers to learn from the New Deal
government in building up public’s trust in the government’s arts funding decisions by increasing the
arts’ relevance and access to the public.

While the need to increase public access to and a sense of relevance of the arts is vital, to do so entirely
through large-scale job creation projects and direct employment of artists would be difficult to justify in
the current situation. The New Deal government could account for its direct intervention and support to
the arts due to the complete absence of social security across all professions during the Depression and
that artists deserve equal economic and employment support. However, with social schemes in place for
the general population now, creating art projects on a large scale would run contrary to the free-market
economy where governments are non-interventionist in nature. The policy-makers could only attempt
to justify expenditure of the arts through the other instrumental values of the arts.

Policy-makers should also be wary of creating a strong national art identity simply through
commissioning large amount of works with high national content as such a move might not guarantee
the public’s emotional and intellectual engagement with the arts, and would not complement the
development of contemporary arts. The Depression lasted for more than a decade along with
widespread “psychological depression” in the US (Dickstein, 2009). The arts was able to be emotionally
impactful to the public then because the celebration of commonness and the American experience
served as “social therapy” (Gibson, 2002: 283) for the people. The public is much better cushioned by
the social schemes in this crisis, and the development of the economy in years following the GFC has
been optimistic8, thus nationalistic arts has less of a place in the public’s life. Furthermore, in the period

7
“unless the government holds its nerve on arts spending, he said ‘we could enter a perfect storm where all
sources of income are endangered. What would happen is that boards of trustees would become conservative.
Artistic directors would become less risk-taking. The work would become less interesting and audiences would
stop coming”(Higgins, 2009).
8
“global industrial production fell about as fast as in the first year of the Great Depression. It then appears to
bottom out in the spring of 2009 and has since shown strong signs of recovery. This is in contrast with the

Pan Pan GONG 2010 University of Melbourne 7

leading up to the Depression, nationalistic arts movements had already been gaining popularity 9
(Bustard, 1997: 23) so the government’s intervention was not contrary to the natural development of
the arts. Whereas, current development in the arts has been more eclectic and resistant towards being
‘inward-looking’, so bringing nationalistic agenda to the arts would not necessarily stimulate a strong
arts scene and artists participation as before. Contemporary policy-makers should understand that a
vibrant arts scene and strong cultural identity need not necessarily point towards nationalistic artworks,
and could be forged with greater openness and support to innovation in the local arts which is capable
of forming its own unique cultural identity.

The Depression came at a right time for the arts in America, as it rode on the tide of nationalistic arts
movements, and rightly bridged the public’s need for emotional stimulation with artists’ ability and
willingness to fulfill such need given the social and economic situation at the time. Contemporary policy-
makers should be inspired by the New Deal government’s democratization vision for the arts, and find
their own bridge between the society’s expectation of the arts and arts’ current direction of
development. It is important for the government to realize that in time of crisis, when private funding
for the arts dries up, it is all the more important that the arts is made available to the public so that a
healthy and dynamic arts scene could blossom when the financial draught is over.

2745 words

Depression: while there were two periods of recovery (the second do which, in 1931, was fairly substantial),
output fell on average for three successive years” (Almunia et al., 2010: 224).
9
“Even before the Depression, strong national and regionalist arts movements were already flourishing” (Bustard,
1997: 23).

Pan Pan GONG 2010 University of Melbourne 8

Bibliography

Alumnia, M. et al. (2010) ‘Lessons from the Great Depression’, Economic Policy, 62: 219-265.

Bustard, B. I. (1997) A New Deal for the arts. Hong Kong: The National Archives Trust Fund Board and
The University of Washington Press.

Community Arts Network (2008), The New New Deal 2009: Public Service Jobs for Artists?,
http://www.communityarts.net/readingroom/archivefiles/2008/12/the_newnew_deal.php Dec, 10
April 2010.

Gibson, L. (2002) ‘Managing the People: Art Programs in the American Depression’, Journal of Arts
Management, Law & Society, 31 (4): 279-291.

Guardian News Online (2009) ‘Arts world braced for ‘hurricane’ as recession hits’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/mar/14/recession-arts-funding-cuts 14 March, 10 April 2010.

Katz, S.N. (1984) ‘Influences on Public Policies in the United States’ pp. 23-37 in Neville, B. (ed) The Arts
and Public Policy in the United States. The United States of America: The American Assembly, Columbia
University.

Long, B., 2010. Lecture Notes on Arts Policy and Issues. Lecture three. University of Melbourne.

Los Angeles Times Online (2009), How song, dance and movies bailed us out of the Depression,
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-dickstein1-2009apr01,0,7168938.story 1
April, 10 April 2010.

Mathews, J.D.H. (1975) ‘Arts and the People: The New Deal Quest for a Cultural Democracy’, The Journal
of American History, 62 (2): 316-339.

Pohl, F.K. (2008) Framing America: a social history of American Art. 2nd edn, Thames & Hudson Inc.

Pan Pan GONG 2010 University of Melbourne 9