STEVE INSKEEP, host:
Some people in the arts world are taking a second look at the way they are funded. Dozens of states are struggling to balance their budgets and many state arts councils are worried they will lose funding. But some people are taking a different view. They're asking if it might be good to do without as much government money.
NPR's Elizabeth Blair reports.
ELIZABETH BLAIR: Kansas, now there's a state where arts organizations are not happy. Governor Sam Brownback recently gutted the Kansas Arts Commission, laid-off its staff and closed its doors. He says he wants to see the private sector pick up the slack.
Governor SAM BROWNBACK (Republican, Kansas): I believe this will be a more successful way for us to move forward. We'll be able to leverage and raise private dollars.
BLAIR: Private dollars have been really good for the Topeka Civic Theatre and Academy where Shannon Riley is artistic director. The company is celebrating its 75th year.
Mr. SHANNON RILEY (Artistic Director, Topeka Civic Theatre in Academy): And through most of that history, we've been funded solely through ticket revenue, donors and corporate support.
BLAIR: Riley says for the most part they have avoided government grants, and that has worked to their advantage.
Mr. RILEY: More and more of the arts organizations that I'm aware of what that were receiving tax dollars were constantly under fire about their program and what they were doing. I like being responsible to my donors and to the people who were investing in what we're doing, more than the larger tax base.
BLAIR: Texas, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, all over, state arts councils are facing deep budget cuts.
Sometimes the bickering over government funding for the arts sounds like a broken record. Arts advocates say the arts are good for local economies. Politicians say taxpayers can't afford to subsidize ballerinas and basket weavers.
Lawrence Reed, an economist with the Foundation for Economic Education, is one who believes the government should not fund the arts.
Mr. LAWRENCE REED (Economist, Foundation for Economic Education): Arts are simply too important to be dependent upon the government.
BLAIR: Reed thinks it makes arts groups jump through too many hoops.
Mr. REED: When you're dependent, even partially upon government funding, you always run the risk of being buffeted by changing political winds.
BLAIR: The political storm over federal funding for the arts in the 1990s forced some people to find private alternatives. Ruby Lerner is executive director of Creative Capital, an arts funding organization, launched in 1999 by a small group that wanted to find a new model for support.
Ms. RUBY LERNER (Executive Director, Creative Capital): I say we're small but mighty.
BLAIR: Lerner says with an annual fund of about $1.2 million, they take a venture capital approach. Unlike most government grants, Creative Capital donors treat artists like investments.
Ms. LERNER: Because if you think you're going to benefit for future generations of artists based on the success of everything you support, then you're going to work really hard to help those projects become successful.
BLAIR: As for the return on investment, Lerner admits that so far it's been pretty small - if you are measuring it in dollars and cents. And for many arts advocates that's the fear, that if left to the private sector programs that aren't flashy will disappear.
Shannon Riley is disappointed that Governor Brownback eliminated the Kansas Arts Commission, even though his theatre company in Topeka didn't depend on it.
Mr. RILEY: In a lot of places, the Kansas Art Commission provided the only moneys available for any arts education whatsoever for kids. I love that and I am terrified that that's not going to continue now.
BLAIR: Meantime, Governor Brownback named someone to lead the efforts to raise funds from the private sector. In an interview, that new appointee said she doesn't think it will be that hard since the Kansas Arts Commission's budget was so small to begin with.
Elizabeth Blair, NPR news.