What possible basis is left for public arts funding, and what is needed to qualify for it? The answers: proof of demand, and acceptance of nonprofit status. But (to take them in order) what would constitute proof of demand? Back in the day at the MBR Fund (and I believe some version of this reasoning was normative in performing-arts philanthropy), we looked first for evidence of viability. Since most of the opera companies we supported were small-to-medium- sized, many of them quite young and some of them experimental in nature, the criteria were minimal — something along the lines of three years of survival with funding from any combination of private and public sources, with at least 30% of total income from ticket sales—to qualify for consideration. (Of course, “experimental” is already an expression of preferential evaluation, which we, as a private foundation, were entitled to make, whereas in my proposed system of public funding, “experimental” would be neutral and have nothing to do with qualification. The subsequent “consideration” then entailed our artistic evaluations within the guidelines set by our bylaws, both of which also have no place in my proposed scheme.) This reasoning fit in with an overall attitude toward public funding that seems commonsensical enough: a startup enterprise (e.g., an opera company) must first show some survivability on a strictly local level, with whatever combination of private and civic support it can muster. Then, as it extends its artistic impact while following the virtuous capitalist imperative of growth, it  extends its eligibility for support to progressively higher governmental entities. Note that this sounds very much like a community-based progression: a local initiative sets the whole thing in motion. But of course the initiative has to come from artists, who then assemble a constituency. So perhaps it is the artists, not the constituency, who will make best use of any available money.

With the matter of artistic judgments, and who gets to make them and on what grounds, as well as all claims of social betterment and of who is being served, out of the picture, we have only to extend this criterion of viability to the field as a whole. Since we are considering only general support (the box marked “Where it’s needed” on your donation slip), we don’t have to evaluate particular purposes, either. Since we have to have something to argue about, we can avail ourselves of the problem of the requisite formulae for determining the percentages of organizational budgets that it will make sense to underwrite; for setting the minimum requirements for evidence of sustainability; and for co-ordinating funding at the national, state, and local levels, rather as with your primary and supplemental health insurance plans. That’s math, not art, and once set can be administered by a robot with elementary AI.

As to nonprofit status: it is designed to extend tax exemption, and eligibility for receipt of tax-exempt contributions, to enterprises that are held to be of benefit to society but that cannot be expected to compete in the open marketplace of the general for-profit economy. Obviously, “of benefit to society” involves a judgment at public funding’s very point of origin. “The arts” have been accepted as filling that bill, though not without argument. But there’s a further potential evaluation problem of the sort we’ve been trying to avoid: how do we draw a line between “art” and “entertainment,” which has generally been a commercial undertaking? Simple: erase the line. Make no judgments with respect to the artistic quality of, let’s say, the next rock or jukebox musical whose producers are applying for support. Merely require that they accept non-profit status by showing that the primary goal is not to make money: donors allowed, but no investors taking profit or loss, no exorbitant salaries, ridiculous expense accounts, or attempts to parlay the assets into extravagant gain. (This will require tight expenditure responsibility by the public funding entities, but will again be a fairly cut-and-dried procedure once the guidelines are clearly set. Such oversight will be salutary for some of our existing nonprofit organizations, too.) I predict the rapid withdrawal of 90% of such applications. The remainder will have to meet the same qualifications as any other nonprofit applicant, including proof of viability. If they do, fair enough.